Joel Sheehan at BP has a great post up about the Mets and what he thinks they should do this off-season. It's a subscription site, so I can only post a few snippets: "With so many suitors finding other answers, both Jason Bay and Matt Holliday are still available, and presumably at a price that gets a little better every day. I've recommended staying away from both, as both are declining stocks, good-but-not-great players likely to be overpaid because of their status as the top guys in a weak year. The Mets, however, are a special case, a big-market club with some money to spend, a core that would allow either player to be the fifth-best on the team, and a short time horizon. For the Mets, Matt Holliday could make sense, as he's a gap-to-gap hitter who should play well in Citi Field, he's good enough defensively to cover ground in those same gaps, and he fits within the payroll parameters. Bay would likely be less expensive and require a shorter commitment, but his defensive issues would give back a lot of the offense he provides. This will be the first time I've recommended this for anyone, but the Mets should sign Matt Holliday for up to $18 million per season on up to a five-year deal. They'll be hurting a little on the back end of that, but the improvement over Murphy or Pagan (who is a strong fourth outfielder, and probably better than Francoeur) in the short term is worth that. The Mets have to fix their offense before they fix their pitching. They should be spending their money on bats, rather than on starters, and given the high-risk pitching that's out there, money spent on Joel Pineiro or Jon Garland or Jarrod Washburn doesn't change things for them, it just adds the type of pitcher they already have but with more recent success. The Mets needed a John Lackey, someone to be a clear second starter between Johan Santana and the rest of the field, and there was exactly one John Lackey available this season. A move for a high-upside player, such as Ben Sheets or Erik Bedard, would make more sense for them, while allowing them to stay in the market for hitters." His take on Molina: "Signing Bengie Molina wasn't going to help things. The Mets, in fact, got a player who provides 90 percent of Molina's value when they signed Henry Blanco to a one-year, $750,000 contract. Blanco has a legitimate cannon behind the plate and he hits left-handed pitching well enough to carry that half of a platoon. Moreover, there's little temptation to bat him high in the lineup or give him a bigger job than that. Molina's inflated RBI counts hide the fact that he's an offense-killer, posting a sub-.300 OBP in two of the previous three seasons. He's also one of the slowest men in the game, and not a particularly good defensive catcher. To sign him and bat him sixth in 125 games would make the Mets actively worse. What they need is a lefty bat to pair with Blanco; I'm open to the idea that Josh Thole can be that player, but Thole has to hit .290 to play and it's an open question whether his Mike LaValliere act will carry forward to the majors. Josh Bard, who can't throw and might hit, could serve as a stopgap while Thole spends two months at Buffalo, but the real key here is to avoid signing Bengie Molina. It would be wasted money." There's much, much more. It's a great read, and I highly recommend subscribing if you don't already. I think his use of the past tense when talking about a Molina signing is kind of interesting, like he considered it to have been a done deal by the time the article would be published. Later