Glavine, Johan, etc.

Some interesting buzz affecting the Mets … let’s go over them one by one.

Johan Santana

Peter Abraham at the Journal News speculates the cost of Johan Santana. The way he sees it, for the Yankees to pry Johan from the Twins it would cost them a minimum of Melky Cabrera and either Philip Hughes or Ian Kennedy — and adds that “the Mets can’t match that”. His reasoning regarding the Yankees-Twins matchup makes sense, in that Cabrera would take over in centerfield for the expected departure of Torii Hunter (who could land in the Bronx as well), and that both Kennedy and Hughes look ready to step into a ML rotation. I have to, um, sort of disagree with the assessment that “the Mets can’t match that”.

Obviously the Mets can’t match Phil Hughes — neither Mike Pelfrey nor Philip Humber look to be as polished as the Yankees’ young righthander. But I don’t see how Kennedy is suddenly a brighter prospect than either of the Mets’ top pitching prospects — not to mention Kevin Mulvey and Deolis Guerra. Sure, Kennedy pitched three brilliant games … but that was it. Three games are not nearly enough to form an opinion. From my point of view, Kennedy has great talent and a promising future, but not yet on a Hughes level. I want more proof, and I bet the Twins would also. Now, if the Yankees were willing to trade Joba Chamberlain, I can buy into Abraham’s argument.

That said, I believe the Mets could — but might not want to — put together a package of Lastings Milledge, Mike Pelfrey, plus two or three prospects that would likely have to include Humber, Guerra, Mulvey, and/or other top prospects at lower levels. The issue, however, is do the Mets want to sabotage their farm system for the next three years for Johan Santana? Probably not.

Rudy Jaramillo

Abraham is also fairly certain Rudy Jaramillo will be joining the Mets coaching staff as soon as his contract with the Rangers lapses at the end of this month. But, we’ve already covered that.

Tom Glavine

Jeff Gordon at the St. Louis Dispatch wrote that Tom Glavine “has shown some interest in finishing his career here (St. Louis) … “. Huh. Really? No … really? I wouldn’t put much stock in that, and would be interested to know if and when Glavine said such a thing, or if this is another one of those “friend and/or source close to Tom Glavine” deals. If Tom wants to pitch another year, he can have $13M to do so with the Mets, or he can return to his home in Atlanta. No other team in baseball can offer the money he can get from the Mets, and no other team plays in Atlanta. Word regarding any other clubs is mere conjecture or posturing by Glavine to enhance his negotiating leverage.

A more credible opinion comes from David O’Brien at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

And by then moving to the president’s role a week later, Schuerholz allows Wren to get to work and have an entire offseason to make the moves he wants to make, including one that I think is close to a sure thing: Tom Glavine.

I feel almost certain that the Braves are going to sign him now. I can’t see them possibly dropping the ball on this again. If they had no interest in Glavine this winter, they could have said so all along, not been coy about it or offered the “no comments” they have for the past couple of months.

That means they certainly do have interest, at least that’s how I see it. And I just can’t see them failing to sign Glavine for the second consecutive winter, them being outbid for his services for the third time as a free agent. Just can’t see that.

And I also don’t believe Glavine is going to rake them for every last time he can. Not at this point. He wants to be here, doesn’t want his career to end like it did with those last three starts, and certainly doesn’t want to go pitch somewhere else and leave his wife and kids back in Atlanta another season.

It’s going to happen. If it doesn’t, it means one side or the other just failed miserably in the art of compromise. And I can’t see the Braves doing that in Wren’s first offseason.

Now, if he comes out and says they’re just not interested in Glavine, that’s one thing. I’d be surprised, but at least it’d be a reason. If they say they’re just not willing to pay Glavine what he wants to be paid, to me that’s unacceptable. Both sides must compromise, and I think they will.

That’s the way I see it going down — Glavine gets all mushy about returning to Atlanta and negotiates a deal he can be happy with to return there and finish out his career. And the Braves would be silly not to placate him. After all, they could use a #3 starter who can almost guarantee them 30 starts and 190+ innings — especially if they can get him on the cheap. Which, they probably can — after all, Tom has already walked away from $13M, so it’s not like he needs the money. He’ll be welcomed with open arms in Atlanta, he’ll be back with his “Smoltzie” and his “Coxie” and his “Chipper” and the rest of the gang. Who knows, maybe they’ll convince “Madduxie” to ride out the sunset too.

