What if the Mets really did nothing this offseason, and couldn’t sign Jason Bay or Bengie Molina or Joel Pineiro or whoever else? How bad off would they be? Let’s take a (completely theoretical) look:

Catcher: Josh Thole (L), Henry Blanco (R)

First base: Daniel Murphy (L), Nick Evans (R)

Second base: Luis Castillo (B)

Third base: David Wright (R)

Shortstop: Jose Reyes (B)

Left field: Angel Pagan (B)

Center field: Carlos Beltran (B)

Right field: Jeff Francoeur (R)

Bench: Alex Cora (INF), Chris Carter (OF/1B), Anderson Hernandez (INF), Omir Santos (C)

Starting pitchers: Johan Santana (LHP), Mike Pelfrey (RHP), Oliver Perez (LHP), John Maine (RHP), Jon Niese (LHP)

Bullpen: Francisco Rodriguez (RHP), Kelvim Escobar (RHP), Ryota Igarashi (RHP), Pedro Feliciano (LHP), Bobby Parnell (RHP), Sean Green (RHP), Brian Stokes (RHP)

That’s assuming a lot of things, of course. Health is the main one. Obviously Reyes, Beltran, Santana, Escobar, Perez, Niese and Francoeur all have some major to minor question marks attached to them, injury-wise.

And it’s assuming the Mets would give Thole the opportunity to start the season in a platoon, which I doubt, plus carry three catchers, which I also doubt. But it’s an arbitrary and theoretical exercise anyway.

But that said, does the team look downright terrible? It would be counting on a whole lot of things to fall the right way, of course.

One minor positive to the 2009 season might be that it forced Omar Minaya to pick up a good deal of pitching depth to handcuff the current crop of injury-prone starters. This club wouldn’t include Nelson Figueroa, Pat Misch, Fernando Nieve and Tobi Stoner, all of whom could be stashed in Buffalo for when one of the “mainstays” inevitably goes down.

Is the team, on paper, good enough to compete with the Roy Halladay-bolstered, reigning-champion Phillies? Not by a long shot. But it would give Thole, Murphy, Evans, Pagan and Francoeur opportunities to show whether they deserve to be parts of the Mets’ long-term plans while allowing more impressive prospects deeper in the system to develop at higher levels.

Which is not to say it’s a plan I’m advocating. But I also don’t think it would be the worst idea in the world.

Today’s the last day of my too-brief holiday vacation, but I’ll try to post a few things just to keep you entertained if you’re unfortunate enough to be stuck in the office. I’ll be in the same spot tomorrow.

The Jets won by forfeit yesterday when the Colts brought in some Brit-rocker looking dude named Curtis Painter who promptly made Kellen Clemens look like Johnny Unitas. Now they’ll make the playoffs if they beat the Bengals next Sunday.

The Daily News provides Top 10 best and Top 10 worst New York athletes of the decade lists. I’m sorry, but up until this year, the Daily News definitely would have had A-Rod on the Top 10 worst list. Also, Kei Igawa’s inclusion seems kind of random and mean.

Oliver Perez surfaced to talk about his knee and his outlook for 2010.

Omar Minaya said some stuff.

Courtesy of the fellas at Baseball Think Factory, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a photo gallery of Jeff Francoeur’s golfing trip to Scotland. And as you can see, his surgically repaired thumb looks just fine:

UPDATE: I should have read the captions more closely. Apparently Frenchy’s golfing trip to Scotland came before the thumb surgery, so clearly he was just showing off his ability to stretch out those ligaments before putting ’em away for the winter. Anyway, doesn’t make the photo any less hilarious.

This blogging thing is tough sometimes. I’m sitting here, surrounded by the detritus of Christmas, overwhelmed by the idea of cleaning it up, and realizing I should probably be weighing in on the Mets’ acquisition of Kelvim Escobar.

Kelvim Escobar is pretty damn good when he’s healthy. Kelvim Escobar hasn’t been healthy since 2007. I don’t know the details of the contract yet, so it’s impossible to say whether it’s a good deal for the Mets. If it’s guaranteed multiple millions of dollars for a guy with major arm issues, it’s not. But it probably isn’t, in which case, it’s a good low risk pickup for a guy who could pay huge dividends.

So that’s nice. Beyond that, there’s talk that Joel Pineiro is now the Mets’ top pitching target and they could finally be moving on from Jason Bay and probably 30 other rumors that may or may not come to pass.

To be honest, I’m finding it hard to focus. I’ve got new shoes to break in, and a whole book of previously unpublished Kurt Vonnegut material I can’t wait to read, and a blown-up photo of the Empire State Building lit blue and orange that I’ve got to hang someplace, and all this damn wrapping paper to throw away.

Anyway, in the spirit of Boxing Day (Canada), a big thanks to everyone who has come to TedQuarters in the couple of months since launch. I’ve had a lot of fun writing it, and I’ve been pleasantly surprised by all the feedback. So gracias, and I look forward to continuing to sort through all the New York sports nonsense while occasionally breaking to wax poetically about Taco Bell in 2010.

Matt Cerrone and Eric Simon are running down their all-decade lists for the Mets, and for lack of anything more interesting to write about, I figured I’d weigh in with my anti-all-decade team. Because I’m just that snarky and just that bored.

To qualify, players had to play in at least 50 games at their position for the Mets. And they had to have failed miserably, at least based on my own completely subjective standards.

Catcher: Omir Santos, 2009. This might be the most controversial choice on the list, because ol’ Extra-Base Omir is responsible for at least as many good memories (the Omiracle) as bad ones, and he shouldn’t really be faulted for earning Jerry Manuel’s favor early in the 2009 season. But Santos makes the squad as a representative of the Mets’ frightful disdain for adequate sample sizes, evidenced both by the team’s willingness to trade Ramon Castro after Santos’ hot start and the baffling, unforgettable decision to pinch-hit Santos for Castro with the game on the line, after Castro was already 2-for-4, and while Santos was in the bullpen, not even anywhere near the action.

