Francisco Lindor to the New York Mets -- Grading the trade, what's next for both teams and more

The New York Mets made their first bold offseason splash since owner Steve Cohen took control of the team in November, acquiring star shortstop Francisco Lindor and veteran starting pitcher Carlos Carrasco from the Cleveland Indians for young infielders Andres Gimenez and Amed Rosario along with two prospects.

Who won the deal? How do the Mets stack up with the rest of the National League's best after adding Lindor? And where does Cleveland go from here? ESPN MLB experts Alden Gonzalez, Kiley McDaniel and Jesse Rogers answer those questions and more.

Grade this deal for the Mets

Rogers: A. You have to ask? It's a home run, in large part because there's an immediate assumption Lindor will sign a long-term contract in New York before he is scheduled to hit free agency after next season. That's why sending back a couple of middle infielders to Cleveland was an easy decision for the Mets. They're no longer needed. And don't discount the inclusion of Carlos Carrasco in the deal. He fits right into a contending rotation.

If Lindor doesn't stick around, the deal gets downgraded to a C-plus, but overall this gives the Mets a face to their franchise and makes them a true contender in 2021.

McDaniel: A. I'll join the chorus of obvious takes here. The Mets were in an enviable position, one of few teams in the league that have lots of money to spend to upgrade a roster when lots of teams aren't really trying to do either thing. They turned five years of control of a solid young shortstop in Gimenez into (pending a likely extension) something like 10 years of Lindor, who will likely be better than Gimenez for most if not all of those seasons, for something like an increased cost of $20-to-$30-million a year. It's a slam dunk for a team in the Mets' position, and the cost was to be forced to take a basically-market-value deal for Carrasco, when they were already looking at veteran starting pitchers on the free-agent market; Rosario, who needed to go to a second-division type team to get playing time to see if he'd reach his potential; and two prospects recently chosen 53rd and 69th overall. That's basically a rounding error for a contending, big-market club to get a new face of the franchise for the foreseeable future.

Gonzalez: It's an A. They got Francisco Freakin' Lindor! He's the perfect face for the Mets' sudden emergence, the ideal personality for a market like New York, and a star who could make every bit as much of an impact as the one Mookie Betts made for the Los Angeles Dodgers. Assuming Lindor signs an extension before qualifying for free agency next offseason -- and one thinks something will eventually get done -- it's the right deal at the right time for a maligned franchise that is so clearly entering into an exhilarating phase. Lindor remains the game's best shortstop in many people's eyes, even with Fernando Tatis Jr. emerging so quickly. He's so good that the details around his transaction are almost irrelevant (and, for what it's worth, people in the industry seem to believe the Mets got at least a fair deal).

Grade this deal for the Indians

Rogers: B-minus. It's only a good one under the context that they were forced to shed payroll and still got something back. The entire league -- every single opposing executive -- knew the Indians were going to trade Lindor, so what kind of leverage did that give them? Not much. But at least they didn't let him walk for nothing or take 50 cents on the dollar come the July 31 trade deadline. The haul was a decent one for a free agent-to-be -- but this was all about shedding payroll. Not a good look.

McDaniel: B. I've been critical of Cleveland in the past for playing it too safe with a quantity-over-quality approach in player acquisition, as a way to minimize risk. They did that to a degree here, taking Rosario and two prospects who are still years from the big leagues and not among the top 150-to-200 in baseball, rather than trying to get a stronger second piece and let this be a two-for-one deal. That said, the market for high salary players is more limited now than it's been anytime recently, even for elite talents like Lindor, and (see next question) they got pretty close to the full value the Red Sox got for Betts in a much better market. The optics of trading your franchise player are obviously terrible, but granting that ownership was forcing Lindor to leave at some point in the next year, the baseball ops group got about as good of a return as they could get, even if I would've constructed the value in the deal a little differently.

Gonzalez: It's an F. They gave up Francisco Freakin' Lindor! I hate to oversimplify this, but if you want a snapshot for how inevitable this all was, look no further than Cleveland's social media accounts, which had a goodbye video ready almost immediately after the Lindor trade was announced. It was touching, but also sad. Lindor continually expressed a desire to stay in Cleveland, but also an understanding that the team wouldn't be able to keep him. That's a problem. Teams should be able to at least afford their homegrown stars, especially ones who resonated as strongly as Lindor. I'm sure Cleveland got some nice prospects back, and I'm sure, given how well the organization develops pitching, that they'll find a way to be competitive again reasonably soon. But look at the 2018 team that won a third consecutive division title. Of the 10 players who led Cleveland in Baseball Reference WAR, only one (Jose Ramirez) remains. The 2021 payroll now projects at around $35 million.

How does Cleveland's return in this deal compare to what the Red Sox got for Mookie Betts last winter?

McDaniel: Gimenez and Alex Verdugo (the outfielder Boston got back as the main piece in the Mookie Betts deal) are comparable as headliners, with one year of solid MLB performance and prospect pedigree, along with some defensive value to give some margin for error on the bat. Jeter Downs was a solid Top 100 prospect as a second piece in the Betts deal, while Connor Wong was a decent toss-in. Wolf (plus stuff, limited track record, smallish frame that leads to relief risk) and Greene (also short track record, but potential for center field fit and plus hit tool) are both between Downs and Wong as prospects, while Rosario is a solid upside big leaguer, but is also in arbitration, so a down season could make him into a non-tender candidate or at least a player with minimal value. The Carrasco/Price combination of solid veteran starter and salary dump are also comparable, but Carrasco had more trade value. All this to say: the headliners were about the same, Betts' return got a better second piece, Lindor's deal had better depth and a little more value in the veteran starter. It's about a coin flip, but I'd slightly lean to the Betts' return if I had to pick one. It's still a nice return for Cleveland, given where the market for higher salary players has gone in the past year.