New York's Team of the Future: Yankees or Mets?

Been a Mets fan forever.
The '86 series is still fresh in my mind.
I, for one, do not want to see them move ANY SP for a bat. While I agree their offense is anemic, in the "Non Steroid" era pitching has become valuable again. The Giants have been fairly successful with their pitching no?
They are only 2 games behind the Nats and their lineup is a helluva lot better than the Mets. Their pitching has kept them close.
I was skeptical of Alderson when he took over. But he did steal Wheeler/ D'Arnaud and Syndegaard.

Been a Mets fan forever.
The '86 series is still fresh in my mind.
I, for one, do not want to see them move ANY SP for a bat. While I agree their offense is anemic, in the "Non Steroid" era pitching has become valuable again. The Giants have been fairly successful with their pitching no?
They are only 2 games behind the Nats and their lineup is a helluva lot better than the Mets. Their pitching has kept them close.
I was skeptical of Alderson when he took over. But he did steal Wheeler/ D'Arnaud and Syndegaard.

I don't know Viz, if they could up their scoring by even half a run a game, how many games up on the Nats would they be. It kills me watching them lose 1-0 or 2-1 it's just excruciating.

Now, go back to ignoreland. I won't read any more of your posts on this thread.

I know you don't like people pointing out your errors. Sorry about that.

You keep threatening to not read any of my posts or ignoring me in some way but you are constantly badgering me about daring to make a post in a conversation you are in. Please keep your promises and stop commenting about me.

Been a Mets fan forever.
The '86 series is still fresh in my mind.
I, for one, do not want to see them move ANY SP for a bat. While I agree their offense is anemic, in the "Non Steroid" era pitching has become valuable again. The Giants have been fairly successful with their pitching no?
They are only 2 games behind the Nats and their lineup is a helluva lot better than the Mets. Their pitching has kept them close.
I was skeptical of Alderson when he took over. But he did steal Wheeler/ D'Arnaud and Syndegaard.

I don't know Viz, if they could up their scoring by even half a run a game, how many games up on the Nats would they be. It kills me watching them lose 1-0 or 2-1 it's just excruciating.

And as I type this the Mets are losing 2-1 top of the 7th they've been 2 hit by the Cards. Syndergaard pitched well enough but the offense is stagnant.

It really is amazing how well the Mets pitchers have performed knowing their margin for error is so slim given the Mets anemic offense

I, for one, do not want to see them move ANY SP for a bat. While I agree their offense is anemic, in the "Non Steroid" era pitching has become valuable again. The Giants have been fairly successful with their pitching no?

I get your wanting to keep all 5; they are all substantially talented. However, I still think they won't seriously compete without trading at least one of them for offensive help. Firstly, they will still have an awesome rotation with four of their big 5 plus Niese, Montero, or Micheal Fulmer or Cory Mazzoni. Secondly, the Giants have primarily relied on pitching, but they have also had offensive help from players like Posey, Sandoval, Pence, Pagan; and even role-players like Pat Burrell, Aubrey Huff, and Cody Ross. So, they didn't win on pitching alone.

The big question is who should they trade. If I ranked the 5 based on whom teams would most want, and whom the Mets would most want to keep, I would rank them as such:

1. Matt Harvey, The big Dark Knight is back and pitching well again, and has better command than Wheeler and Syndergaard. A dominant #1 starter when he's got his best stuff; a very tough #2 starter when he doesn't
2. Jake DeGrom. His stuff isn't as electric as Wheeler's and Syndergaard's, but his command and control are better, and he throws fairly hard himself.
3. Noah Syndergaard. He may have a higher ceiling than Harvey, but his improving command and control has a way before he matches his.
4. Steven Matz. The classic savvy, solid-command lefty, he can still dial it up into the mid-90's, so he's no soft-tossing southpaw.
5. Zack Wheeler. The wild card; when he's on he's more dominating than Harvey, but his command and control are still average, and he is obviously an injury risk who may not recover his old lightning.

deGrom is the untouchable looks at his stats for his last 12 games arguably the best pitcher in the NL not named Grienke Harvey has actually struggled a bit of late. And you wanna talk electric... Did you watch the all star game?? deGrom is the text book definition of electric. His fastball has all kinds of movement on it and he can put it just about anywhere. Your observations are great but deGrom is the one least likely to be moved.

Thanks. Since all of these pitchers are extremely talented and have all shown they can pitch well in the majors, the spacing between these rankings is minimal. Considering DeGrom's performance of the last two years, I could definitely see him being the most desired by suitors and most cherished by the Mets...and his stuff is electric. My only mention of Wheeler's electricity was because when he's on, which is decidedly less than when DeGrom is on, his mid-high 90's fastball-high 80's power slider combo leaves scouts breathless and batters quaking. Unfortunately for the Mets and Wheeler, his command and (particularly) his injuries may keep that electricity from showing itself much (if ever) again.

The '86 series is still fresh in my mind.

Mine too. But the '04, '07, and '13 Series are fresher.

2 Championships since 1962, and 1 was a Miracle.......Yanks will always rule NY.

And today's Mets' offensive futility...

XX EDIT 24 men left on base...

1 for XX EDIT 25 with runners in scoring position...

All in a 1 to 1 game that is in the 17th inning and has lasted 5 hours and 31 minutes...

So far.

for the love of God Sandy go get a bat or two.