Does Pedro Martinez make a whole lot of sense for the Mets right now? Nah, not really. He looked pretty good in a very limited sample with the Phillies last season, but the Mets probably need guaranteed innings more than they need promise coupled with the promise of injury.

Do I think the Mets will really sign Pedro Martinez? Nah, not really. If they didn’t do it last year, when they trying to remain competitive with Livan Hernandez, Tim Redding and Fernando Nieve in the rotation, I can’t imagine they’ll do it now.

Will I ever, ever say I don’t want to see Pedro Martinez back with the Mets? Not a chance.

I’ve got few rational arguments for the Mets to bring back Pedro next season, but my irrational side is all-in. Pedro, as I’ve written before, is my favorite pitcher of all time. Even in his advanced age, he’s amazing to watch, and no matter how much I can’t stand the Phillies, I still found myself rooting for Pedro last season.

Plus, there’s always the sliver of hope he’ll pitch a little bit like he used to. Heck, he hinted at it for the Phillies, striking out 37 guys while walking only eight in 44 2/3 innings. And, according to Fangraphs, his average fastball velocity was the highest it has been since 2004.

Here’s what I wrote in June:

What Pedro Martinez offers that very few others do is the tiny, tiny possibility that he can pitch like some semblance of vintage Pedro Martinez. It’s quite unlikely, sure. But his people claim he’s hitting 93-94 miles per hour on the gun, and the Rays and Cubs — two teams with more viable starters than the Mets — are reportedly interested.

Redding, unlike Pedro Martinez, has absolutely no chance of ever pitching like Pedro Martinez. He has that in common with Livan Hernandez, Fernando Nieve and the overwhelming majority of humanity.

I’m long resigned to the fact that we’ll never again see Pedro anything like he did around the turn of the millenium with the Sox. That’s not the type of dominance that can be expected to last, and there’s way too much evidence to show he’s done pitching like that.

But even at 38, Pedro’s upside is probably still a lot higher than any number of people who could reasonably start for the Mets last year. I know this because he’s Pedro Martinez.

OK, I’m trying to justify this rationally now and that’s not what this was supposed to be about. I just love watching the guy play is all, and it’d be an entertaining thing to see at Citi Field in 2010.

Far be it for me to believe everything I read in the newspaper, but something in John Harper’s piece in this morning’s Daily News caught my eye:

The explanation coming from the Mets last night, via a club source, is that they are focused on offense first, as they continue negotiations with [Bengie] Molina and outfielder Jason Bay. As such they aren’t ready to negotiate with pitchers until they know how much it costs to add bats.

The quote comes in reference to Jason Marquis’ signing a two-year, $15 million pact with the Nationals yesterday, despite his clear interest in playing in New York.

I don’t think Marquis is quite what he’s been hyped up to be, but $15 million over two years seems a reasonable price for a guy who, at the very least, can eat up innings in a frequently unhealthy rotation plagued by uncertainty.

There are plenty of other pitchers still on the market who are arguably just as good as Marquis, so it’s unfair to call him the One that Got Away or to criticize the Mets simply for their failure to lock him down at that rate.

But if the explanation Harper provides is correct, it speaks to a larger problem, and one I spent a whole lot of time whining about last offseason.

The Mets, presumably, are operating within some sort of budget. I have no idea what it is, but it’s safe to say they have a certain limited amount of dollars to spend on free-agent acquisitions this offseason.

That money should be spent improving the club in the most efficient way possible, and the most efficient way is certainly not keeping tunnel vision locked on Jason Bay and Bengie Molina and missing out on potential bargains elsewhere in the market.

Perhaps signing Marquis would mean the Mets, heaven forbid, would not have enough cash left over to lock down Bengie Molina. But even if the Mets have some good reason to believe Molina is worth a big contract, they must also realize that their team could stand to be better in a variety of places, including the starting rotation.

In other words, instead of going all-in for bats, the Mets should determine exactly how much they believe Bay and Molina are worth to their team and work from there. If those players are unwilling to sign for that much money, the team would be better suited finding more economical ways to improve, be it in the lineup or the starting rotation.

Last year, when Minaya was openly “not in the position-player market,” the Mets overspent on Oliver Perez. This year, when the Mets decidedly are in the position-player market, innings-eating starting pitchers could be available at a discount, and the team might be wise to scoop one up.

In other words, as I’ve said before, the position-player market and the starting-pitching market are really the same market: Players who could potentially help a team win. If position players appear too costly, a team is better off looking elsewhere.

Again, it’s impossible to rip Minaya at this point in the offseason, since he hasn’t made any big-ticket mistakes yet. Harper’s piece only suggests he could be going down that road.

Teams win with some combination of good pitching, good hitting and good defense. Precisely which combination doesn’t matter, so the best GMs are the ones who can identify the inefficiencies in the market and exploit them, rather than targeting one specific aspect of winning baseball and ignoring the rest.

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.