Look: Einstein was sweet, don’t get me wrong. This site respects smart dudes and independent thinkers, and he was undoubtedly both those things.

But his famed quote about the definition of insanity is, as far as I’m concerned, a blemish on his record. Not due to any fault of his own, really — just because of the frequency with which it is used in baseball discussions, to which it absolutely does not apply.

For the record: The definition of insanity is not “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Look it up. There are a bunch of different definitions, but none of them is that.

I say the Mets should tender contracts to Angel Pagan and Mike Pelfrey, and that they shouldn’t trade David Wright. And you say, “well… that’s the definition of insanity.”

No. No. For one thing, it’s baseball. You’re not talking about controlled laboratory experiments, you’re talking about a sport dominated by randomness.

Hell, look at Mike Pelfrey’s career statlines. Mike Pelfrey mostly throws only one pitch. Mike Pelfrey tries the same thing over and over again and gets different results. In 2007, he did bad. In 2008, he did good. In 2009, bad, in 2010, good again, and then in 2011, bad.

And was Pagan trying to do something expressly different in 2010 than he was in 2011? He suffered through some injuries, so that could explain some of the dip in production. But it’s possible he too tried the same thing and got different results. After all, at least some of Pagan’s struggles must be explained by the near 50-point drop in his batting average on balls in play from 2010 to 2011.

Anyway, I’m getting away from the point. Bringing back Pagan, Pelfrey and Wright (and Jose Reyes, which I’d also advocate) in 2011 won’t mean trying the exact same thing again.

Players change from year to year, and young players (hopefully) improve. There’s some turnover: Carlos Beltran is gone now, Daniel Murphy and Lucas Duda should be in the lineup somewhere come Opening Day. Players returning from injury should help the club’s offensive fortunes. Opportunities given to injury replacements in 2011 should benefit the team’s bench in 2012.

This is, of course, me looking at a nearly empty glass and pronouncing it full. There are a lot of issues with this club, and it’ll take a whole lot to go right for the Mets to win anything meaningful in 2012.

But since given the team’s financial inflexibility, there’s no single feasible move or series of moves that could catapult the club into certain contention for this season, it does not seem at all insane to suggest the Mets make a couple of inexpensive, short-term moves to return players who could bounce back.

Crazy would be… well, crazy would be advocating the Mets non-tender Pagan in favor of signing Rick Ankiel, who is not as good as Pagan.

Here’s what you have to hope happens: David Wright flourishes in the cozier Citi Field and hits like he did from 2005-2008. Ike Davis returns from injury and locks down the cleanup spot in the Mets’ lineup. Daniel Murphy finds a position — at second base, I guess — and keeps hitting like he can. Pagan returns to something closer to his 2010 form on offense and on defense. Josh Thole puts his defensive struggles behind him and again puts up decent offensive numbers for a catcher. Lucas Duda hits like he did in 2011 for a full year in 2012 and either a) plays well enough with shorter fences in right field to avoid entirely embarrassing himself or b) moves to left field when Kirk Nieuwenhuis kicks down the door from Buffalo (assuming Jason Bay is still struggling).

Or Bay, too, benefits from the closer walls, maybe. And Reyes… well, I guess if you’re hoping all that stuff happens you might as well hope Reyes can’t find a better deal than whatever it is the Mets are offering and comes back home to his adoring fans. Oh, and Jon Niese lives up to his peripherals, Pelfrey posts his 2010 line, R.A. Dickey pitches like he did the last two seasons, Dillon Gee holds it together, and Johan Santana resembles at least a league-average starting pitcher.

Sandy Alderson and the SABRos cobble together a better bullpen with scrap-heap guys and Rob Carson types, and come deadline time one of the pitching prospects appears ready for primetime, so Pelfrey can be moved to help address the team’s most glaring need.

That’s what we can cling to, I guess. If everyone in the lineup returns to their best form or enjoys their best possible year — kinda like the way the 2011 Cardinals did, say — then it would be one of the best in the league, and that rotation, if healthy, should be good enough to keep that lineup in games.

Is it all likely to go that way? Oh hell no. But that’s what we’ve come to.

It’s sub-optimal, I know. But I wouldn’t say all hope is lost yet, and I wouldn’t advocate silly moves just for the sake of change. As I’ve said before: The change we’re seeking has already been made. Because of the Mets’ financial circumstances, it’s going to take the new front office some time to make more of an impact. But it’ll come. No need to force it.

That was a pathetic, ridiculous article you wrote about how the team should keep Wright because they are reconfiguring and lowering the fences to David the Whiner Wrights specifications. Get rid of him, he’s useless, he struck out more anything last season anyhow. What guarantee is there with the fences being moved in he will hit any more home runs than he did last season. You make me laugh your so pathetic, as is David Wright

– Brian, via email.

Why thank you, Brian! Your insight is appreciated.

I’d provide a more substantive response or explain the various ways in which the things you think I said are not actually what I said, but I’m going to defer to Patrick Flood on this one. He just put out the first of a three-part thing on David Wright and the Citi Field wall, and it seems like it’s going to be pretty damn awesome.

One high-ranking front office insider said that, when Citi Field’s new dimensions were being considered, “there was a lot of discussion about Wright,” and how it would help him. Wright hit 14 home runs last season, in an injury-shortened year. The Mets expect the new homer-friendlier field to boost his value far higher than it is right now. The team’s top decision-makers view it as illogical to deal Wright before he has the chance to benefit from the alterations.

– Andy Martino, N.Y. Daily News.

I’ve said almost this same exact thing here before, but again: This, so hard.

If the Mets believe the Citi Field walls had some effect on their hitters beyond those that can be measured — the psychological or mechanical ones so often suggested, for example — then it makes no sense to trade the hitter most obviously impacted by those walls before he can even play in the reconfigured stadium.

