hi-res-b3c108f929ea74fbb604556abe38b0cb_crop_north
Photo by Ben Margot/Associated Press

So, what’s up with the Mets? Unsurprisingly, from what was predicted, acting as B-tier buyers hasn’t worked out as well. They find themselves at a sub-.500 record and a weaker farm system from the 2018 MLB Draft. The direction was clear from the beginning, a rebuild should’ve been imminent. The poor decision to avoid one because of the dangerous trifecta of the market, fan reactions, and loss of money has severely hindered their future window. However, hope still remains. This comes in the form of a Syndergaard trade. In this article, I’ll break down Syndergaard’s stats and why trading him is beneficial for both sides.

 

The Numbers

It’s no surprise Syndergaard has had a down season. From an initial standpoint, he hasn’t been the high-level starter that he is deemed as. So far this season, he has posted a 4.33 ERA, 1.26 WHIP, 126 K, 36 BB, and a .258 BAA in 126.2 IP. Adequate, but not the front-of-the-line starter numbers we’ve seen from him on a yearly basis. His control has become slightly worse, as evidenced by his -.47 difference in K/BB from 2018 to 2019. Possibly the main problem for him has been the fact that his home run rate has nearly doubled, going from 0.52 to 0.99.

His advanced numbers tell a pretty similar story. The one thing to look at is how good his FIP is at 3.64. However, this isn’t anything surprising given how low his home run rate is and how good his control is. The quality of his home run rate is evidenced by his xFIP which takes into account the league average home runs per fly ball percentage. His SIERA, which takes into account base hits, has been below average at 4.16, falling a bit above the below-average category.

Why He Needs to Be Traded

The solution with the Mets has been underlying for years: a rebuild. After a disappointing season last year, the decision should’ve been imminent. The keyword is should’ve, not was. Instead of capitalizing on a Cy Young season from deGrom and fantastic/adequate years from Syndergaard, Wheeler, and Matz with a rebuild, they opted to make a series of contending moves. A grand majority backfired, so the remaining high-value piece who’s easy to deal is Syndergaard, as both Wheeler and Matz have been disappointing.

Syndergaard has garnered a large market given the poor results of the team this season, with at least 8 teams in the mix. The interest is there, so why hasn’t it been very mutual? One word, ownership. It’s no surprise that a rebuild is an investment. Many teams will see a decline in the sale of tickets and attendance throughout years of poor performance. In turn, this leads to some front offices being wary about a full rebuild, even if it’s necessary. In my opinion, this was most strongly implied in their general manager search last season. The Wilpons went for general managers who had a win-now mindset, as evidenced by not hiring Ben Cherington and the words of Brodie Van Wagenen.

Another quote I’d like to illustrate as evidence is one said by Van Wagenen in a Q&A with the New York Post’s Steve Serby. In one answer, Van Wagenen stated,”They needed to hear that there was a lack of confidence in the organization. There was a lack of belief that they could win. And I wanted to change that narrative.” While optimistic, the irony is glaring and humorous looking at it now. The confidence of the organization’s future has mostly shattered, due to a depleted farm, underwhelming players, and a poor record this season.

Like it or not, one of the clear moves to bring the Mets back to their former glory is to trade Syndergaard. After the Edwin Diaz trade, which sent Jarred Kelenic to the Mariners, and the Pete Alonso call-up, the Mets’ farm is extremely poor. While there are some guys to watch, such as Simeon Woods-Richardson and Brett Baty, it’s not one that a team trying to win for the future should want. Trading Syndergaard instantly propels it to a top 15-20 farm should they gain the right assets in return. I’m proposing a Graterol-Larnach package from the Twins or a Turang-Lutz/Dubon package from the Brewers, depending on which are possible. While not outstanding prospects currently, these packages are low-risk, high-reward moves.

Another thing to focus on is that these prospects would help the Mets’ future much more than keeping Syndergaard. It has become ever clear that the Mets aren’t going to win with their current core. While they have all-star potential in some and an exciting young duo in McNeil and Alonso, that won’t give you consistent deep playoff runs. What will is a future full of consistent players. Being able to trade your players with all-star potential for prospects of the same upside with the latter being larger in quantity by a potential factor of two or three is a no-brainer move for a team like the Mets.

In conclusion, a core is often only as good as its results. Some bypass this, such as teams like the 2017 Brewers who were just a few pieces away from a great team. They accomplished that and went on to being one game away from the pennant the next season. The Mets aren’t in a similar position, however. They tried to supplement a core that was very top-heavy with poor depth pieces. It was an egregious idea for their future, contrary to what Van Wagenen thought. In the end, if you have a core that you can’t win with, what’s the problem with rebuilding? And that, as of right now, begins with trading Syndergaard.