OK, so I promised I’d weigh in on this Bob Klapisch column, and here’s that.

This Bob Klapisch column is entirely based on faulty premises. Check ’em out:

considering how poorly Omar Minaya has done this winter… They need to address their bankrupt minor league system…. The Mets had one legitimate shot at improving themselves this winter and saw it vanish when John Lackey signed with the Red Sox…. Still, the Mets have to make peace with the idea that the Santana experiment has failed, just as the Carlos Beltran, Pedro Martinez and Billy Wagner gambles all turned to vapor…. Wright, in particular, could bring a bundle of prospects in return — and who knows, he might just welcome a trade since he’s playing in a new ballpark he obviously hates.

I could continue, but I’d basically be quoting the entire column, and that’s not good for Internet integrity.

I’m not going to reiterate why all of these tidbits presented as facts are nonsense. If you’ve read this space with any frequency, you know I don’t think Omar Minaya has blown anything yet this offseason, nor that John Lackey was the Mets’ “one legitimate shot” this winter, nor that the Mets’ Minor League system is bankrupt, nor that Carlos Beltran is an investment gone awry, nor that Wright “obviously hates” Citi Field.

And it’s hard to kill Klapisch for simply aggregating a ton of different sentiments coming from the mainstream media that explain why the Mets are doomed. He’s certainly not the first to suggest that Lackey was the team’s only answer, or that they have no prospects to speak of.

But the idea of trading Santana now — and I don’t think even Klapisch is suggesting it as a reasonable option — is baffling. Trading Santana now and handing off his huge contract to some willing taker would amount to little more than a salary dump with the ace coming off elbow surgery. Plus, Santana has a full no-trade clause, so it’s not even necessarily an option.

What I will say is that Klapisch should earn a small margin of credit for suggesting the Mets rebuild, since it’s at least out-of-the-box thinking. But a three-year plan?

C’mon. I really don’t understand the thinking that the Mets’ window to win with Santana, Reyes, Wright and Beltran is closing quick. All four of those players are elite talents under the Mets’ control through 2011. If all four are healthy — no safe bet, for sure — the only thing holding the Mets back from competing every single season is a halfway decent supporting cast.

That’s the problem here, right? The issue with the Mets’ front office has never been its ability to acquire or develop All-Stars, it’s the inability to identify decent, cost-efficient talent with which to complement them.

That should be the goal. Teams with the Mets’ finances should never have to blow it all up and start from scratch.

Especially — especially! — not when trading any of their All-Stars would amount to a sell-low deal.

The Mets’ lineup and pitching staff has question marks absolutely everywhere going into 2010, so I would never advocate trading youth or making foolish commitments to older players to try to patch things together for a one-season run. Never.

But there’s a big difference between a question mark and a goose egg, and for all the cases against players on the Mets’ roster, there is an equally strong counter-argument.

So the mission statement for this offseason should remain the same as it was before Lackey signed that big contract with the Sox: First, do no harm.

By July, the Mets will have a much better sense of what to expect from every player on their team moving forward. And many of their best prospects will be in the midst of their first full seasons in the high minors.

Only then will they really know how hopeless their franchise is, and how bereft of young talent. And if then the outlook is still as bleak as Klapisch suggests it is, then sure, blow up what you can, retool, look forward.

But until then, the only thing the Mets and their fans absolutely need to do is be patient. That’s not the type of suggestion that attracts web traffic or sells newspapers, but it’s the one that will ultimately be best for the club.

Matt Cerrone passes along an item from Jon Heyman saying that Mark DeRosa could be an option for the Mets at first base. Buster Olney at ESPN said yesterday that DeRosa is seeking a three-year, $18 million deal.

Pass.

I never really know what to believe in the hot-stove season, and I have no idea what kind of deal DeRosa will actually get. But it strikes me that whatever value DeRosa maintains is inherent in his versatility, and if the Mets see him as a right-handed complement to Daniel Murphy at first base, there are better options for less money.

DeRosa played mostly third base for the Cardinals and Indians in 2009, but the Mets are covered there. Sure it’s nice to have a guy who can spell David Wright every so often, but David Wright really doesn’t need much spelling.

In 2007 and 2008, DeRosa played mostly second base, meaning he could be a fallback plan should Luis Castillo get moved or get traded. But both UZR and Bill James’ +/- suggest that DeRosa was a pretty bad fielder there in 2008. He’s probably not a legitimate starting option at the position moving forward.

So DeRosa’s much-lauded versatility shouldn’t mean much to the Mets.

He can hit a bit, especially against left-handed pitching, and since his BABIP in 2009 was about 30 points below his career average, it’s reasonable to expect he was a bit unlucky to have a down year at the plate. Of course, his line-drive rate dipped, too, so it’s impossible to write off his .250/.319/.433 year as a complete fluke.

And here’s the thing: If the Mets are interested in a righty-hitting 35-year-old first baseman who can fill in at second, third and the outfield corners, they could likely get one for much smaller commitment by bringing back Fernando Tatis.

Yeah, him. That guy the Mets didn’t offer arbitration to, for fear he might actually accept it and take a raise on his $1.7 million salary from 2009.

So what does DeRosa offer over Tatis? Well, he plays more, for one. But when he does, it’s hard to identify how he’s better. Tatis actually posted slightly better offensive numbers than DeRosa over the past two years — a 113 OPS+ to DeRosa’s 108 — and was statistically better as a defensive infielder, albeit in much smaller samples.

DeRosa’s a local product, so he’s got that. And though I haven’t seen him play a full season of games, I can only assume he’s loaded up on grit and hustle and rampant clutchitude.

And of course, I can’t mention Tatis without bringing up all the double plays he hit into in 2009. That was bad, for sure.

But likely to continue? I doubt it. Remember that Tatis maintained a reputation as one of the most clutch Mets in 2008 — especially by Joe Benigno’s standards — and that eight of the 13 double plays he hit into came in June. At the time, he was often hitting behind David Wright or Ryan Church, players who got on base respectively at .432 and .361 clips that month, providing Tatis plenty of opportunities to be doubly penalized just for putting the ball in play.

Mets fans — myself included — gave Jerry Manuel a lot of grief for platooning Tatis with the younger, homegrown Daniel Murphy, who had more to prove at the big-league level than the 34-year-old journeyman. But that’s not really Tatis’ fault.

I understand the desire among fans to move on from players like Tatis, role players on a club that missed the playoffs in 2008 and stunk in 2009, just for the sake of change.

But whatever that’s worth, I am almost certain, is not as much as the difference between what Tatis will command and what DeRosa is demanding.