Let's pick this part, but first agree that 1 would be tilting toward the Mets and 10 would be tilting toward the Cardinals, and that as you suggest 5 would be a win-win balance deal. Noah Syndergaard is in the arbitration process and is going to earn around $10 million and climbing. That's a good salary, but palatable to both teams given his ability, his position, and everything. So, the money is part of it, but it's not a massive driver, and thus I'm not sure exactly what the Mets want to achieve except for getting a haul of talent in return, and also control.
Syndergaard will be a free agent after 2021, so you're looking at two years control.
On the other end you're looking at:
Dakota Hudson -- five
Harrison Bader -- four
Daniel Ponce de Leon -- six
Andrew Knizner -- six
So you're trading 21 years of control, including five of a starting pitcher, for two from a starting pitcher, and that's a volatile position, given the injury chances. It's hard to see that. I appreciate that it's a bigger, better package than the Cardinals had to give Arizona for one year of Goldschmidt and much more certain talent than the Cardinals sent to Miami for two years of Ozuna. It's the inclusion here of both Hudson and Knizner that gives me pause. You're talking about three players who could be on the Cardinals' major-league roster, and three players who could be on the Mets' major-league roster all for one significant standout player at an ultimately volatile position.
This is the kind of conversation the Mets would like to have, and the Cardinals would want to shift in a different direction because on the scale agreed to above this is a 3, listing toward a 2. And the Cardinals don't appear as urgent to undermine their pitching depth (Hudson) for Syndergaard, when there's going to be an internal argument that they'll get more from five more years of Hudson than they would from two more years of Syndergaard, and that's before you throw in the other players.