Inbox: What does future hold for Mets’ rotation?

Believe it or not, we’re nearly a quarter of the way through the regular season, and the Mets look very much for real. Like all teams not based in Chicago, the Mets have had their share of issues over the season’s first six weeks. But by and large, things in Flushing have been placid.

With that in mind, it’s a good time to step back and take the first batch of questions and answers this season. In some cases below, the grammar of tweets has been corrected:

Are we looking at the potential of only Noah Syndergaard being a long-term Met? Steven Matz is always hurt and Matt Harvey and Jacob deGrom are not worth the money. –@louie3020 via Twitter

• Submit a question to the Mets Inbox

With Stephen Strasburg’s seven-year contract extension shaking things up down in Washington, it was only a matter of time before this topic came up regarding the Mets’ young aces. And I do agree with part of your sentiment, Louie. For most of this winter, I identified Syndergaard as the most likely Met to receive a contract extension, simply because from a team perspective, there’s the most upside in doing so with him.

Harvey is still relatively fresh off Tommy John surgery, has elicited concerns about his velocity this season, and with the notable exception of Strasburg, agent Scott Boras does not have a lengthy track record of doing deals before free agency. For me, a Harvey extension falls into the I’ll-believe-it-when-I-see-it category.

While deGrom has said publicly that he would be amenable to a long-term deal, that does not necessarily mean the Mets would be willing to guarantee much if anything beyond his arbitration years. A late bloomer who is already 27 years old, deGrom won’t reach free agency until age 32. That makes any long-term deal a significant risk for the Mets. (For a …

continue reading in source mlb.mlb.com