Heading into this offseason, Sandy Alderson was bound to make some changes to the Mets’ roster.

Even with a limited supply of funds, how long can a team deal with mediocrity before making a change?

That same limited supply of funds virtually made it hard to think the Mets would pursue free agents, so Alderson came out and said that he’d be creative in exploring trade possibilities.

We’re only in late November, and already it seems the Mets are changing their course. ESPN New York’s Adam Rubin recently reported that Mets don’t expect to be making trades and will instead sign free agents.

So basically Alderson made one claim, now he’s making another claim, and by the time the Winter Meetings roll around, there may be a completely different story.

Pretty confusing, huh?

Luckily, it’s not even December yet, and the Mets right now are solely focused on contract negotiations with David Wright and R.A. Dickey. And rightfully so, since they are two huge pieces to the puzzle, even if that puzzle means trading one or both for younger talent.

So if Alderson sticks to his guns this times and says he will pursue free agents, let’s see who he might be talking about.

The Mets seem content heading into the season with a starting pitching rotation of Dickey (assuming he’s here), Johan Santana, Jon Niese, Matt Harvey and Dillon Gee. They may bring in a few insurance arms, but that’s looking pretty set.

As for the infield, Ike Davis, Daniel Murphy, Ruben Tejada and Wright (assuming he’s here) are likely the starters.

The bullpen this year will probably be a combination of what we have (Bobby Parnell, Jenrry Mejia, Jeurys Familia and Josh Edgin) and some cheap options that the Mets hope can produce.

So likely we’ve been saying all along, the Mets will look for help in the outfield and at catcher. And preferably, the Mets seek a right-handed hitter at both those positions.

At catcher, the really only viable options that the Mets can afford are Kelly Shoppach, Miguel Olivo or Chris Snyder. Mike Napoli is way out of their price range, and the rest of the crop of catchers has seen better days.

In terms of outfielders, Scott Hairston is looking more and more like a possibility to return, especially now that B.J. Upton signed with the Braves. It’s not like the Mets were in on Upton, but now the market for right-handed hitting outfielders may pick up.

An intriguing name could be Matt Diaz as part of a left or right field platoon with Mike Baxter. Diaz crushes left-handed pitching and especially Mets’ lefties over the years.

Ryan Raburn or Juan Rivera would come cheap and could also be platoon partners.

The bigger names in the outfield like Cody Ross and Delmon Young (more of a DH anyway) are likely seeking multi-year deals, and the Mets are likely to stay away there.

No one really knows how the rest of this offseason will play out. It would be nice as fans to have some sort of clear path on the direction of the team, but I guess that’s just the nature of the business these days.

The first priority is to take care of the Wright and Dickey situations, however they might play out, and then worry about the rest of the roster.

While details about the new CBA are still coming in, it seems one thing is quite apparent about this new deal. It was an exercise in balancing the inequities in the league.

It starts off by balancing the AL and NL to have the same number of teams. While this does not appear to have much of an effect on team building it does balance one of the inequities inherent in the interleague play that has existed. In the past Interleague scheduling was more based on location and regional rivalry where a team like the Mets had to face the Yankees every year while their competition would or could face lesser teams on their schedule. Now there will be one Interleague game per day and it means more NL teams will have to face the Yankees than just us. How this new scheduling plays out Is yet to be seen, but it does appear to be a step in the right direction as far as interleague is concerned and it does open the possibility to balance it later by adding two expansion teams (one to each league) if it proves to be a problem later on. Then they could go back to targeted interleague matchups if they don’t like what they did.

Where the new CBA seems to do its best balancing act though is in regards to spending. For a few years now the league has limited what the big Free Agent spenders could spend via the Luxury tax that is imposed when you go over a certain spending threshold. The inequity here was that teams that were willing to pay to win would help subsidize teams that were not willing to spend to win. Most of the tax money that was distributed would usually be pocketed by the subsidized teams instead of re-invested. A team like KC or Tampa Bay probably had 10-25% (maybe more!) of their payroll paid for by their share of the luxury tax. The MLBPA has always had an issue with this system not because it limited the salaries that a free agent could get (it did not do that) but because the teams who got the money refused to spend that money on other free agents.