Jorge Posada

Word on the street … or at least, from the Daily News … is that the Yankees will offer Jorge Posada something in the neighborhood of 3 years / $40M.

That sounds about right for the 36-year-old catcher, and the Mets would be nuts to offer him a 4-year deal. If they were in the AL, and could consider using him at DH two years from now, that’s a different story. But in the NL, he’d have to catch and maybe play some first base — and you have to expect significant regression from Posada over the next two+ years.

However, the Mets could offer, say, $50M over three years. Not a great idea, again, because Posada is due to regress. Further, I doubt the Yankees would allow themselves to be outbid — especially not to the Mets.

Joe Janish began MetsToday in 2005 to provide the unique perspective of a high-level player and coach -- he earned NCAA D-1 All-American honors as a catcher and coached several players who went on to play pro ball. As a result his posts often include mechanical evaluations, scout-like analysis, and opinions that go beyond the numbers. Follow Joe's baseball tips on Twitter at @onbaseball and at the On Baseball Google Plus page.
  1. isuzudude October 23, 2007 at 11:55 am
    On the topic of Posada…

    How about offering him a 4-year deal, worth about the same per year as what the Yankes offer him, and plan on moving him to 1B once Delgado’s contract is up (which is either at the end of ’08 or ’09, depending on whether the Mets pick up his club option)? There are certainly a lot of pros and cons with this plan, but as long as Posada is willing and can field the position (and if Delgado can, I’m sure Posada can) it should be considered. This way, the Mets don’t have to outbid the Yanks, just tack on an extra year to a contract. And we get a switch-hitting, power hitting, emergency catcher playing 1B through 2011.

    On to Santana…

    I agree with you that the Mets do have the chips to trade for Johan. The bigger question is whether they are willing to part with 4 prospects or Maine and 1 or 2 other prospects who they view as being important to the future. And if I’m the Yankees, then I’m really high on Kennedy and Hughes, and I’m not going to trade either one of them for anybody in the walk-year of a contract without working out an extension. That’s why in this type of deal the going rate is going to be very similar to the Mike Hampton trade before the 2000 season, because both big pitchers were in the final year of their contract. Teams aren’t going to be willing to give up a “can’t miss, bonafide, top-teir” propsect (Kennedy, Hughes) to only get one year of the guy they acquire and see the guy they gave up pitch 5 all-star seasons with his new team at no cost. And because the Mets don’t have any of these “can’t miss, bonafide, top-teir” prospects, they might stand the best chance of landing Johan if they group together a package of the 3 or 4 best propsects they have to offer. And if I’m the Mets, I do it. Is Pelfrey, or Humber, or Gomez, or Guerra, or any of these guys DEFINITELY going to be great ballplayers in the major leagues? It’s tough to say. And although Kennedy is still rather unproven himself, he certainly has a better ML record than ANY of the Mets prospects at this point. And Hughes is already a legit 10-15 win pitcher. And because the Twins want to get something for Johan, they’ll take the Mets offer if it’s better than all the rest. Houston took the Mets offer in 2000, and I have to believe other teams had better prospects to offer than Dotel and Cedeno, but weren’t willing to offer them because of Hampton’s contract.

    After last year, the Mets need to make a statement. They need to show the rest of the NL they mean business to get back on top. What better way than acquiring the best pitcher in the game? And if the Twins are willing to accept the Mets offer, then Omar needs to pull the trigger.

  2. skibolton October 23, 2007 at 11:58 am
    I’d love to see glavine go to the braves, as they have the 18th pick (not protected)in the draft. I can’t see them signing a higher profile guy than glavine, and it would be great to have several first round picks. He’s a great pitcher, but I always had a hard time watching him as a met. It might have been different if he had spent his whole career somewhere else, but I still see him as a brave.
    Santana would be great to add, but I just don’t see the price being right. Besides, what are the oddsa he signs an extension with a new team rather than having control of where he goes for more money. If it can be done without giving up the farm though, I’m all for it.
    Posada can stay with the yankees. Mo would be a different story, as would arod, but I don’t want an old catcher coming off a career year. As for jaramillo, go get him.
    I think omar is going to have to try to fill most of his needs through trades. There just isn’t any quality out there unless you’re looking for a center fielder, arod, or cordero. I highly doubt mo or posada ever reach free agency.
    By the way, baltimore took JR House off their 40 man roster recently. As recent as last spring he was their catcher of the future. It wouldn’t kill me to see omar sign him, espescially since he still has 3 yearts of options remaining. A little cheap depth at catcher wouldn’t hurt.
  3. joe October 23, 2007 at 1:17 pm
    Posada: four years is a tough commitment for a catcher his age. Heck, three years is tough. Unless he’s taking some special undetectable concoction of PEDs, I’m not sure he’s worth that kind of investment.

