I know Dunn's strikeout totals are unsettling, but his price tag would be far less than another big-name free-agent outfielder we all know, his on-base percentage and walk totals are very high and his defense is at least respectable. Also, wouldn't he be a good replacement for Delgado at first base if and when he leaves at the end of 2009? I would shift Daniel Murphy to second base and let Dunn take left field.
-- Sammy S., Nashville, Tenn.

If Murphy were a capable second baseman and Luis Castillo vanished, then, perhaps, the scenario you suggested would be doable. But I tend to think the Mets would pursue Orlando Hudson immediately if Castillo and the $18 million obligation to him were gone. As long as Castillo is on the roster, the Mets are done importing personnel for regular positions. Dunn would be a nice No. 6 hitter. But there's no fit, and his defense would be an issue.

If you were in Minaya's shoes, assuming we could go back to the day before Oliver Perez was re-signed, who would you have gone after? Ben Sheets, Randy Wolf, Mark Mulder or Perez? Or would you have gone after some other off-the-general-radar pick?
-- Ray W., Syracuse, N.Y.

I'll cry Wolf.

Why don't the Mets go after Ken Griffey Jr.? He's old, but he is a lot better then the platoon of players they intend to put in left field. And you have posted a dislike with Perez, which is fine. But the one thing you may not remember is that he won nearly all of his nationally televised games -- not to mention the other big games he wins (like every game he pitches against the Yankees and the Phillies). If he can turn it on against the smaller clubs, I bet he will win 20.
-- Dave G., Buffalo, N.Y.

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:

Griffey is past the point of playing regularly. And I applaud the Mets for giving Murphy a chance to play. The club has to afford the talent it develops a chance to perform. Now, I have no dislike for Perez. As I wrote Tuesday, my assessment of him differs from that of most Mets fans. He is an inconsistent performer, and I don't anticipate that changing to any great degree. That he pitches well on national television is meaningful only if the Mets are in the postseason or his team changes its name to ESPN. He has fared quite well against the Yankees and Phillies -- 3-0 record with an 0.89 ERA in six starts last season. But that means he had a 7-7 record and a 5.11 ERA in his other 28 starts.

What the Mets need perhaps is more cameras and lights.

Without considering the money and just their abilities, who do you think would be better in the fourth-starter spot, Wolf or Perez?
-- Giovanni D., Bandung, Java, Indonesia

My sense of it is that Perez would produce five to eight starts that would exceed all but one or two of Wolf's starts. But Wolf would afford his team a chance to win more often than Perez. I'd take Wolf.

I don't understand why Mets fans continue to insist that Perez is a "clutch" pitcher. We are always saying, "if he's on his game, he is a great pitcher," or "if he can figure it out one day, he can be scary."

It seems to me that if the Mets were going to sign an "if" pitcher they should have signed Sheets. If you are signing players based on what they could potentially do for you, Sheets could definitely do more than Perez. He started the 2008 All-Star Game. He would have commanded less money per year, and the Mets could have split the $36 million they gave Perez between Sheets and a guy like Wolf. Get on board with me here, Marty.
-- Jay G., Lafayette Hill, Pa.

You're the preacher. I'm the choir. I've been on board -- at least as it all involves Wolf -- for quite a while. Signing Sheets would have been a risk and all but forced the Mets to have another lower-risk, lower-reward pitcher available for when the inevitable injury befalls Sheets, another Tim Redding.