The article about the complex league was interesting. In younger days, I recall when Latin players listed super young when they hit the majors. Still variably true: Moises and Pedro are both 22. But maybe the age-curve for Latin players isn't as extreme, without bogus birthdays and with few actual baseball games played in Latin countries for teenagers.
Cubs seem to be one of the teams that prioritizes teaching and intrasquad for Mesa guys. Different, yes; not sure it's bad, though, or worse for development?
The urgency for velocity over control, that's the game. When we get buzz reports on Jabrayker Salaya, it's not because he's been a good pitcher. 12.15 ERA, 6 walks in 6.2 innings, 2.1 WHIP. It's because he's got velocity and wildman stuff that he can't control yet. That's the modern prospect game, that's not going to change.
*IF* they want to recapture complex league of past, sure they could expand the rosters and allow an extra 10 undrafted college pitchers to throw more strikes. That could be helpful, I'd be fine with that. I don't imagine the costs for adding an extra five bedrooms to the complex dorms and feeding 10 extra college pitchers would be any big deal cost-wise. Can do that for .2% of a Bregman, or whatever.
With all the pitch-lab opties for college pitchers, I don't have much problem with American kids largely going to college. I suspect that a lot of human development and growing up can happen in college, perhaps as well or better than in a complex dorm? Most HS players aren't going to become major leaguers, do college may better prepare them for a non-big-league life. There are HS guys who go pro, Hartshorn, Wing, Franklin, Ronny Southisene, Cruz, Lovich, Rosario, Hope. Not sure the volume is that much lower than a few years back.
Perhaps for some pitchers, college is as good a developmental route? In college, development is valued big-time, but so too is winning. Maybe the value of throwing a strike is developed as well or better in college than in the complex?