    Santana: I’m on the fence with sending a package of prospects. On the one hand, I agree — we don’t know for sure if any of the youngsters will do anything. Particularly after seeing Yusmeiro Petit and some other recent “top prospects” turn out to be nothing big. And of course we can look back at the Roberto Alomar trade, which was a flop for both sides, and at the Frank Viola deal … at the time the key to the deal was David West, who was a total flop. Though Rick Aguilera turned out to be pretty OK.

    Glavine: if he goes to Atlanta, do the Mets definitely get their pick or a supplemental choice?

    House: why not? It’s hard to say no to anyone willing to don the tools of ignorance, when your roster has zero catchers.

  4. Matt Himelfarb October 23, 2007 at 2:02 pm
    first off, Ian Kennedy is light years ahead of Kevin Mulvey and Deolis Guerra. Kennedy struck out 30% of the batter he faced in Aa, while I believe Mluvey was somewhere around five percent. While I’m not a huge fan of Mulvey’s, don’t get me wrong, I love Guerra, but if the Mets should trade him, it should be after he logs more than 100 innings as a starter.

    I’d hate to see Milledge go and would much rather trade Gomez, but we’re talking Johan Santana. Must offers are acceptable.

  5. joe October 23, 2007 at 2:21 pm
    Matt, I don’t know about “light years”. Again, the guy pitched three MLB games.

    Victor Santos started his career not allowing a run in his first 27 1/3 innings — an MLB record. So what does that tell you?

    I know you love to project pitchers based on their stats. Have you ever done projections for David West based on his minor league stats? Run his numbers through your calculator and let me know how he compared to, say, Tom Glavine.

    But we always disagree so I’ll move on …

    Matt, if the Mets do make such a deal, and effectively clean out their high-minor league prospects (and trading chips) — do you think it’s a good idea? Especially after we saw how badly last winter’s deals (Bell, Lindstrom, Bannister etc.) turned out? Not so much that those players turned out to be serviceable, but that it left the Mets’ AAA depth and trading chips depleted.

  6. skibolton October 23, 2007 at 4:18 pm
    Glavine should be right on the fence of a type a/ type b guy. If they offer him arbitration, which he won’t take, they will get at least a supplemental pick for him. Best case is atlanta’s first pick and a supplemental.
  7. isuzudude October 23, 2007 at 5:04 pm
    is lebron james available in this year’s draft? i’ve never heard so much talk about draft picks in baseball in my life!

    Joe, I don’t want to speak for him, but I’ll respond for Matt, since it seems like he’s only a sporadic contributor to the blog and I seem to agree with some of the things he wrote.

    Say what you will about Ian Kennedy – about how his numbers in the minors mean squat until he’s proven in the big leagues, about how having good stuff doesn’t automatically translate into success, about how three major league starts is a poor judge for amassing a pitcher’s talents. And you’re right, the jury is still out to lunch on Kennedy. But nary has been said a bad thing about Kennedy to date. Everywhere he’s been – from the NY-Penn league to the majors – he’s been dominating. And going on that, one could easily believe Kennedy is as good a prospect as there is in baseball. And so, to retort your initial comment…

    “…but I don’t see how Kennedy is suddenly a brighter prospect than either of the Mets’ top pitching prospects…”

    …he is seen as a brighter prospect because of his established track record. Out of Pelfrey, Humber, Mulvey, and Guerra, Kennedy has been the best pitcher to this point in time. And by quite a wide margin. Ok, so it’s only been 3 ML starts. But were those starts not brilliant? Were they also not better than any of the starts Pelfrey has ever had in the majors, with the exception of the one in Atlanta? And there’s a reason why the Yankees, in their vast wealth and urgency to win right away, want to go with this 24 year old in their rotation next season despite the fact that he started this past season in single-A ball. He’s really damn good. Show me one pitcher in the Mets organization who started this year in single-A ball and is ready to join the Mets starting rotation.

