Would you order Doritos at a fine French restaurant?  That’s a loaded question, isn’t it? Would a fine French restaurant even serve Doritos? If it did, would it still be fine? For one, Doritos have a made-up English/Spanish name, so who knows what the French would call them. But for another, what customer would want that?

If you’re the kind of person coming to a fine French restaurant, you probably look at Doritos the way Citi Field ushers look at families with upper-deck tickets trying to sit in empty field-level seats in the eighth inning of a 12-1 loss to the Nationals, which is to say, with displeasure. And if you own the restaurant, you probably know that your customers don’t want Doritos. By opening a French restaurant, you’ve almost gone out of your way to avoid Doritos. You could have just opened a corner store: the people are nicer, there are no snails, and you can have a cat if you want.

So my answer is no, I wouldn’t order Doritos at a fine French restaurant. I’ll bet Steve Cohen wouldn’t either. Which makes the Mets’ reported interest in Jackie Bradley Jr. all the more off-putting. Bradley has been with the Red Sox for his entire career, and he’s had a few good seasons. Last year, in 55 games, he was excellent. But he’s not the kind of player the Mets need right now.

First, there’s Bradley’s offense, which is suspect. He batted .283/.364/.450 in 2020, a solid season, but those numbers were powered by a .343 Batting Average on Balls In Play (BABIP). That’s not sustainable, especially considering that according to Statcast, he was in the 40th percentile league-wide for exit velocity, and the 34th percentile for hard-hit rate. His 2021 numbers are almost certain to decline.

In three full seasons from 2017 to 2019, meanwhile, Bradley batted .234/.318/.409, a .727 OPS and a 90 OPS+. The Mets are building a stacked, top-to-bottom lineup. Those offensive numbers won’t get the job done. On top of that, Bradley would be yet another left-handed bat in the Mets lineup. They already have Dominic Smith, Michael Conforto, Jeff McNeil, Brandon Nimmo, and Luis Guillorme. Another lefty will make it that much harder to alternate the batting order for more favorable matchups.

On other teams, maybe Bradley’s defense would be enough to make him worth signing. He’s a consistently superb defender: he’s been worth at least six Outs Above Average each season of his career, and was worth seven last year in less than half a season. But if Bradley reverts to his 2017-2019 numbers, defense won’t be enough — especially considering the offense he’ll be putting on the bench.

If the Mets sign Bradley to be their starting center fielder, Nimmo will shift over to left. If Nimmo plays left, Smith will either move to the bench or split time with Pete Alonso at first base. Either way, signing Bradley will cut down on playing time for Smith, Alonso, or both. And if Bradley is putting up an OPS around .725, as he did every year from 2017 to 2019, that’s not a change worth making. Bradley will also turn 31 in April, so there’s a chance he starts to decline on both sides of the ball.

Some people will argue that the Mets are already fine on offense: what they need is defense, which Bradley definitely provides. But that’s the wrong way to look at the issue on two levels. For one, if the Mets are going to go all-in on a defensive center fielder, they shouldn’t buy high on Bradley’s offense.

Credit: Gregory Fisher-USA TODAY Sports

He’ll probably never hit like he did in 2020 again, but his walk-year stats will inflate his free-agent value, and use up some of the little space the Mets have left under the luxury tax threshold. Jake Marisnick is available if the Mets want a pure defender, and the payroll-shedding Rays would probably be willing to part with Kevin Kiermaier. Both are excellent defenders, like Bradley — but unlike Bradley, they don’t come with the inflated cost of a walk-year BABIP spike.

For another, just because the Mets are a good offensive team doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get better — or, indeed, that it’s okay if they get worse. Adding Bradley, essentially, comes down to a simple question. Who’s more valuable in the Mets’ lineup: Bradley or Smith? Yes, the Mets’ offense is already good, and Bradley would shore up the defense — but if adding Bradley and sitting Smith would hurt the offense more than it would help the defense, he’s not a worthwhile acquisition.

Right now, Mets fans might clamor for Bradley’s fielding. If three months into the 2021 season, he’s playing great defense but striking out twice a game and grounding into rally-killing double plays left and right, they’ll justifiably wonder what George Springer is up to.

Fangraphs projects that Bradley will have a .716 OPS next season. Baseball-Reference is a little more generous: they peg him at .737. Neither number is good enough.

If the Mets wanted to sign Bradley to be a bench player, a defensive replacement/pinch-hitter/mentor, that would be fine, albeit a little expensive. But with the money Bradley will cost, it will be hard to justify sticking him at the end of the bench. Getting Bradley’s defense on the field isn’t worth removing Smith’s or Alonso’s offense from the lineup, but if Bradley becomes a Met, that’s exactly what will happen.

So what’s the solution? Springer or bust? Honestly, maybe. Sometimes it’s better not to make a move. Right now, the market for top-flight outfielders is thin: what the Mets have might be better than what’s out there. Jackie Bradley Jr., who just had a career year built on a short-season BABIP spike, isn’t the answer.

He’s Doritos at a French restaurant, a so-so addition that doesn’t fit in with Steve Cohen’s fine-dining offseason.