Many people think a tan protects them by helping block the damaging effects of UV radiation. In fact, a tan represents skin damage. Even brief exposure to ultraviolet light can cause mutations in the DNA of skin cells, including the melanocytes, the host cells for melanoma. Accumulate enough of those mutations and a cancer can result.

“As we age, the number of mutations increase and our immunity wanes,” Dr. Wagner explained — a double whammy that greatly increases the likelihood of skin cancer.

– Jane E. Brody, New York Times.

I’m not here to tell you what to do and I hate being too preachy or a total spoilsport. But it’s getting to be beach season, and in the spirit of Johan Santana’s event last night I figured I’d pass along the link.

Wearing sunscreen is way easier than dying. The only tricky part is that not all sunscreens adequately protect the whole range of sunrays that can mess you up. Look for products that boast “broad-spectrum” protection or use this guide.

But hey, don’t take my word for it. John Franco’s closing in on 50 (!) with the radiant skin of a 35-year-old. Is it weird that I asked Mike Pelfrey if he “slathered up”? Yes. Whatever. For a good cause.

“We have enough as it is right now, but there’s nothing wrong with improving what we have,” Santana said at his charity bowling tournament Monday night in Manhattan…

“We’ve been playing great, but to go out and add a guy like (Oswalt or Lee), it might put us over the top,” Pelfrey said. “You would definitely love to have those guys on your team. I think those are some of the elite pitchers in the game. It definitely can help if you go out and get them.”

Pelfrey made sure to stress that such a decision is “above my pay-grade,” while adding, “I feel pretty comfortable with the guys we have … so I don’t know if it’s a necessity. If they’re able to bring them on board, it’s great. If they don’t, I think we’ll be fine.”

– Peter Botte, N.Y. Daily News.

Breaking: Mike Pelfrey respects the chain of command. Also, Pelfrey and Johan Santana both think Roy Oswalt and Cliff Lee are good pitchers who would help the Mets, but that the Mets are doing pretty well without them. Nothing shocking here.

Speculating about the trade market is one of the most fun things about being a fan and often one of the most frustrating things about talking to other fans.

Anyone can argue that the Mets should push to acquire one of Oswalt, Lee or Dan Haren, and hey, any of those guys would significantly increase the Mets’ chances of sustaining a pennant run in 2010.

But it’s never that simple, obviously. First, it’s important to consider the costs and risks involved. As well as the Mets have been playing, there’s always some chance that they’ll fall out of contention even with an additional front-line starter.

Though the added depth in the rotation will undoubtedly make the team better, Santana and Pelfrey are both outpitching their peripherals this season and it’s eminently possible that more than one of Hisanori Takahashi, Jon Niese and R.A. Dickey will struggle as the league becomes more familiar with their repertoires. And the threat of injuries always looms. Trading a gaggle of prospects means jeopardizing the team’s long-term success, and it would be a shame to do so in the name of anything less than a playoff berth.

Then again, success in baseball can be fleeting, and there’s an understandable urge to go all-in when things appear to be falling the right way for a team — as they are for the 2010 Mets. I generally rail against the idea of trading prospects for quick fixes and rentals, but since prospects are never guaranteed to pan out and championships should trump everything, there are times when it’s right to trade for established stars.

Regardless, lumping Lee, Haren and Oswalt together as though they are interchangeable is silly. They are different pitchers and they have wildly distinct contract situations that will impact both their cost on the trade market and their value to their team.

Lee is awesome and enjoying a spectacular season. In 2010, he has more wins than walks allowed. His 2.55 ERA is actually a half a run higher than his FIP.

But Lee is only signed for the rest of this season. It’s a safe bet he’ll continue being awesome — though probably not this awesome — for the rest of 2010, but he reportedly hopes to test the free-agent market in the offseason. The upside to that, for an acquiring team, means he essentially comes with two high draft picks. The downside is that he’s a rental in the purest sense of the term, and whatever established prospects it will likely take to land him will be a more known quantity — and likely closer to the Majors — than the 2011 picks.