This leads us to FA Compensation and slotting.

These non-spending teams would instead stick to their draft first approach and use that money to go over slot to select a player who would one day net them two more draft compensation picks – hopefully. All while keeping their payroll artificially low. Usually, they may trade these players during their arbitration years and get even more in trade value while maybe lucking out with 2-3 solid competitive seasons.

The changes to the compensatory process will help curtail the practice of letting good players go to collect more cheap draft picks. These NON-SPENDERS will no longer be able to fill their roster with a constant flow of more than normal picks and be forced to enter into Free Agency and spend to fill their roster.

The MLBPA will gain the most here because for one, Free Agents won’t have their offers artificially lowered to compensate for draft losses and two, teams who previously stayed away from free agency and opted to preserve or accumulate picks, will now need to spend.

The Current CBA seems to balance out those who spend in Free Agency and those who spend in the draft and International market.

Draft Slotting was an unenforceable attempt at limiting how much Rookies would get to sign. Most teams did not comply. The Yankees would spend more on Draft picks just as they would spend more on Free Agents. So it never stopped them, and teams who were not big players in free agency and were draft focused gladly went over slot.

What the new CBA does is remove the ability to pay rookies a large bonus so that these players can no longer hold up a team for ransom. I personally don’t think it goes far enough or will work, but it is a decent start. Those first rounder’s will still demand above the slotting guidelines and the end result will be lower draft picks will pay the price for that in what they get as a bonus. The new Tax on rookie signings only applies to the first eleven rounds. What we may see is that the early picks get the same high bonuses, but teams will be unable to sign kids from rounds 6-10.

What it does successfully accomplish though, is balance the process for those who are in the middle of the pack.

The “Have’s” always had the ability to spend and the “Have not’s” could because they didn’t spend anywhere else. Neither side had anything to lose by paying more. It was those teams in the middle who were willing to pay free agents and draft in combination that were hurt the most by the over slotting.

Over slot has always affected the middle round drafters more than the top and bottom round drafters. The guys at the top were worth paying more for and the players selected at the bottom had little leverage.

The top round pickers were usually bad teams, were getting the best players, and had a vested interest in paying more. The bottom rounder’s who were winning teams already, could easily pay over slot whenever they wanted to

The middle round picker’s now will have a built-in excuse to tell their picks, “sorry, we can’t give you more than slot because we need to sign all our picks.” We will see how well that actually works for them.

What is significant though is that many teams will not go too far over slot because of the New Tax plus the possibility that they could lose future picks as well. As many as two consecutive first rounder’s could be forfeited which will certainly curtail the bottom feeders a lot more than the spenders.

A better change to the draft rules might have been to penalize a player who refused to sign by having him sit out “X” number of years before they could re-enter the draft. Once they did re-enter the draft, a comparable pick would then be given to the team that originally drafted him as compensation the following year. This would force these rookies to say “hey if I want to play in the MLB I had better take what I can get or look for some other job”.

Some have pointed out that this new CBA will discourage some athletes from choosing baseball over other sports. I don’t buy this argument at all. The average career in football is 4-5 years. Baseball is usually 10 years or more especially if you’re an above average player. I don’t see anyone choosing football over baseball considering that only the top 5% of football players actually make the big bucks under their league’s salary cap limitations. Not to mention the the added bonus that in baseball you will still have the ability to walk when your 60 years old as opposed to needing a cane by the time your 40.

It is important to note that the biggest complaints about the current CBA comes from both ends of the spending spectrum. The low spenders complain it will hurt competitive balance and the big spenders complain that they will now have another TAX to deal with that makes successful/profitable teams subsidize those who refuse to spend even WITH their collected tax dollars going to them.

You know what that says to me?