    On to other things…I think it’s unfair that you bring up the Bell, Lindstrom, and Bannister deals, saying we got too little in return for “high-minor league prospects.” I thought we had established the Mets HAD to trade these pitchers because they were going to be left off the 25-man roster once camp broke out of spring training and the Mets wanted to at least get something for them instead of losing them through waivers. Those deals, in retrospect, were set up for failure because other teams knew they didn’t have to give us back anything good in return because in a few weeks those players were going to be let go anyway. And now those are the trades we’re going to relate to a potential deal that could land us JOHAN F-ING SANTANA??? I agree that those players who we traded before the start of last season could have helped us immensely in landing Santana; but to say those trades are the reason why we shouldn’t further deplete our system is unfair. I believe you also just mentioned how quite a few “top pitching prospects” from the Mets recent past haven’t really panned out (Petit, Seo, Gaby Hernandez, Soler, Yates), so, citing that knowledge, would it not be a good educated-move to trade a few of our current top pitching prospects for the BEST PITCHER IN BASEBALL TODAY? You have to remember here, we’re talking about Johan Santana – walk-year of a contract or not. If there’s ANYBODY worth depleting a farm system for, it’s this guy. Just look at where Mike Hampton got us in 2000. Need I say more?

  8. joe October 23, 2007 at 6:17 pm
    Ian Kennedy: his track record is all of one year in pro baseball (i’m not counting the 2 1/3 innings in rookie league in 2006). You say he dominated at “every level”, but it was all in one year.

    I never said I doubted that Kennedy was a bright prospect. Rather, I like to see how a player does over time. Kennedy was special in that he jumped from A to AA to AAA to MLB in one year. However, did he stay at any level long enough to be exposed? Did any league have a chance to figure him out, and then force him to adjust? As far as I’m concerned, the jury is out as far as rating him “light years” ahead of Pelfrey / Humber. He may well be a better-looking prospect, but not “light years”.

    As far as depleting the farm system for Johan, I brought it up to spark debate. As I mentioned, I’m on the fence. Your examples are exactly the reason it could be the right move. And you’re right, the Mets did “have to” make the moves. On the other hand, there looks to be NOTHING coming up the pike, other than 17-year-old Francisco Pena and Guerra. Unloading what little young talent that is left reeks of the moves made by the New York Yankees in the mid-1980s, which put the organization into a decade-long tailspin.

  9. skibolton October 23, 2007 at 6:45 pm
    Stocking up on compensatory draft picks is the best way to build a farm system. It’s alot more of a crapshoot than other sports. You have a much better chance of getting good talent if you have more picks. That is how the oakland teams of the late 90’s and early part of this decade were built (i.e. moneyball). Now every other team is finally catching on, and taking this in to account when making decisions about free agents. This is one of the main reasons our farm system has no depth in it, we always give away our first picks and the top talent is of the board by the time we select. Just as a side note, Kennedy, Chamberlain, and Hughes were all compensetory draft picks, which the yankees got for guys just like glavine whom they had no intention to resign. That also happens to be how the sox got bucholtz and ellsbury. Nobody is saying that this is the solution to our rotation this coming season, just that it would be nice to build some depth on the farm. It certainely would help in two or three years if a guy like verlander or haren come available. I don’t think there are too many people out there who want glavine back anyway.
    No matter how many prospects we throw at the twins, they won’t be giving us santana without a young, established major leaguer (maine, reyes, or wright) Everyone else we have either is to old, too expensive, or just not good enough to give up santana for. It may be a different story if the twins are out of the race come the trade deadline, but they will be fielding a team that won 96 games and a division 2 years ago on opening day. They are definetly going to want more than the rangers got for tex, and we wouldn’t have been able to match that. Also, the biggest voids the twins have are 2nd, 3rd, and short, and possibly center depending on what happens with hunter. They are decent in the outfield, and have several 18-19 year old center field prospects coming through the system. They also have several high end pitching prospects in AAA rochester. There are also one or two center fielders to be had in free agency this year. We just don’t have top prospects in spots they need.
    Finally, the hampton deal was nothing like this situation. Hampton was a good pitcher, had an unbelievable year in 1999, and had a good year for us, but wasn’t in the same class as santana. Hampton was 15-10 with 177 strikeouts for the mets. He sounds alot like a lefty on this years team that was 15-10 with 176 strikeouts. 1999 was the only year hampton was an all star, and the only season he had more than 15 wins. He never won a cy young, and only finished in the top 10 once. Jose Lima (yes the same limatime) had also won 21 games for the astros in 99. Nobody considered hampton the best pitcher in baseball. Some didn’t even think he was the best on his team. Cedeno hit .313 that season with 66 stolen bases, while dotel went 8-3 in 14 starts striking out a batter per inning. Had dotel pitched 30 games that year, those two would look awful similar stat wise to the years reyes and maine had this year. These guys were considered two of the top young guys in baseball, and had proved it over the course of a mlb season. The guys we are talking about sending the twins don’t have reputations that compare to what people thought of cedeno and dotel. Just as a comparison, would you take milledge and pelfrey or humber for david wright if you thought you had a chance to contend the next season? I wouldn’t. Nobody else is saying they don’t want santana, everyone is saying that it might not be something we can do with just prospects. We would have to give up a real good player for him, along with prospects. That would be the only way we have the tools to get a deal done.
  10. isuzudude October 23, 2007 at 8:15 pm