Oswalt is very good and having an excellent season after two in which he showed signs of decline. But Oswalt is set to make $16 million in 2011 with a $16 million option for 2012 that will require a $2 million buyout.

That’s a little above the market rate for a pitcher of Oswalt’s caliber, and he is 32 and not getting any younger. Trading for him means taking on his contract, which, while far from a disaster, will make any team a whole lot less flexible to spend money in the offseason. Of course, the size of his contract should also lower his price in prospects on the trade market.

Haren is excellent, but having a season below his usual standards. He has been one of the best and most durable starters in the National League for the past several years, but in 2010 he has been victimized by career highs in BABIP and home run/flyball rate — indicators of bad luck.

Haren’s contract will pay him $12.75 million in 2011 and 2012, and includes a $15.5 million club option for 2013 with a $3.5 million buyout. He’s only 29, so it’s reasonable to expect him to maintain something close to his standard exceptional level of performance for the length of the deal. Haren represents a massive bargain to any acquiring club.

Of course, there are few signs that the Diamondbacks are ready to enter sell mode, and since Haren is a valuable commodity on a reasonable contract, it’s hard to see what — short of a complete fire sale — would motivate the club to trade him. Even if they don’t aim to contend in 2010, Haren should be a big part of their plans for the future.

Lee, Oswalt and Haren are not the same. Haren should cost the most in terms of prospects, but also appears to be by far the most worthwhile acquisition for any team’s future. Lee should cost less, but will provide less. Oswalt should come cheapest of the three due to his expensive contract.

With Kurt Mensching from BlessYouBoys.com:

You didn’t expect me to keep quiet about this, did you?

With a spot in the rotation no longer available, Maine is willing to pitch out of the bullpen. The Mets, however, do not feel that he is suited to relieving.

“He has trouble getting his arm ready before starts,” pitching coach Dan Warthen said. “I would worry about his resilience (in the bullpen). It’s one of the most difficult roles in baseball.”…

The sniping continued Saturday, when Manuel made light of Maine’s difficult situation, joking that he would “pitch him on off days.”

– Andy Martino, N.Y. Daily News.

Look: I don’t aim to complain that John Maine has likely thrown his last pitch for the Mets. Though I have always held out hope for Maine and suspect he’ll again pitch decently someday, it does not appear Maine will ever flourish in Flushing. I could argue that it would be silly for a team without much pitching depth to part with a pitcher and point out that Maine, as bad as he was this year, still posted a better K:BB ratio than Fernando Nieve and a lower WHIP than Ryota Igarashi. And it’s much easier to pitch in relief than in the rotation.

Whatever. I’m biased toward Maine because he seems like precisely my type of weirdo, but Maine has been pretty bad since the middle of the 2008 season when his shoulder first started acting up.

My quibble, in this situation, is not with Maine’s departure as much as the way Manuel and Warthen are handling it. I try not to put too much stock in the things baseball players or coaches say to the media since I can’t imagine it massively impacts much of anything, but at best the pair seem unprofessional and at worst like total jerks.

Why throw John Maine under the bus when he has been riding in the wheel-well for two years? I get and appreciate that Manuel’s a funny guy, but it seems patently wrong for a manager to make jokes at the expense of his players. I wonder how Jerry would feel if, during a losing streak, Omar Minaya went to the press with punchlines about all the ill-conceived bunts and overworked relievers.

And I wonder how Dan Warthen would feel if one of his bosses pointed out the way Maine’s career has taken a nosedive since the Mets replaced Rick Peterson with Warthen, regardless of whether that has mattered.

Again, I’m not sure it means much in the long run, and this has never been a place for moral judgments or sanctimony. But this sure looks like the Manuel and Warthen are again deflecting blame away from themselves, toward a player.