Carlos Beltran released a statement tonight. It went like this, according to Matt at MetsBlog:

“I am totally surprised by the reaction to my recent knee surgery.  Any accusations that I ignored or defied the team’s wishes are simply false.  I also spoke to Omar Minaya about the surgery on Tuesday.  He did not ask me to wait, or to get another doctor’s opinion.  He just wished me well. No one from team raised any issue until Wednesday, after I was already in surgery.  I do not know what else I could have done. The most important thing here is that the surgery was a total success and I expect to be back on the field playing the game I love sooner rather than later.”

So Beltran called Omar on Tuesday, and Omar wished him well in surgery? Joel Sherman reports the same thing. Then why was John Ricco on the conference call today acting like the Mets had no idea he was going under the knife?

I’m done even trying to figure this one out. I’m guessing the root of the problem is a massive breakdown in communication once again.

OK, so the conference call is over. If you missed it, it featured a whole lot of Mets’ assistant GM John Ricco dancing around questions for legal reasons, but the most interesting tidbit of information gleaned was that, essentially, the high ranking members of the Mets’ front office didn’t know Carlos Beltran was having surgery until after he was having surgery.

Ricco stressed numerous times the Mets’ current issue with Beltran stemmed from the team’s desire to be “afforded the right” to seek a third opinion on his knee before he resorted to an operation that could jeopardize the start of his season.

But Beltran, presumably with the guidance of his agent Scott Boras, opted to undergo surgery without first consulting his team.

And that’s, well, it certainly falls under the general umbrella of “not cool.” They’re paying him a whole lot of money to play center field and hit home runs, and that probably buys them the right to understand how he is thinking and to know when he’s about to go under the knife.

Still, it’s impossible to entirely fault Beltran, given the way things went for the Mets in 2009.

Ricco urged reporters to view the team’s injuries on “a case-by-case basis,” but since the problems were epidemic last season, one can understand Beltran’s impatience. Especially since he was already in Colorado with the knee specialist, and especially since the third opinion and the internal discussions and all the red tape that went along with that would probably mean tacking on another month before he could play again.

Ken Davidoff asked the best question of the call, in my opinion, wondering why the Mets would opt to make their grievance with Beltran public. Ricco ably answered that the team wanted to be honest, and that they were disappointed in their player and at how the process broke down.

In truth, it seems as though the Mets were a bit blindsided. That’s bad in isolation, but it’s downright terrible if they’ve fostered some sort of environment wherein players do not trust the intentions of or yield to the expectations of their team’s front office.

Of course, I don’t know that’s the case. Maybe Beltran is just one player gone rogue, and the Mets are only reacting accordingly. But maybe he only grew frustrated with a bureaucracy that seems to have failed him and his teammates again and again, and took matters into his own hands because he felt it was the swiftest way to get himself healthy and back on the field to help his team.

I have no idea what happened with Carlos Beltran’s knee surgery other than that something sketchy is afoot. That much is almost certain.

I’ll resist weighing in until we have more details, but it strikes me as entertaining that the situation has given people all over the Internet more fodder to argue the same points they’ve always argued about Beltran.

Those that like Beltran point out that opting for surgery was a smart move; he understands his body and was making the decision that was in his best interest to get himself back on the field at full-strength so he could help his team win, and that clearly he’s right, and anyway, who would trust the Mets’ medical staff at this point?

Those that don’t like Beltran say it’s another example of a me-first whiner who only cares about his paycheck and his stats turning his back on the team, and besides, he struck out looking that one time.

I guess we’ll find out more on the 2 p.m. conference call with John Ricco.

Hat tip to SNY’s Sam Pepper and The Big Lead for pointing me to this bit of fantastic strangeness:

So Carlos Beltran had surgery and will likely miss the start of the season. The team press release says he can return to “baseball activities” in 12 weeks, so throwing in some rehab on top of that, plus a couple of weeks of general nonsense time, I’d guess, conservatively, we won’t see Beltran back until sometime in May or early June.

That’s a bit of a gut punch given the way things went for the Mets last year. And it certainly doesn’t seem like a good omen for 2010. And it’s bad for fans of awesome baseball players in general.

As for the Mets, though, what now?