This CBA is pretty damn good, And VERY good for BOTH SIDES and baseball in general…

It would appear to shift the balance of spending big or not spending at all, to the middle where it should be.

Free Agents will not be allowed to leave as easily as they have been due to less of a return in picks and you’ll see lower market teams finding ways to keep their stars. It also limits the ability of spenders to take the non spenders or middle spenders out of the IFA market as spending in those areas are also limited, taxed and compensated. It will stop teams from playing market inequities and put them more on a level playing field.

Players will make more, reasonable spending teams will save money in more areas and the draft picks will not be an exercise of shooting craps hoping the kid you picked will sign with you. Non spenders will have to spend more to fill their roster and large spenders will not be able to cut everyone else out of the valuable IFA market or drive up the price on draft bonuses the way they have in the past.

What it does is put more focus on good evaluation over money. You will no longer be able to cheap your way or spend your way to success. And that can only be a good thing.

Does the new CBA go far enough towards this goal? Perhaps not but the fact that the two spending extremists seem the most unhappy about it says to me it is a step in the right direction.

Now I personally don’t like some parts of this new CBA, expanded playoffs being chief among them. But as far as fixing the financial inequities that have been exhibited in the league I think it does a pretty good job in trying to create spending parity as opposed to what we have seen.

Small market teams will complain they have to spend more but maybe they will also see that spending more will draw more fans into the stands. Maybe some are not as small a market as their spending and current attendance would suggest.

Large Market teams will be limited further in how they can throw money around and cherry picking the league’s top stars.

And it finally takes some of the power away from rookies that should be going to players who have worked hard to get to the MLB only to be discarded in favor of some kid who hasn’t proved himself yet.

It will be more about WHO you spent it on, not how much you spent. Evaluation over Valuation will be the order of the day.

The only ones who will be hurt the most are the players who were using HGH to make themselves better, and the teams whose entire plan was based on rebuilding using the inequity of not spending in the name of collecting multiple draft picks.

Sorry Sandy, it looks like you’re going to have to go back to the drawing board.

This Fan Shot was submitted by Mike (Metsie). Have something you want to say about the Mets? Share your opinions with over eleven-thousand Mets fans who read this site daily. Send your Fan Shot to GetMetsmerized@aol.com.

If the latter thought tags me as an optimist, then consider my glass half-full (but bartender, please keep the refills comin’).  Yet, the dialogue has continued into the organization’s past, present and future.  Present times it’s easy: the Mets are going on hungrier talent from within, plus a few reclamation projects with some upside and an intact core of talent that’s getting older (but on good days we can see why they were once the Children of our Future).  The future we see in fuzzier terms.  The new brass has a plan and while able to listen to the rumblings of fans in the current construct, they are willing to take a more patient approach in internal growing.  As for the past, well, it’s evident in seeing David Wright, Jose Reyes, Carlos Beltran, among others.  But we know after this season, one of those three will still certainly be a Met…

This brings me to a cycle of abuse that the Mets have had historically, not just in the free-spending Omar Minaya administration, but even dating back to the M. Donald Grant days.  Couple that with since basically the Joe McIlvaine days (which in baseball parlance, lasted about 15 minutes), there hasn’t been a steady draft or even a drafting plan.  It’s a double-edged sword, building one’s team.  If one chooses to do the free agent route, one has to part with many first round draft picks and harbor questions about future performance.  If you go the prospect route, some of them might not pan out, but can be used as bargaining chips to solidify teams that are one or two pieces away from it all.

If you’ve read the Maple Street Press Mets Annual 2011, two pieces addressed these very issues.  Jon Springer, of Mets by the Numbers fame, wrote a piece on the Mets history of free agency dealings titled “I’ll Buy That For A Dollar,” while Toby Hyde of Mets Minor League blog wrote a piece on the last draft that Sandy Alderson, Paul DePodesta and JP Ricciardi are working around called “Back Draft: Same Old Song in the Last Minaya Draft.”  By the way, if you haven’t read the MSP Mets Annual, well…why haven’t you?

