No matter how the Mets are assessed, there is little that they can do in trades to upgrade their roster. What little appealing personnel exists in the Minor Leagues -- some would say that begins and ends with Fernando Martinez -- essentially paralyzes them -- unless a club is desperate to dump a contract and no other club wants to assume the financial obligation.

At this point, the Mets are what their record says they are -- inconsistent in almost every facet of the game. Their bullpen and rotation are like Oliver Perez, able but hardly reliable. The offense comes and goes. The defense is more consistent. Moreover, they tend to play better against the quality teams than against the lesser opponents -- a dangerous sign.

But give it 40-45 games.

What about the Mets signing Derrick Turnbow? He has had his moments in the past, and Rick Peterson seems to be the perfect pitching coach to help him resurrect his career. Turnbow's problems are mechanics, not stuff, and improving pitchers' mechanics is something that Peterson thrives on doing. Along similar lines, is there any chance that the Mets would go after Barry Zito, assuming the Giants eat most of his contract? Zito would be helped by having his former pitching coach reunite with him. Scouts say that Zito has mechanical problems, too.
-- Ely D., Brooklyn, N.Y.

Turnbow is intriguing. Zito is frightening. The situation with either is the same. Neither would be on the big league roster -- the roster isn't a repair shop for a club with October aspirations -- therefore neither would work with Peterson.

How exactly do you choose the questions you answer? It seems 75 percent of the ones you run in your mailbag involve uninformed hypothetical trade scenarios that wouldn't even work in MLB 2K5.

I want to read more about your preoccupation with uniform numbers or how you feel about Ron Darling's strong belief that pitching coaches and managers are coddling today's starting pitchers, leading to an increased and detrimental bullpen load. That's the stuff we'd like to read about.
-- Matt L., Brooklyn, N.Y.

Wow! You're reading my mind -- or my e-mails. And a thank you is in order: Thank you.

Some of the hundred of weekly e-mails I get are intriguing. I wish the percentage was 10. I use all the ones that get to me. And you're right, some of the trade proposals are not based in reality -- deal Jorge Sosa, Guillermo Mota and Victor Zambrano's aunt for Johan Santana. But we can't legislate against those sorts of inquiries.

I do have a fascination with numbers. Read the Shea's days numbered: Nos. 67-60 piece, for example.

And I go one step beyond what Darling (Nos. 12 and 44) says. It's not only the pitching coaches and manages who coddle; the caution-gone-wild approach runs throughout the game -- owners, general managers, farm directors, et al. The fear of injury and loss of investment is the genesis of all the caution. See Bill Pulsipher (Nos. 21 and 25), Jason Isringhausen (No. 44) and Paul Wilson (No. 32), 1996-97. The Mets were stung and undermined by their disabilities.

Have a question about the Mets? E-mail your query to MLB.com Mets beat reporter Marty Noble for possible inclusion in a future Inbox column. Letters may be edited for brevity, length and/or content. First Name, Last Initial: Hometown: Email Address: Question:

But, to me, the pendulum has swung too far. Injuries still occur, though perhaps not so many catastrophic ones. But these five-inning starts, just like the increased player movement, undermine the romance of game and lead "specialty" pitching and increased operating expense.

Part of the appeal of the game when I learned to love it was that I knew Tuesday was the day Whitey Ford (No. 16) would pitch, and that meant I would look forward to it and count on seven to nine innings -- even if the Yankees trailed after six innings. Strong identities developed, even if they involved relievers -- Ford and Luis Arroyo in 1961. The same happened with Tom Seaver (No. 41), Jerry Koosman (No. 36), Jon Matlack (No. 32), Catfish Hunter (No. 29) and Dwight Gooden (No. 16). Even casual fans then were more likely to know the sequence of a team's rotation than they are today, when Tuesday is the day Perez (No. 46) will pitch 5 1/3 innings, and Wednesday is the day for five from Mike Pelfrey (No. 34).

Identifying with specific personnel -- and not just the team logo -- was part of it then.

The increased expense factors in this way: The greater reliance on specialized pitchers -- be they left-handed or right-handed specialists or sixth-, seventh- or eighth-inning guys, not to mention closers -- creates a distorted/inflated sense of value of the pitchers involved. The so-called seventh-inning guy or left-handed specialist commands greater compensation because he has a specified role.

And I sense that those specified roles retard the progress of the involved pitchers. It seems to me there used to be more pitchers who could handle the lineup regardless of the hitters' handedness.

I enjoyed your copy-editor rant at the "innings worked" e-mail in your last mailbag. Along that line, I'd like to confront a baseball term: Exposed. When a player is very effective coming off the bench and fans ask why that player isn't in the lineup more regularly, managers, coaches, sportswriters and other experts say, "If he played every day, he'd be exposed."

This seems ridiculous to me. With all the tape that is available to Major League Baseball teams and with all the mass communication (Internet, cell phones, etc.), how in the world could any player who has been in the league for any amount of time be "exposed" by playing more regularly? See: Endy Chavez.
-- Paul A., Holbrook, N.Y.

The word is shorthand for overexposed or that his weaknesses would be exposed. The thinking is linked to the law of diminishing return. Some players produce at a higher level if the playing time in restricted. You mentioned Chavez. And he is one. He is perfectly suited to be a No. 4 outfielder, starting occasionally, playing late innings and even playing 10 days if a regular is unavailable. But, for whatever reason, the level of production drops if he plays regularly for an extended period. Benny Agbayani was another; Tim Bogar, too, though he put together an impressive, extended run in 1994. Mark Carreon comes to mind, too.

Why doesn't it count as an error when there is a passed ball or wild pitch? If a ball gets by a position player in the field, it would be an error. But if a ball gets past the catcher and a runner advances, it's not an error. I was just wondering what the logic behind that is, if there is any.
-- Barry, address withheld

The way it was explained to me, when I asked the same question 147 years ago, is that the pitcher and catcher are not fielders until the pitch is delivered. Therefore what they do before the pitch is different from they do once its is delivered. Their positions are unique, and the wild pitch and passed ball are respectively unique to them.

A run is unearned if a pitcher's error contributes to a run that wouldn't have scored without the error. A run is earned if a wild pitch contributes to a run that wouldn't have scored otherwise, because the pitcher threw it while he was a pitcher and not a fielder.

We have wild pitches and passed balls to create distinction, just as left fielder, center fielder, etc. They're all outfielders. Single, double, triple and home run, they're all hits. No doubt the genesis of the "wild pitch" was a baseball writer who preferred to give the misplay an abbreviated identification rather than write "an errant pitch that wasn't catchable that allowed the baserunner to advance."

Likewise, "passed ball" is more readily digested than "a misplay by the catcher on a pitch that allowed the baserunner to advance."