Other candidates were either way too good (Mike Piazza), way too likable (Jason Phillips), completely serviceable (Vance Wilson), or had at least one decent season before outing themselves as crappy (Paul Lo Duca).

First base: Mo Vaughn, 2002-2003. Vaughn actually hit 26 home runs for the Mets in 2002, and again, it’s not really his fault Steve Phillips thought he was worth bringing in after an impressive batting cage session. But Vaughn stands today as one of the Mets’ most massive failures, both literally and figuratively, for his inability to stay healthy or play even a semblance of defense. Too bad, too, because by most accounts he’s a really good guy.

My lasting memory of Vaughn’s time on the Mets will always be the sight of him hurling one into center field while attempting to throw the ball around the infield during David Cone’s first comeback start in 2003 on an absolutely miserable April day at Shea.

Second base: Miguel Cairo, 2005. This was a tough, tough choice, but Miguel Cairo earns the nod over various luminaries the Mets have trotted out to the second sack in the aughts. Signed as a free-agent after his only decent Major League season, Cairo proceeded to post an alarming 64 OPS+ for the Mets while starting 74 games filling in for the injured Kaz Matsui (also a strong candidate).

Cairo also lost points because the Mets actually started him at first base six times, which was mind-boggling. He was the poor man’s Alex Cora way before Alex Cora, and the first in a long line of Willie Randolph’s “guys” to accumulate far too much playing time.

Third base: Joe McEwing, 2000-2004. Inserting Super Joe into the third-base slot is sort of a stretch — he only played 57 games at the position in his tenure with the Amazins and many of them were as a late-game defensive replacement. But, frankly, he had to make the squad somewhere, and despite the Mets’ historical troubles finding an everyday third baseman, the position has mostly been filled admirably during this decade.

McEwing combined obnoxious grit with a complete inability to hit, tallying a 69 OPS+ in five seasons with the Mets. I felt a little bit guilty when I booed him mercilessly from a good seat in his new home in Kaufman Stadium in 2005, but not guilty enough to leave him off this squad. He was versatile, sure, and likable to many, but it can’t be that hard to find someone simply willing to play every position if he can’t hit at all.

Shortstop: Kaz Matsui, 2004-2005. Why does Matsui get the nod over Cora? Because people were actually convinced Matsui would be good. I wasn’t, for what it’s worth, but lots and lots of people were. So convinced, in fact, that the Mets were willing to move young Jose Reyes to second base to accommodate Matsui. That did not go well.

Before I had any sort of forum on which to spew my opinions about the Mets, I remember arguing with friends over Matsui’s merits before the 2004 season. I would point out that his career on-base percentage in the NPB was about 50 points lower than those of Hideki Matsui and Ichiro Suzuki, and they would always — always — counter that he was on the cover of ESPN the Magazine and thus must be good. He makes the team because of that argument alone.

Left field: Roger Cedeno, 2002-2003. Cedeno’s first stint with the Mets — in 1999, under the tutelage of Rickey Henderson — probably would have been enough to keep him off this list if it happened in this decade. But it didn’t, so here it is.

Cedeno manned mostly corner outfield positions in his second go-round with the club despite showing no appreciable and not getting on base enough to make his speed worthwhile. Plus, to paraphrase Keith Hernandez’s greatest quote, he played the outfield “as if being chased by bees.”

Center field: Carlos Beltran, 2005-current. This overpaid and oft-injured whining clubhouse cancer signed a mega-contract with the Mets before the 2005 season despite obviously hating baseball. Then he struck out with the bases loaded to end their 2006 season. HE DIDN’T EVEN SWING! HE SUCKS! TRADE HIM!

I’m kidding, obviously. The actual starter is Jeff Duncan, who posted a downright amazing 35 OPS+ in 69 games in 2003 and 2004. I actually liked Duncan because he walked 10 times in his first 46 plate appearances. Then, I guess, Major League pitchers figured out he wasn’t a free-swinger and just started putting pitches over the plate, where he couldn’t actually hit them.

Right field: Karim Garcia, 2004. Karim Garcia started 68 games in the outfield for the 2004 Mets. Somehow, and thankfully, I have managed to block all of them. He posted a .272 on-base percentage in the stretch and was so bad that I couldn’t go with my first instinct to ignore him and insert Marlon Anderson in the lineup, even though Anderson didn’t accumulate 50 games in right. I was going to argue that Anderson’s ample time in left made him a capable corner outfielder on the failsquad, but Garcia’s existence made it a moot point.

Starting pitcher: Jose Lima, 2006. Did Jose Lima hit the 50-game threshold? No, he stopped at four. But 50 games is a lot for a starting pitcher, and I really liked Jae Seo, and Lima’s four games of awfulness were so memorably bad that he makes the team just on principle. What was worse, he punctuated them with ridiculous posturing, the type of thing that’s exciting and fun when it comes from a great player like Reyes but completely intolerable when it’s pouring forth from one of the very worst starting pitchers of all time.

Relief pitcher: Jorge Sosa, 2007-2008. Sosa actually wasn’t terrible in 2007, and the Mets have had a lot of bad relievers over the past 10 years, but I couldn’t in good conscience pick someone who wasn’t on the 2008 team and Sosa was so bad in 20 appearances that I deemed him “The White Flag,” the human embodiment of forfeit. Plus it wasn’t like he was good enough in 2007 to make up for it, as Aaron Heilman was, or good enough at a specialty role, like Scott Schoeneweis.

Who’d I miss? Comment away and fill me in.

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.

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.