Springer lays the foundation for the Mets history of free agency, starting mostly in the M. Donald Grant era, which famously lost two superstars in Tom Seaver and Dave Kingman to begin with, then set off a chain of events that kept the Mets from not only being uncompetitive, but being basically rock bottom in anything.  The idea, Grant suggested, is that “we’re sportsmen — we’re not in it for the money,” until, Springer relates, money got involved.  Grant went on to say that by not going after high-profile free agents that he was keeping costs low and visiting the ballpark as a cost that was within reach.  This in and of itself was a double-edged sword.  If he wasn’t putting money into the team, why should the fans?  We see some of that now, except prices are high for free-spending at CitiField these days, but with absolutely nothing to show for it except for some guys who are still being paid to potentially play for other teams.

However, it wasn’t for lack of trying.  In a twist of fate, they showed interest in Gary Matthews, Sr. (you may remember his son, who had a bloated free agent contract himself with the Angels), but was about $750K less than what he eventually signed for.  You see, we did show interest, we felt we gave him a fair offer but it was trumped.  However, how much of it was a low-balling-let’s-hope-he-really-doesn’t-take-it offer?

Even Frank Cashen’s days weren’t without free agent drama.  For a General Manager who was revered as a visionary in his time, and is even a charter member of the Mets Hall of Fame, his luck with free agents wasn’t all that great.  Take for instance losing out on the Dave Winfield sweepstakes, who went to cross-town rivals the Yankees, and settling for George Foster instead.  This appears to be a common thread in Mets lore.  Even though Minaya didn’t show interest or visibly anyway, settling for Jason Bay who was the “second best guy” in the free agent pool in the going-into-2010-season, after Matt Holliday.  It’s tough to judge who might have been the better signing, but that’s neither here nor there.  The point is, the Mets have had to settle for “sloppy seconds” in the free agency pools.  How much of it was perception of playing with the Mets (did anyone truly prefer playing in Queens as opposed to the Bronx or anywhere else for that matter?) or was it that they truly felt they were giving what they thought was fair market value and allowed FAs to walk out?

Springer even relates how the Mets lost out on Darryl Strawberry going into 1991 as a free agent.  After negotiations went south with a contract extension, Cashen panicked and had to instead give extra money to Vince Coleman.  A few firecrackers later, we know how that one turned out.  Here’s the thing though: if Cashen maybe was a little more serious about keeping Strawberry, perhaps not lowball him (even though Straw made it clear he’d wanted to play for his hometown team, the Dodgers).  Overall, this attitude seems to be one that pervades even more recent teams.  Let’s overpay the guy we didn’t really want just to say we got him.

Like I said, a cycle of crash and burn that ended with the release of Castillo and Perez.

Springer did a good job of intermingling the drafts in between those times.  Cashen was gifted in that he was able to trade off some valuable pieces he inherited for value (take for instance his deal that sent fan favorite Lee Mazzilli to the Texas Rangers for Walt Terrell – who in turn ended up into Howard Johnson — and Ronnie Darling, whom we still hear today).  Creativity is something that had to come into play, but if a General Manager lacked that acumen, it meant trouble.  Not saying that only happens to the Mets, but we follow them so closely, it does hit close to home.

The idea is that in the last few years, the farm system is a little middle-of-the-road, too MOTR for Alderson’s liking as he’s said, which is how Toby Hyde starts his discussion with “Development is Job One.”   It’s a misnomer that big market teams should spend big; they should also develop big to use as bargaining chips or to have them become superstars after development.  It’s clear after reading Hyde’s piece that the Mets system isn’t neglected nor barren: it just needs some structure.

