Neither guy has #1/2 potential. Neither has more than two plus pitches. Molina is a 50 grade prospect. Matz is a 55 grade. Suggesting either is a TOR prospect just isn't accurate. If you compare their tools to Syndergaard it's not even close. Syndergaard has a 70 fastball, a 60 curve, a 55 change up and 60 control making him a 65 grade prospect. It's probably a stretch to call a 60 grade prospect a true "TOR" candidate. They are more likely a 2/3. So calling a 50 and a 55 grade prospect that is a huge stretch.
I hate to keep hammering this point but it seems like people aren't listening. Matz is 24 and the highest he's ever gotten on any prospect list is where he is this year. Most prospects who are legitimately considered TOR pitchers are in the majors before 24. Syndergaard for example is 22. This matters because he's been pitching to guys several years younger than him and as such should be abusing them. Look I'm not going to take away from the guy because he's pitched well. But Kyle Hendricks had a 2.69 minor league ERA. He was older than most of the players he pitched to and didn't have many plus pitches. I know his change up was considered plus and possibly one other pitch but I'd have to look that up. Regardless, Hendricks isn't and has never had TOR potential. I'm probably coming off more negative on Matz than I actually am. I think he's an interesting #3/4 pitcher. My problem is people seem to want to make him into more than he is. If you think trading for him(or Molina) solves your lack of TOR pitching in the system you're sorely mistaken. Matz is some where between Edwards and Johnson in terms of tools which is appropriate considering he's ranked behind Edwards in mlb.com's top 100. Fangraphs had a nice breakdown in their primer of what these grades mean.
I may not love Baez as a hitter but if you're giving him up you better be getting more than a #3 starter because frankly they have found guys like Hammel off the street to come in and do that for next to nothing. Baez is 3 months younger than Syndergaard and before last season was ranked higher on basically any prospect ranking site you want to talk about. Sure Baez struggled last year but it's not exactly like Syndergaard tore up the PCL. He had a 4.60 ERA in 26 starts last year and that's obviously AAA competition where as Baez got the crap kicked out of him by MLB competition. So, to say Syndergaard is now some how untouchable to me is an overreaction. What if his first 10 starts are crap and it's July while Baez tears up AAA? What then, is he now in the Baez value range? That's why you can't exactly place trade value on prospects based on early stats.
Ultimately, the Mets might not like Baez enough to move Syndergaard for him. If i were in their shoes I'd want more. But what you want and what you can actually get other teams to do is often worlds apart. I can't see them landing any other top 40 SS prospect given various team situations. Maybe they make a play for Tulo but outside of that I don't really see in vastly superior options. On the contrary, look at all the options the cubs have in terms of getting more pitching. Numerous options will be potential FAs plus guys like Hamels will be there at the deadline. In other words, finding a possible SS is far more difficult than finding starting pitching and even if Syndergaard is the better player you have to pay the premium to get a SS(potential anyways). That's the world we live in.