The first thing — and the most important thing — for Omar Minaya and everyone else, is not to panic. The Mets’ front office has done an impressive job so far this offseason not doing any major damage to the team’s farm system, and it would be a huge shame if it reacted to news that hurts the 2010 season by hurting the several that follow. The Mets have been known to cater to perception, and this one is going to sting, but there’s still plenty of time to figure out what to do before Spring Training.

Next step? Take Angel Pagan off the table in any potential deals, if that was actually being discussed. Pagan’s no Beltran, but he played like a capable starting Major League center fielder last season and, provided health, is likely as good an option to start the season in center field as anyone readily available.

A nice additional move might be signing Endy Chavez. Endy’s recovering from knee surgery of his own after a devastating injury last season and likely won’t be ready until May either, but the Mets are going to need someone to give Beltran’s knees a rest and defensive help in the outfield and Endy, when he’s right, provides that in droves. Since he’s reportedly willing to sign for only a Minor League deal, he’s certainly worth the flyer.

That doesn’t help the team out of the gate, though, and there’s not a ton on the free-agent market that does. Reed Johnson is probably the best bet to sign to be a fourth outfielder.

The truth is, the way I initially heard this news, several hours ago, it sounded way worse. Losing Beltran for a month or two is terrible, but if all the things that need to go right for the Mets to win in 2010 go right, they can weather that storm.  And there are a lot of little variables there, mind you, and Beltran will be another when he returns.

Howard Megdal makes an interesting point in his weekly column for SNY.tv. Check it out:

Oddly enough, the market seems to be dictating that it will cost the least to upgrade at second base, the most at catcher, with first base falling somewhere in the middle. And given that the biggest need for the Mets is second base, this should be good news.

Luis Castillo had a good season offensively for the Mets last year, so it’s easy to forget how desperate they were to get rid of him last offseason, or how desperate they probably should be to get rid of him this offseason. Here’s the thing:

Luis Castillo, as solid as he was with the bat in 2009, was a terrible defender. He ranked last  among qualifying second basemen in UZR and third to last in plus/minus. Anyone who watched the games doesn’t need the fancy stats to rate his defense, either; to the eye, his range was abysmal.

And at his age, with his knees, it’s probably only going to get worse.

If the Mets are actually considering groundball pitchers like Joel Pineiro, they’d be wise to first upgrade defensively in their infield. Especially — especially! — if the Mets are really thinking about giving Carlos Delgado and his hip woes another go of it at first base, with Jose Reyes at shortstop recovering from a leg injury and David Wright at third base coming off a pretty miserable defensive season of his own.

It would be either hilarious or depressing to see Pineiro reprise his 60-percent groundball rate in front of that infield, but be dismissed as a one-year Dave Duncan wonder because far, far more of the weakly hit grounders he yields dribble past the Mets’ infielders for hits.

But now I’m getting ahead of myself.

Do I realize that John Smoltz is an old, old man? Of course. Do I advocate the acquisition of hordes of 42-year-old pitchers with lengthy histories of arm trouble? Not at all.

But if the Mets are really interested in Smoltz, and the old-timer isn’t really looking for much more than a few million in base salary, laden with incentives, I say do it.

Smoltz stunk with the Red Sox last season — that much is irrefutable. He allowed eight home runs and and posted a miserable 56 ERA+ in his time in Beantown.

But once he got to St. Louis, Smoltz pitched something like the old John Smoltz. Maybe not quite the young John Smoltz of his Cy Young season, but certainly similar to the old John Smoltz of the John Smoltz post-bullpen renaissance from 2005-2007. Check it out:

In those three seasons, Smoltz allowed 8.5 hits per nine innings, 0.9 home runs per nine, 2.1 walks per nine, and struck out 7.8 batters per nine. In his seven starts with the Cardinals, Smoltz allowed 8.5 hits per nine, 0.7 home runs per nine, 2.1 walks per nine, and struck out 9.5 batters per nine.

Seven starts is a small sample, mind you, and it’s not fair to entirely dismiss Smoltz’s totals from Boston. Certainly, pitching in the American League East is tougher than anything he’d be asked to do with the Mets, plus he was coming off shoulder surgery so it’s reasonable to wonder if he was still building up his strength, but Smoltz took his worst shellings in his last four starts with the Sox, so it’s not as if he was quietly getting stronger and they just gave up on him too soon.