Which leads into the “Back Draft” piece.  An issue that seems to pervade the front office thinking is that there is a strict adherence to the slotting guidelines set forth by the Commisioner.  I think this is something that needs to change, personally, and perhaps we will see these changes with this so-called executive dream team.  However, the last draft was indicative of previous Minaya drafts: “parallels continued into specific picks” according to Hyde.  Minaya liked to collect arms; I guess one could argue there is no such thing as too much pitching, but on the other hand, it doesn’t give a lot of diversification in building around a core unit.  The good news is that there is some bona fide talent in the system such as Kirk Nieuwenhuis, Cory Vaughn and Matt den Denker.  The bad news, if you can even call it that, it will take a few years before they are truly “ready.”  Perhaps Nieuwenhuis is the closest, according to Hyde’s estimates.

These two, actually three, articles jumped out at me because we’ve discussed this ad nauseum on the boards here at Metsmerized Online, and even in person when I get together to discuss Mets baseball with other fans.  The free agency cycle for the Mets has caused horrific crashing and burning that we’ve had to sit through and deal with, while the farm system lays barren that was mostly done to keep progress of winning teams going.

It backfired.  We’ve seen more bad than good come out of that.  I think it’s high time to try another route, one that won’t cause these dramatic peaks and valleys that make me write 1500 word posts.  In any event, ESPN came out with a piece on how the Mets are paying their dumped players the most.  Along with all the other poor contracts they got out of in the early 2000s, it’s evident that the cycle needs to end.  Period.

In the meantime, I highly suggest reading the Maple Street Press.  If I can get this much out of it, imagine what you can!

But is this the right way to go for the teams throwing all that cash on the table?   And should they be giving these contracts to players on the wrong side of age 30?   Recent history says no.

Remember Mike Hampton?   He was the pitcher who was traded by the Astros to the Mets following the 1999 season, a year in which he went 22-4 for Houston. Hampton helped lead the Mets to the World Series, but then left New York for (as he put it) the better school systems in Colorado.  The Mets were willing to give him a lucrative deal, but the Rockies were the ones offering the security of an eight-year contract.

The left-handed Hampton left New York after one season, went to Colorado, and watched his talent dissipate in Denver’s thin air. During the eight years of his contract (split between Colorado and Atlanta), Hampton won a grand total of 56 games with an ERA of 4.81.  But at least his kids benefited from the superior Denver school system.

Hampton is not the only player in recent years to have signed a deal of seven years or more who didn’t live up to his contract.  In fact, several others have taken a stretch of success, turned it into a long-term contract and then laughed all the way to the bank while his production suffered.   Check out what these players did prior to their big paydays followed by their production after they put their John Hancocks on their contracts.

Kevin Brown

• 1996: 17-11, 1.89 ERA, 0.94 WHIP, 159 Ks
• 1997: 16-8, 2.69 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, 205 Ks
• 1998: 18-7, 2.38 ERA, 1.07 WHIP, 257 Ks

Kevin Brown signed a seven-year, $105 million contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers prior to the 1999 season.   His first three years in LA were very good, as he went 41-19 with a 2.77 ERA.   Once he entered the middle year of his contract, he became more brittle and his performance suffered, culminating with his trade to the Yankees following the 2003 season.

Over the last four years of his contract, Brown won only 31 games and his ERA went up by more than one run (3.81).  In the final season of his contract, he was a shadow of himself, going 4-7 with a 6.50 ERA.   The once-dominant pitcher who always had a high strikeout total and low ERA actually allowed more earned runs (53) than had strikeouts (50) in his final major league season.

Ken Griffey, Jr.

• 1996: .303, 49 HR, 140 RBI, 125 runs scored
• 1997: .304, 56 HR, 147 RBI, 125 runs scored
• 1998: .284, 56 HR, 146 RBI, 120 runs scored
• 1999: .285, 48 HR, 134 RBI, 123 runs scored

The man known as The Kid was already the most popular athlete in baseball in the late ’90s, despite playing in the relative obscurity of Seattle.   But when his contract expired after the 1999 season, he wanted to go back home.  So he left the Pacific Northwest and signed a nine-year, $116.5 million contract to play for the Cincinnati Reds.

