I like the question. The only way to evaluate is to measure the impact in the season that followed and subsequent seasons. Here goes:

McReynolds was a sensational defender and productive hitter in 1987 and in '88, when the Mets were division champions. I voted for him as the league MVP. Cone, of course, produced a season in 1988 that is surpassed in franchise history only by campaigns by Dwight Gooden in 1985 and Tom Seaver in 1969, '71 and perhaps '75. But the price for McReynolds was high -- Kevin Mitchell, the league MVP in 1989, was part of the eight-player deal.

How about 1984-85, when the Mets imported Howard Johnson and Gary Carter in a four-day period? Or 1985-86, when they filled their only needs -- a left-handed starter in Bob Ojeda, their leading winner during the '86 runaway, and a right-handed-hitting second baseman to platoon with Wally Backman in Tim Teufel -- and gave up so little in return? That was out-and-out theft.

Pedro Martinez and Carlos Beltran signed on in the 2004-05 offseason. But, to me, free-agent signings lack the cachet of trades. The Mets stole their right fielder and catcher, Ryan Church and Brian Schneider, from the Nationals and acquired Johan Santana last year. Not too bad an offseason in 2007-08.

But think of 1983-84. The club re-signed Keith Hernandez -- he had the right to demand a trade at the time -- appointed Davey Johnson and decided to give Gooden a chance to make the Opening Day roster. Wow! They did stub their toe, though, not protecting Seaver from the compensation pool and then losing him to the White Sox.

Then, again, with Seaver gone, the Mets had more opportunity to develop Gooden, Ron Darling, Sid Fernandez, Tim Leary and Walt Terrell, the pitcher they traded in December '84 for Johnson.

But no Mets offseason compares with 1998-99. Mike Piazza could have demanded a trade, but re-signed. The Mets then signed Robin Ventura as a free agent, which allowed them to move Edgardo Alfonzo to second base; signed Pat Mahomes, who produced an 8-0 record; traded for Roger Cedeno, who scored 90 runs; signed Rickey Henderson, who scored 89 and emboldened Cedeno; signed Armando Benitez, who replaced John Franco when the incumbent closer injured his finger in July; and signed Orel Hershiser, who won 13 games.

I consider the '99 Mets team comparable or superior to any Mets team since 1988. They had everything except a dominant No. 1 starter -- breath-taking infield defense, exceptional left-handed and right-handed balance with power from both sides, speed, solid starting and a deep bullpen. They just couldn't handle the Braves.

Wouldn't the Mets have been better off not exercising their option on Carlos Delgado's contract, paying the $4 million buyout and trying to sign Mark Teixeira?
-- John M., Farmingville, N.Y.

Absolutely. That was a likely course of action -- to pursue Teixeira, at least -- before Delgado's renaissance and until the Mets had to replace Billy Wagner. Teixeira would have provided better defense and perhaps less power. But the run production probably would have been comparable or better for 2009 and beyond.

Marty, what did you think of the outcome of the National League MVP voting this year?
-- Sandy K., Brattleboro, Vt.

Though Ryan Howard finished a close second to Albert Pujols -- an indication that the Phillies first baseman was strongly considered -- my sense of it was that he should have won. You've undoubtedly heard this line or reasoning elsewhere, but I thought Pujols was clearly the player of the year in the league whereas Howard had so much to do with his team winning. In fact, I thought Howard should have won handily.

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:

First of all, the voting system bothers me. The player listed for first place on a ballot is awarded 14 points, while the runner-up receives nine points. That's a significant difference, considering the players in the eighth, ninth and 10th position receive six points collectively. If that disparity for first and second place is considered -- and I think should weigh heavily -- then the voter should be able to make a strong argument that the player named first is significantly superior to the one named second.

I don't see how that can be the case for Pujols receiving five more points than Howard on a ballot, but I know a strong case can be made for Howard deserving five more points than Pujols, if only because Howard's team won a division championship and Pujols's team finished in fourth place. That is a significant caveat.

The Phillies caught the Mets in their last 16 games, changing a 3 1/2-game deficit to a three-game lead by winning 13 games. In the 16 games, Howard scored 19 runs and drove in 20. I believe in runs produced -- runs plus RBIs minus home runs -- as a legitimate measure of value. In those 16 games, Howard produced 33 runs, more than two a game.

Howard finished with 146 RBIs, 30 more than Pujols. He scored five more runs than Pujols, who batted 106 points higher. But most games I've seen are won by runs -- runs scored and runs driven in -- not by batting average or OPS. If only statistics are weighed, then averages are best used to determine the player of the year; totals are a measure of value.

Howard played in every Phillies game, Pujols missed 14 Cardinals games. MVP voters are instructed to consider game played. That is total, not an average. Moreover, Howard had to play -- and produce -- to the end. When was Pujols' most recent critical at-bat, Aug. 8?

The primary blemish on Howard's 2008 resume was 199 strikeouts. Do they in some way diminish the number of runs he produced? I'd rather look at what he did accomplish and allow the prettier statistics to determine the player of the year.

We're all so caught up in OPS and batting average with runners in scoring position and all that. I'll take Howard with 146 RBIs and 105 runs, though he struck out 145 more times. We all seem so willing to discredit a player because he could have done more with the opportunities he had.

Example: In the case of the 2008 Mets, many people writing to me are so hung up on one strikeout by David Wright that they seem to think his 124 RBIs and 115 runs somehow had less impact that Delgado's 115 and 96.

I know, I know -- parallels can be drawn between Delgado and Howard because of their strong finishes, and I favored Wright over Delgado as the Mets' most valuable player. So there is an appearance of inconsistency. Wright did more to help his team -- offense, defense and attitude -- than Delgado did. Delgado's late push doesn't offset his invisibility for 77 games. He did far less than Howard early on.

Pujols is a better defensive first baseman than Howard, and Howard had a comparatively poor first half, but he got the Phillies to the playoffs. He had help early from Chase Utley and later from Jimmy Rollins and Jayson Werth. Pujols had help all year from Ryan Ludwick.

Here's a way to look at it. Right now, given a choice of which player I'd take for 2009, I'd take Pujols, of course. But if I knew I circumstances identical to 2008 would develop, I'd have to take Howard.

I see you've started to blog. Congratulations and welcome to 2008.
-- Paul B., Los Angeles, Calif.

Yep, and pretty soon I'm going to give up listening to LPs and get me one of them horseless buggies with them electric windows. Golly gosh darn. (Thanks for the hello, Paul.)

I've always thought closer was an over-rated position until last year and that the best closers come from within an organization, not through free agency. Would you move John Maine to closer? It seems like he throws hard enough. That would be a cheap alternative to K-Rod or Brian Fuentes. The Mets should also sign Derek Lowe -- then you'll be left with enough cash to get a legitimate bat for the outfield. What do you think?
-- John O., New York, N.Y.

Using Maine to close last summer, as manager Jerry Manuel once suggested was possible, would have be an intriguing move with some sense of experiment connected to it. But not now. The objective now is to obtain a capable pitcher familiar with the ninth inning and have Maine start.

Your theory -- the best closers come from within an organization, not through free agency -- is supported by Mariano Rivera, Bruce Sutter, Trevor Hoffman, Jonathon Papelbon, Dan Quisenberry and Dave Righetti and contradicted by Goose Gossage, Billy Wagner, Brad Lidge and Jason Isringhausen. I don't see a consistency there. But of course, a pitcher may have had his best seasons in the six years needed to gain eligibility for free agency. And where do we put Dennis Eckersley, Rick Aguliera and Jeff Reardon, who blossomed as closers after they were traded?