For a long time I was convinced David Wright’s struggles from 2009-2011 had nothing to do with Citi Field. I pointed to the park factor and his home-road splits and various injuries. And I’m still open to the possibility that it’s just a massive coincidence that as soon as Citi Field opened Wright went all weird offensively.

But I mean, look at the back of the baseball card. Wright was amazingly consistent from 2005 to 2008. There’s no obvious reason he should suddenly lose his power and start striking out way more at age 26. And don’t tell me it’s the Matt Cain fastball, either — Wright was having a very strange 2009 long before that happened.

Trading Wright this offseason makes so little sense for so many reasons. It’s bizarre that it keeps coming up.

This afternoon, I asked Twitter to tell me why the Mets should non-tender Angel Pagan and who should replace him if they do. Here are the most compelling arguments:

I’ve been through this before and I’m already breaking my earlier promise to not repeat myself. But non-tendering Angel Pagan doesn’t really make any sense.

I’ve read all the same reports you have claiming the team might do so, but until it does, I’ll be skeptical. And if it does, I’d like to hear a pretty solid explanation why.

Pagan did not have a great year. But neither did Coco Crisp, David DeJesus or Grady Sizemore, the three free-agents most often mentioned when discussing the Mets’ center-field situation.

Crisp hit slightly worse than Pagan did in 2011, and his career stats are slightly worse. He’s two years older than Pagan and prone to injuries. Like Pagan, Crisp traditionally rates well defensively but appeared to struggle in 2011.

DeJesus posted an OPS+ identical to Pagan’s in 2011, though his career offensive stats are slightly better than Pagan’s. He hasn’t played much center field since 2008, and hasn’t been an everyday center fielder since 2007. He’s also two years older than Pagan.

Grady Sizemore has not been better than Angel Pagan since 2008, when he was awesome. Sizemore is a year younger than Pagan but he gets hurt constantly. He played only 33 games in 2010 and 71 in 2011, and he played poorly in both seasons. If he can ever regain his awesome form, he will again be awesome (obviously). But it doesn’t appear likely he will.

B.J. Upton is younger, generally healthier, and better than Pagan — though not by as much as you’d think. Upton retains some cachet from his days as an uber-prospect, but by WAR he has never had a season as good as Pagan’s 2010. At 27, he’s younger than Pagan and a better bet to play well over the next several years.

But Upton is in his last arbitration year with the Rays, meaning he’d have to be non-tendered to become a free-agent (which seems unlikely given his obvious trade value) or the Mets would have to trade something to acquire him. Since Upton is set for free agency next offseason — any team that trades for him would either get only one year of his services or have to broker a negotiating window in which to sign Upton for what will likely be a market-rate extension.

Neither seems to make a hell of a lot of sense for the Mets. The difference between Upton and Pagan is not likely to be great enough to launch the Mets into contention in 2012, and the team’s limited financial flexibility probably complicates — if not entirely negates — the possibility of a long-term extension.

Down on the farm, the Mets have center field prospects in Kirk Nieuwenhuis and Matt den Dekker. But Nieuwenhuis missed most of last season with a shoulder injury, and den Dekker struck out in more than 1/3 of his at-bats in Double-A. Neither appears ready to replace Pagan by April.

The only real strong reason I can see to non-tender Pagan is to make a change for the sake of change. Barring a trade, it looks unlikely the Mets will have many new names penciled in to their lineup or starting rotation come March. Perhaps there’s some minor value in whatever increase in ticket sales come with a fresh face, but… well, c’mon. You’re going to choose an inferior player (potentially for more money) as a marketing gimmick?

Doesn’t make sense. Obviously we’ll see how this all plays out, but given the strong logic demonstrated by Sandy Alderson’s regime thus far and the lack of obvious better options, I’d bet Pagan is back next spring.

According to a baseball person, Jose Reyes could sign with the Mets as early as next week. A source familiar with the Mets’ thinking says they will offer Reyes a conservative contract they believe adequately compensates the shortstop for the value he will provide the team for the next several years. Reyes can then accept the contract, look elsewhere, or attempt to negotiate.

If Reyes does not sign with the Mets, he could field offers from various other Major League Baseball teams, especially those with payroll flexibility and a need at shortstop. He could sign with one of them soon, or at the Winter Meetings, or later in the offseason. If Reyes does not sign a contract until later in the offseason, he will likely field offers from unaffiliated Minor League teams attempting publicity stunts.

I’d continue with this again, but I don’t have the stomach for it.

Point is, the whole hot stove season — or at least the media coverage of it — is stupid. It’s fun to speculate about what a team might do. But you and me and everyone else with access to Cots and baseball-reference know as much meaningful information about what will happen this offseason as anyone who is not a MLB player agent or front-office decision-maker.

Information leaked out to the press is often leaked out for a reason. And there’s such an overwhelming glut of nonsensical, pointless and utterly unsubstantiated information reported that in the rare event a reporter might actually have a hot scoop, it will be impossible to distinguish from the mire.

Until any deal is done, no one can be certain it will happen. So all offseason baseball coverage is couched with vague language.

I’m reporting this right now: The Mets could trade David Wright but probably won’t. The Mets might sign Jose Reyes. Let me know if you see anything firmer than that published anywhere.

The more interesting discussion, of course, is whether the Mets should trade David Wright and should sign Jose Reyes. And the constant updates on both scenarios, however silly, perpetuate those discussions, however stupid.

I prefer not to repeat myself more than I already have, so here’s this: The Mets should not trade David Wright. They should re-sign Jose Reyes if the price is right. The Mets should offer arbitration to Mike Pelfrey and to Angel Pagan.

There’s a bunch of other stuff they should do, too. We’ll figure that out as it goes along.