His first season in the Queen City wasn’t as eye-popping as his last four years in Seattle, but how can anyone be disappointed with a .271 batting average, 40 HR, 118 RBI and 100 runs scored?  Unfortunately, that was the best performance he was able to give the Reds.

Following the 2000 season, injury after injury befell The Kid and he was never the same player.  Over the last eight years of his contract, Griffey missed a total of 455 games (or the equivalent of nearly three full seasons).  He averaged 22 HR and 63 RBI over those seasons, to go with a .269 batting average.  When he returned to Seattle to finish out his career, he could barely reach the Mendoza Line, hitting .208 in his final season and a half with the Mariners.

Jason Giambi

• 1999: .315, 33 HR, 123 RBI, 115 runs scored
• 2000: .333, 43 HR, 137 RBI, 108 runs scored
• 2001: .342, 38 HR, 120 RBI, 109 runs scored

With those three dominant seasons in Oakland, you knew the Yankees were going to open up their wallets for Giambi once he became a free agent.  And that’s exactly what they did when they signed the Giambino for seven years at $120 million.

His first year in pinstripes was as good as his last three years in Oakland, as Giambi finished the 2002 season with a .314 batting average, to go with his 41 HR and 122 RBI.  His power was still there in 2003 (41 HR, 107 RBI), but his batting average plummeted to .250.   The downward trend in batting average continued throughout the rest of his Yankee career.  Over the final five years of his contract, Giambi hit .247.   He never hit 40 HR again and only had one other 100 RBI season (2006).

So what do Kevin Brown, Ken Griffey Jr. and Jason Giambi all have in common besides their poor production after signing their lucrative long-term deals?  They were all in their 30s when they signed their contracts.

Kevin Brown did not throw his first pitch as a Dodger until he was 34.  Ken Griffey, Jr. was no longer a spry youth when he signed with Cincinnati as a 30-year-old.   Jason Giambi put on the Yankee pinstripes for the first time when he was 31.

Want more?  Todd Helton turned 30 during the first season of his eight-year, $117.8 million contract.  He went from hitting .320 or higher for seven years in a row,  30+ HR in six consecutive seasons and 100+ RBI in five straight campaigns to a man who might give you a .300 batting average, with 15 HR and 80 RBI if he’s healthy.  Basically, he’s become an overpaid Mark Grace.

How about Alfonso Soriano?  He was coming off a season in which he became only the fourth member of the 40-40 club when he picked up 46 HR and 41 SB in 2006 as a member of the Washington Nationals.  He then left our nation’s capital to pick up the money blowing around in the Windy City, signing an eight-year, $136 million contract to play for the Cubs.  At the time, Soriano was 31 years old.  Talk about a letdown!  Prior to his move to Chicago, Soriano had compiled four seasons with 100 or more runs scored, four years with 35 or more home runs, five seasons of 90 or more RBI and five years with 30 or more stolen bases.  In four lost seasons with the Cubs, Soriano has yet to cross the century mark in runs scored (he scored 97 in 2007), has hit more than 30 HR only once (33 in 2007), and is still looking for his first season with at least 80 RBI and 20 stolen bases.  The worst thing about it is that he’s only halfway through the eight years of his deal.

What about the aforementioned Mike Hampton?  Well, he was the baby of the group, as he signed his eight-year deal with Colorado at the age of 28.   However, his contract lasted until he was 36, putting him in his 30s for the majority of the deal.

I haven’t even mentioned the most recent disappointment signed to a long-term deal, and it’s better if we don’t say too much about him.  After all, Barry Zito might have become a member of the Mets pitching staff in 2007, but the front office was smart enough not to offer him the seven-year deal that he eventually received from the San Francisco Giants.

Like Hampton, the left-handed Zito was 28 when he crossed the Bay Bridge from Oakland to San Francisco.  Once he left the East Bay, the Barry Zito that won 102 games in seven years as an Oakland Athletic disappeared into the San Francisco fog.