    Good talk on the draft picks. It certainly sounds like you’re well-versed on the subject. Let’s see if we can straighten a few things out, though. No one is disagreeing that stock piling draft picks and prospects is a good thing. But if the Mets focus only on replenishing the farm system and neglect to sign some “big names” who require the forfeiture of a few draft picks, then it makes winning very hard, especially in 2008. Hey, we all know how New York is. You gotta win now. And to win now, it means going out and giving up the necessary draft picks to sign a Carlos Beltran, Pedro Martinez, or Billy Wagner. The Mets simply don’t have the team in place heading into next season not to sign anybody. Sure, some things can be solved through trades, but if we’re all in agreement that the Mets sytem is depleted, there’s only so much we can fix using that strategy. Trading for Ramon Hernandez and inviting 20 minor league free agent relief pitchers to spring training is not going to improve an 88 win season. Yet, those are the only solutions I have heard you offer so far. Instead, your answer is to hold on to all our draft picks and have a better CHANCE at improving in 2010, rather than getting a few guys on the open market and KNOWING you’ll be much improved by March.

    You also like to bring up how Joba, Kennedy, Ellsbury, and Buchholz were recent high draft picks…but to my recollection, it’s not as if the Yankees or Red Sox have stopped making splashes on the free agent market, thus losing draft choices in the process. Yet, a steady flow of young talent keeps emerging from their minor leagues. How can that be? I definitely see how having more draft picks gives you a better chance at finding a great prospect, but sometimes it’s more about scouting and player development than just the pick itself. Perhaps it’s not so much HOW MANY TIMES the Mets are picking in the first round, it’s WHO THEY’RE DECIDING TO PICK. And outside of Reyes, Wright, Kazmir, and maybe Heilman, I’m hard pressed to think of anyone the Mets system has produced of any long-term value within the past 7 years. That’s a lot of draft picks spanning a lot of years to come up with only 4 names. Hell, the Yankees had at least 4 come up this season alone, and they are the most spend crazy team in sports! In the end, like you accurately stated, it’s a crap shoot. You could have 30 draft picks one year and get one decent player out of the mix. Another team could have 5 picks and strike gold on all 5. You just never know. And that’s why I’d like to see the Mets go for the proven commodities in free agency when necessary rather than play conservative and keep their draft picks, HOPING that some day an egg they pick in the 1st round hatches instead of turning rotten.

    To sum up, I say if the Mets’ strength is money, then by-golly let’s spend some of it. I’m not suggesting to buy a team of all-stars like some other NY team I know. I’m just saying it’s ok to use the credit card once in a while if you know what you’re buying is going to help you WIN. That’s what it’s all about. Winning. Not holding on to all your draft picks to see if you can beat the Devil Rays in the Single-A ball championship game and hope some of your prospects have the right tools, mental make-up, toughness, durability, adaptivity, talent, fortitude, passion, and intelligence to contribute at the major league level.