Plus it’d be silly to mention all Smoltz’s rate stats with the Cardinals and not note that his ERA+ from 2005-2007 was a sterling 135 and was a meager 96 with St. Louis in 2009. Since the rate stats were so similar, as mentioned, and the strikeout rate actually improved, I’d say that’s most likely do to a small sample and a run of bad luck, but I’ll allow the possibility that Smoltz was getting hit a lot harder. Still, according to baseball-reference he only allowed a 17-percent line-drive rate in those starts, which is actually lower than his season rates in the 2005-2007 span.

In other words, I say do it. I don’t know that Smoltz will continue to pitch like he did with the Cardinals, or that he’ll stay healthy, but if he’s willing to be had for so little money, why not? The upside is a guy who could be a very good starter, plus he comes with the built-in hedge of being willing to pitch out of the bullpen if he somehow is healthy but can’t cut it in the rotation.

For a long time, I was convinced the Mets just needed innings, and so should go out and pick up innings-eaters like Jon Garland. But the more I think about it, I realize that what happened last year forced the Mets to acquire a slew of guys who can eat innings in unspectacular fashion. The Mets can probably get Jon Garland innings out of Nelson Figueroa. They can’t get John Smoltz innings out of Jon Garland.

I think if the Mets want to even hope to contend in 2010, they need to take small risks on upside plays like Smoltz and Ben Sheets and hope they pay off. Frankly, they’re already putting a lot of stock in Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran and Johan Santana returning healthy, and David Wright returning to form, and Jeff Francoeur’s Citi Field success not being a small sample size fluke. Simply put, they’re going to be relying on a whole lot of things falling their way.

But that’s what happens to the teams that win championships — it’s what needs to happen. Sometimes, everything just falls your way, and then you win. And when you’re operating with a limited budget, one of the best ways to make it actually come to fruition is to take bets on guys with big upside.

As I write this, I know there’s a large fraction of Mets fans who’ll say, “Smoltz!? F@#$ Smoltz! That guy’s a Brave, and I couldn’t bear to see him in a Mets uniform.” And I realize the way the Tom Glavine thing ended in Queens doesn’t bode well for his longtime teammate. But guys like Smoltz can help the Mets win, and I promise if he does, you’ll be more than happy to forgive his tenure in Atlanta.

Too bad Tsuyoshi Shinjo never looked quite as good playing baseball as he did posing in a baseball uniform. But then again, how could anybody ever look that good?

Photo courtesy of David:

Sometimes I actually think people are a little too hard on Bob Klapisch. He at least thinks differently than his hordes of mainstream media columnist brethren, and sometimes he stumbles upon an interesting idea. And I think it’s become sort of a knee-jerk reaction among Mets fans to assume everything he’s written is bad and dumb and too harsh against the Mets without giving it a fair shake.

Then he writes something like this.

Holy crap, Bob Klapisch. First of all, this is completely pointless. If the Mets were going to move in the fences, they’d be working on it by now, and they most certainly wouldn’t have said yesterday that they decidedly weren’t moving in the fences. So this column is useless.

Second, holy crap. I’m sorry but some things require the ol’ Fire Joe Morgan treatment. Here’s to heroes Ken Tremendous, dak and Junior. Bold words are Klapisch’s. Here we go:

Whatever you think about the $66 million the Mets have invested in Jason Bay – whether it could’ve been better spent on John Lackey or tucked away for a run at next year’s elite crop of free agents – this much is irrefutable: Home runs have become the most critical currency at Citi Field.

Is that irrefutable? I could refute that. Wait, I don’t know if I can. Hold on a second. I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying here, Bob Klapisch. Why are they the most critical currency? Because the Mets didn’t hit many? Other teams did. Other teams hit plenty. Everyone forgets that.

It’s a ambitious change in philosophy, considering the Mets hit the fewest HRs in the National League last year.

No, silly! It’s an ambitious change in philosophy. Plus, I’m not sure the Mets’ decision to hit the fewest home runs in the National League last year was a philosophical one. Actually, I’m pretty sure it had to do with everybody in the freaking lineup getting hurt. But whatever, let’s move on.