Zito has yet to post a winning record in any of his four seasons in San Francisco.  His 17 losses led the National League in 2008 and his continued subpar performances led the Giants to leave him off the postseason roster in 2010.  They spent $126 million in the hopes that Barry Zito would help them win a championship and in 2010, they won that championship without him.

If that $126 million figure given to Barry Zito over seven years sounds familiar to you, it should.  That’s the same amount of money and years that the Nationals just gave to Jayson Werth, the man without a 100 RBI season and whose only All-Star Game appearance came as a result of an injury to Mets centerfielder Carlos Beltran in 2009.

It should be noted that Jayson Werth is 31.  Cliff Lee, who is also looking for a seven-year deal, is 32.  The seven year pitch has become quite popular with today’s aging stars.  Some owners are still crazy enough to dole out these long-term deals.  However, if they all just studied the recent history of baseball and similar contracts, they’d know that seven is not always a lucky number, especially with players past their prime.  As Mets fans, we should be thankful that Sandy Alderson is not one to offer such contracts to past-their-prime superstars.

De la Rosa might not be the sexiest name out there. Heck, just writing his name is difficult enough.  (Upper case “D”, lower case “d”, make up your mind!)   But George, George, George of the Rose (Jorge de la Rosa translates into “George of the Rose”) has left the jungle that is home to below-average pitchers and has become a respectable major league pitcher.

The Rockies pitcher has improved in each of the last five seasons.   Here are Jorge de la Rosa’s numbers since 2006, which was the first season in which he started more than ten games:

• 2006:  13 starts, 6.49 ERA, 1.71 WHIP
• 2007:  23 starts, 5.82 ERA, 1.64 WHIP
• 2008:  23 starts, 4.92 ERA, 1.46 WHIP
• 2009:  32 starts, 4.38 ERA, 1.38 WHIP
• 2010:  20 starts, 4.22 ERA, 1.32 WHIP

No other pitcher in the major leagues with at least 10 starts in each of the past five seasons has improved every season in both ERA and WHIP.

Since becoming a Colorado Rockie prior to the 2008 season, de la Rosa has become increasingly harder to hit.   In 2008, he held hitters to a .262 batting average (.349 on-base percentage).  That went down to .249 (.335 OBP) in 2009, followed by a career-low .235 (.324 OBP) in 2010.

In addition to allowing fewer baserunners, de la Rosa has also become an elite strikeout pitcher, averaging nearly one punchout per inning as a Rockie (434 Ks in 436.2 innings).

Did I mention that de la Rosa is a lefty?  A left-handed starter is just what the Mets need now that Johan Santana might not be available for the beginning of the 2011 season and Oliver Perez shouldn’t be available…ever.

Let’s face it.   Jorge de la Rosa is not going to contend for the Cy Young Award, and any team acquiring him shouldn’t expect him to.  However, whoever signs de la Rosa should expect a quality starter who will eat up innings (he averaged over six innings per start in 2010, and pitched at least six innings in each of his last nine starts), send many batters back to their respective dugouts without putting the ball in play, and will keep his team in the ballgame.

As a 29-year-old (he will turn 30 shortly after Opening Day), the best may be yet to come for George, George, George of the Rose.   The Mets are going to be shopping for a quality arm to help their questionable rotation.  De la Rosa made $5.6 million in 2010.   He’s already a better pitcher than Oliver Perez was when the Mets re-signed him two years ago, but will probably not be seeking a three-year, $36 million deal like the one given to Ollie.

De la Rosa is probably worth between $8 million and $10 million per year.  Shouldn’t the Mets take a chance on this improving pitcher rather than try to patch their staff together, hoping to find another R.A. Dickey where one might not exist?

Many teams are looking to sign Jorge de la Rosa this off-season.  The Mets should be one of them.

Whoever is in charge of making the decisions in Queens (which according to Jeff Wilpon we will find out shortly!), it might be a wise strategy to avoid these big name free agents and either improve the team via trade or letting the young players develop.

Here are only some of the big name free agents available and how the Mets should approach them this offseason.