    As per the Santana conversation: I’m very aware that there’s probably less than a 5% chance he’s a Met by next season. It’s very doubtful, but if by chance the Twins are willing to part with Johan for a handful of our prospects, then I’m just saying the Mets have to do it. If Maine or Perez is involved, then I say the trade only goes down if an extension is reached. This is stuff I’ve said before and I speak of only hypothetically. I don’t disagree that a Johan deal is unlikely, I only disagree that a Johan deal should not be considered because it would further deplete our farm system.

  11. joe October 23, 2007 at 9:50 pm
    I don’t think anyone has suggested that the Mets forgo signing free agents because they might lose draft picks … just the opposite, actually.

    The point that has been driven home is, the Mets should offer arbitration to THEIR potential free agents, so that if they decline arbitration, at least the Mets will get some draft picks in return.

    Further, part of the reason that the Yanks and Red Sox have been able to draft quick-impact prospects is due not only to their scouting department but their willingness to gamble on drafting — and signing — supposedly “unsignable” amateurs. Plenty of good talent drops down in the draft because teams are either afraid they can’t sign a kid, or don’t want to spend the necessary money. Actually, that’s how the Mets were able to draft Pelfrey — he would have been one of the first 5 (or 3) picks, but slid to ninth because he had retained Scott Boras as his agent, scaring off the first eight teams.

    But the Mets didn’t have any first-round picks in 2006 nor 2007 — and that will hurt them in the next three years.

    I don’t think that Omar and Co. would worry about losing the Mets’ first-round pick in 2008 to sign someone big, for two reasons. First, the Mets are picking fairly low in the draft. Second, there’s a good chance they’ll get someone else’s first-round pick if someone like Tom Glavine is signed by another team.

  12. isuzudude October 24, 2007 at 6:17 am
    “The point that has been driven home is, the Mets should offer arbitration to THEIR potential free agents, so that if they decline arbitration, at least the Mets will get some draft picks in return.”

    Joe, I think the big word in that sentence is IF. If they decline. But my questions are, what if they don’t? What if you offer arbitration to Green, Lo Duca, Easley, Sele, Valentin, etc with the intentions of not retaining them but they accept arbitration? Are we then stuck with these guys for another season, likely for more money than we’re willing to give them? Also, there doesn’t seem to be many “type-A” players on that list (although I may need to be educated on that term a little). Even if we offer them arbitration, are we likely to get a draft pick of any significant value in return if they are signed by another team?

    Some other questions: whom did the Mets lose through free agency to cause them to forfeit their 1st round picks in 2006 and ’07?

    Also, can you guys explain for me how the Mets got guys like Fernando Martinez, Guerra, and Pena? Was that through a draft or something else? And if it is something else, why stress the importance of the draft so much when a steady influx of players can be obtained at a young age this way?

  13. joe October 24, 2007 at 11:31 am
    The IF was the issue originally addressed. Skibolton believes that it wouldn’t hurt the Mets if most of the potential FA’s returned — so offering them arbitration is not so risky. Obviously they wouldn’t offer arbitration to Aaron Sele, but it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world if Jorge Sosa, LoDuca, Easley, Green, and Valentin returned at contracts set by an arbitrator. I doubt highly, for example, the Green would be awarded $12M. Personally, I’m not as well-versed as I’d like to be in regard to the values of players and the picks you get in return. But I can tell you this: the Mets were able to draft Eddie Kunz because Roberto Hernandez was considered a “Type A” free agent. And the pick for Nathan Vineyard was for losing ChadBrad, who was also a “Type A”. David Dellucci, Justin Speier, and Frank Catalanotto were also “Type A” … while Gil Meche, Ted Lilly, and Frank Thomas were “Type B”. I can’t figure it out.

    The Mets forfeited their 2006 for signing Billy Wagner, and their 2007 for Moises Alou.

    The Mets signed F-Mart, Guerra, Pena, and others from Latin America as free agents, because the MLB draft only includes residents of the USA, Canada, and US territories (i.e., Puerto Rico).

    I think it is important to stress the draft because you want to have as many opportunities as possible to obtain talent. Otherwise you are shrinking the available talent base, and may not get the best players. Not to mention the fact that the Mets aren’t the only aggressive players in international markets — for example, the Dodgers, Yankees, Giants, Mariners, Blue Jays, and Braves are just a few of the teams that scout heavily outside North America — and every team has some kind of watch on international talent. In addition, while MLB is presently about 30-35% Dominican and other internationals, the other 65-70% is North American. That’s a big talent pool.