Roark or Syndergaard?

[james33]

NL-only 12 team 5x5 with 25 man starting lineup and 40 man rosters.

---Roark had a terrific year, but not a lot of strikeouts. GB pitcher.

---Syndergaard hasn't pitched in the majors yet so hasn't proven a thing.

---Both have $1 salaries

---Roark entering into second year of his fantasy contract, while Syndergaard would be in his first year of his fantasy contract (contracts are fairly standard; after second year, decide whether to keep at same salary for third year or bump $5 for each addl' year).

---Roark side of the deal would give up a draft pick - in negotiation for which one. The draft pick wouldn't garner an elite prospect - figure a minor leaguer, roughly 200th best prospect in MLB/100th best prospect in NL/6th best prospect on his team.

Thoughts?

[revo]

I know Roark had a solid season, but I'd take Syndergaard pretty easily. The upside is huge, CitiField is a great place to pitch, and look at the recent track record of the Met pitching prospects (Harvey, Wheeler, de Grom).

[The Dane]

I think you can't go wrong either way, but this a good example of boring production versus exciting upside. Frankly, I take Roark despite the fact that I like Syndergaard very much. On most rosters in a league with that depth, $1 starters are very volatile. Sure, once in a while they click, but more often or not, they kill your ratios until their demotion. It's easy to move on because they're just a buck. But, getting a regular, consistent, steady, producer on a winner for $1 means that a spot on your roster essentially reserved for risk, has now considerably less risk in it. This is also an argument for taking Syndergaard, I accept, because even if he goes as most rookies go with good days and and bad, that's what that roster spot is for anyway.

At the peaks of their careers, I think Syndergaard is the better pitcher, but 2015 is not the peak and at this point, I think Roark has a much greater likelihood of giving positive value. than Syndergaard.

[joncarlos]

If you ask me who I want on MY team, it's Roark. Too many rookies flame out.

But for me it's also about arbitrage. If a $1 Thor is someone you can trade for an expiring Bumgarner or Kershaw when June rolls around in your league, then he has a lot more value. Because I doubt you get them for a $1 Roark.

You can also trust yourself to find the next $1 Roark if you trust your pitcher identifying skills.

[Judge Jude]

also depends where your roster is. already have almost enough to go for a title? Roark gives you another decent starter (3.79 xERA vs 2.85 ERA is reality check) for a buck. if you have a lesser roster, Noah is the kind of gamble that can pay off.

[Hornsby]

I think you can't go wrong either way, but this a good example of boring production versus exciting upside. Frankly, I take Roark despite the fact that I like Syndergaard very much. On most rosters in a league with that depth, $1 starters are very volatile. Sure, once in a while they click, but more often or not, they kill your ratios until their demotion. It's easy to move on because they're just a buck. But, getting a regular, consistent, steady, producer on a winner for $1 means that a spot on your roster essentially reserved for risk, has now considerably less risk in it. This is also an argument for taking Syndergaard, I accept, because even if he goes as most rookies go with good days and and bad, that's what that roster spot is for anyway.

At the peaks of their careers, I think Syndergaard is the better pitcher, but 2015 is not the peak and at this point, I think Roark has a much greater likelihood of giving positive value. than Syndergaard.

[Sour Masher]

If you ask me who I want on MY team, it's Roark. Too many rookies flame out.

But for me it's also about arbitrage. If a $1 Thor is someone you can trade for an expiring Bumgarner or Kershaw when June rolls around in your league, then he has a lot more value. Because I doubt you get them for a $1 Roark.

You can also trust yourself to find the next $1 Roark if you trust your pitcher identifying skills.

Although I agree with Dane and others about the real relative value of these two, in my league, joncarlos point here is what would make me go with Thor. I think Roark is the better one year bet, but Noah is the guy I will be able to trade for an expiring stud midseason. But my league is a 16 team mixed, a league where Roark is valuable but not very desirable, as guys chase upisde over solid performance in dump deals in a league this size. I'd bet in a 12 team NL only a guy like Roak carries a lot more value though.

[The Dane]

Although I agree with Dane and others about the real relative value of these two, in my league, joncarlos point here is what would make me go with Thor. I think Roark is the better one year bet, but Noah is the guy I will be able to trade for an expiring stud midseason. But my league is a 16 team mixed, a league where Roark is valuable but not very desirable, as guys chase upisde over solid performance in dump deals in a league this size. I'd bet in a 12 team NL only a guy like Roak carries a lot more value though.

Owners very experienced and successful in that pool depth would almost always prefer Roark over Syndergaard, but the hot young arm has allure. I would guess if both pitchers were tossed for draft in my leagues, regardless of roster status on Day One, Roark would probably get bid up by two owners who see him as more than a #5 and he's go for $9-$11. Syndergaard would go for about $7 or $8 because he's unproven. That's just a wild guess, because both will likely be keepers in my leagues.