With Bay coming off a 36-homer season in Boston, Mets now have the potential to rival the Phillies in sheer muscle. That is, if Carlos Beltran can stay healthy all year, if Carlos Delgado returns and David Wright finds his 2008 stroke.

And we haven’t even mentioned Jeff Francoeur, who could bat as low as seventh in this power-laden lineup.

Wow. And guess what? If the Carloses Beltran and Delgado were healthy all last year and David Wright had his 2008 stroke — even without Bay in the lineup — the Mets would not have hit the fewest home runs in the National League. They’d actually probably have landed somewhere right in the middle of the pack, and so your whole premise would be shot, and so no one would need to be writing columns about bringing in the fences at Citi Field. That’s the whole thing.

But wait, here comes my favorite part:

The Mets don’t appear to be close to any significant up grades [sic] in their starting rotation, so if they want to improve their run-differential why not maximize their HR quotient by reconfiguring the ballpark?

Differential? Maximize? Quotient? Klapisch must be onto something smart here, right?

Oh, wait. He’s just using big words to shroud the dumbest f@#$ing thing I’ve ever read. Reconfiguring the ballpark around the same crappy pitchers will not alter the home run quotient. Reconfiguring the ballpark will only make those pitchers allow more home runs. Yes, the Mets will hit more home runs, too, but they’ll be yielding more at the same time, since they’ll be playing in the same ballpark as the other team, no matter how it’s configured. Unless Klapisch has some plan in mind for a radical newfangled wall that changes heights between the tops and bottoms of innings, the home run quotient will stay exactly the same.

And then, the kicker:

According to ESPN.com’s park factors that were released Tuesday, Citi was the major leagues’ seventh-easiest place to hit a triple in 2009.

Holy crap, sir. You found your way to ESPN.com’s park factors? While you were there, did you miss the part that showed Citi Field played as a slightly homer-friendly field in 2009? Or, worse, did you see it and think, “meh, it doesn’t really aid my point about how the Mets should move the fences in so they can hit more home runs like the Yankees and Phillies, so I’ll pretend I didn’t see it and cherry-pick this tidbit about the triples”?

I’m done here. There’s more fodder for comedy, but I’m bored with it.

Look: I don’t know the truth about whether Citi Field squashes home-run totals and I don’t purport to. I don’t think anybody does. It certainly looks big and it’s obviously earned that reputation. But there’s no evidence yet that it plays big, and everything we’ve learned so far says that it takes years to reach a definitive conclusion about a park’s effect on ballgames.

It’s baffling how many people think otherwise.

In addition to rolling out Jason Bay today, the Mets announced that they signed Russ Adams, Mike Cervenak and Mike Hessman to Minor League contracts and invited them to Spring Training, according to a press release that I actually got during the Bay news conference.

Hessman’s name, I believe, surfaced earlier this offseason. I hadn’t heard Adams’ or Cervenak’s thus far this year, but maybe I wasn’t listening closely enough, or something.

Hessman is a big, right-handed three-true-outcomes masher in the Val Pascucci mold, only probably not as good a hitter as Pascucci. Adams was actually the Blue Jays’ starting shortstop in 2005 but has been mostly a Triple-A second baseman for the past three seasons, and Cervenak could probably best be described as the Ty Wigginton of the International League.

What’s most interesting about the three acquisitions, I think, is that all three bring lengthy International League resumes to their (presumed) new club in Buffalo.

Check this out: In the past three years, Cervenak has played a total of 374 games in the International League. In the past four, Adams has played 404 games in the International League. And over the past eight years — eight seasons — Hessman has played 899 games in the International League.

That means that today, the Mets added 1677 games of International League experience.

I imagine this is part of that whole “do better by the city of Buffalo” effort they spoke to last summer, when the Bisons (yeah, it’s plural) were trotting out one of the most embarrassing clubs imaginable. And pretty clearly the Mets have determined that the city of Buffalo wants to see familiar International League heroes prowling Coca-Cola Field.

I mean, far be it for me to understand the mind of the Triple-A fan. But hey, Buffalo: I hope you like Mike Hessman, because that’s what you’re getting.