Q and A - Thor or deGrom?

Mike Friere asks –

Assuming the Mets' frugal ways continue, they will not be able to afford a long term contract for both Noah Syndergaard and Jacob DeGrom.  If you were forced to choose, which one would you sign to a long term deal and why?

           

            Chris Soto  says -  

            If i have to pick between the two. I have to go with Thor due to his age.

We have to remember that deGrom started his MLB career very late at age 26. Because of the way the arbitration works, he is already stuck being Mets property through his age 32 season.

There is no question in my mind that degrom will continue to pitch well after that. But the odds of him maintaining velocity at age 33, 34, 35, etc. decreasing with each passing year. In addition, as we've have seen this offseason, teams are just not selling out to sign older players to long expensive contracts.

In comparison, Syndergaard can potentially reach free at age 29 and would most certainly be able to maintain his stuff for an additional 3-4 years before we start seeing a potential decline.        

Tom Brennan says –

I would choose Thor, assuming he would be more durable than Jake, but honestly, I'd have to flip a coin.  Whichever we would not keep, we'd have to get killer prospects in return

Eddie Corona says –

Great question

There is an argument for both... Thor is younger, Jake is more proven...

Here's how I would handle it and it's based on how I believe the Mets operate...  Whoever I believe I could get the most return for, I would sign the other guy. So in essence I am saying I would keep the lesser of the 2. Now in this argument that is not a bad thing. They are both Ace Worthy and excellent pitchers.

Under these guidelines I would sign DeGrom. Jake seem to remind me of the pitching version of David Wright. Someone who could be an ambassador going forward. Thor being younger and a harder thrower, I believe would have a higher return in prospects.

Now my ideal situation is sign both and compliment them with the large number of arms on the way but that's not the question is it...  

Mack says –

I happen to think that Syndergaard has more talent, but deGrom has his head screwed on tighter.

We all know pitching is 50% or more mental and my guess is that Syndergaard still has some growing up to do, which means he would have a higher propensity to make a career ending mistake.

He also would currently bring the team the larger return on a trade.

So… I keep Mr. deGrom, and go get myself two top 50 prospects, one an SP and the other either a catcher, second baseman, or third baseman.

Reese Kaplan says –

There are both on-the-field reasons and off-the-field reasons to make this type of decision.  Noah Syndergaard and his "Thor" persona are easy to market to the fans and age stands in his favor.  He has had his own health problem this past year but it appears to be a one-off thing.  He has not had the seemingly mandatory TJS yet and that may factor into fears of a long term deal.

Jacob deGrom has far exceeded expectations, particularly when you consider he was a converted infielder.  His long hair and his workmanlike demeanor have made him a fan favorite.  The fact that both he and the Mets have deferred a contract extension AND that he's shorn his famous locks, I'm thinking there's a divorce in their future. 

Personally I think deGrom is the better bet but I think they'll more likely look at the age difference and the huge social media following Syndergaard has already earned and I think they will go for the blond. 

Mike Friere says –

This is sort of like comparing different flavors of ice cream.  Maybe you prefer one over the other, but having ice cream is still a pretty good deal regardless of the flavor.

In the case of Noah v. Jake, you have two excellent pitchers to choose from.  Ideally, the Mets figure out a way to keep both of them and this question becomes a moot point. 

However, something tells me that one of them may end up on the move in the not so distant future, in a "get something for one of them before you lose them" type of trade.  Not what you want to hear, but it would keep salaries manageable while potentially adding talent to the minor league pipeline.

The first two things that jump off the page are their respective ages (Noah will be 25 this year and Jake will be 30) and their sizes (Noah is a beast and Jake has more of a classic pitcher's build), which indirectly relates to the third issue.....HEALTH!  Noah has basically pitched the equivalent of two full seasons out of a possible three due to his injuries last year.  Jake has been a bit more reliable, pitching close to four seasons while only missing a handful of starts in two of them.

As far as performance, over the course of a full season Jake has averaged roughly 4.61 WAR, while Noah has averaged 4.15 WAR.

Contract status is the final factor, with Jake hitting free agency in 2021, while Noah will not be eligible until 2022.

If you promised me that Noah would stay reasonably healthy, you have to pick him simply due to his age and the bulk of his prime in front of him.  That would make Jake a prime trade target

during the 2019 or 2020 season, depending on the status of the team and what was being offered, etc.

Hopefully, Sandy an figure out a way to keep both of them so we don't have to answer questions like this.