Cliff Lee

Of all the free agents out there, Lee is the golden goose. His numbers don’t lie; this guy is at the top of his game and has proven he can be clutch in the postseason. Lee will likely get upwards of a six-year deal worth well over the $100 million mark.

As much as I and other Met fans would like to see Lee in Flushing, let’s be honest. It’s not going to happen.

Carl Crawford

Of the players available right now, no other player would more help the Mets win immediately than Carl Crawford. Crawford can do it all: hit for average, a little power, field, throw, and boy can the man run.

He would be an ideal fit for Citi Field. Imagine a healthy Reyes, Pagan and Crawford (in no particular order) atop the Mets lineup. They would be deadly on the bases. Jason Bay would have to shift to RF if the Mets signed Crawford (don’t know how that would work out).

However, Mets fans, this seems like another deal that’s not going to happen. Crawford is about to cash in big like Lee, and the Amazins really aren’t in any position to be adding huge chunks of payroll.

And with Beltran still in house, the only way the Mets would make a play for Crawford is if they trade Beltran (seeming more unlikely each day).

Adam Dunn

In my opinion, Adam Dunn is the most consistently player in the game today. Every year, he hits 40 HR, drives in 100 runs, walks 100 times and strikes out 150 times. He is a legitimate power threat and even Citi Field cannot contain him (remember that shot he hit to the bridge two seasons ago?).

Dunn however is a one dimensional player. He may be better off suited to a DH role in the AL. The only reason I mention Dunn as a possibility is if the Mets trade Ike Davis for a starting pitcher which would leave a hole at first base. I’m not saying I think or even want the Mets to do this, but I figured I would list it as a possible option.

Manny Ramirez

Oh Manny. Manny, Manny, Manny. You’re 38 now, when did that happen? It seemed like only yesterday you were crushing balls over the Green Monster and even orchestrating a late season playoff push in LA.

And now you’re a free agent again. I wonder how many teams will come knocking. I hope one of them is absolutely NOT the Mets. If this was three years ago, I’d say go for it. The man proved he could still hit like a machine despite his age. However, now is not the time to be adding Manny.

We have enough headaches as it is. Thank you K-Rod!

Victor Martinez

Ever since he came up with Cleveland, I have envisioned V-Mart on the Mets. He has serviceable (but not fantastic) catching skills but is a terrific contact hitter with plenty of pop. It looks like the Red Sox will try to retain him in any way possible.

I like Josh Thole. He’s not going to hit home runs like Piazza used to, but he can be an offensive weapon. He sprays the ball well to all fields and has good gap power. He will most likely hit seventh or eighth.

V-Mart would be a great addition, but it looks like another deal that won’t happen.

Carl Pavano

Something should be noted about the free agent market for starting pitchers. A guy has ONE good year, and everyone is ready to throw big bucks at him. Some examples: Gil Meche (five-years, $55 million contract with KC) and of course Oliver Perez (three-years, $36 million…sorry I just threw up a little).

Pavano has had two good years his whole career: 2003 with the Marlins that allowed him to cash in with the Yankees and now 2010 with the Twins in which he won 17 games.

He is a solid back of the rotation option, but the Mets should stay away from him and his stache. Who needs his stache when we got Keith Hernandez?

Orlando Hudson

The O-dawg has openly expressed his interest in wanting to play for the Mets (that can’t exactly be said for many players). I have touched on this possible signing in the past. He may be a good option on a one-year deal, but with Tejada on the verge of becoming an everyday player (hopefully), I’m not sure if the Mets will pull the trigger on Hudson.

So there you have it, some free agents who are available this winter that will garner much attention from many teams. But the Mets might be better off sitting tight, maybe making a trade or two to improve and hope that they can field a competitive team.

I may have missed a few free agents this year who may be on the Mets radar. Please comment on who you think may be a good signing that I missed.

For the Mets, it will come down to patience and hope. I’ve said it before, and I will say it again.

*Side note: I very much enjoyed watching Ryan Howard stand there with the bat on his shoulder with the game on the line.