Not yet. My sense of it is that Mike Pelfrey and John Maine would be the ones most likely to elevate that staff to the level of special and that Oliver Perez would be the wild card -- no pun intended. It will take some doing to match the rotations of 1986 -- Dwight Gooden, Ron Darling, Bobby Ojeda, Sid Fernandez and Rick Aguilera -- and '88 -- Gooden, Darling, Ojeda, Fernandez and David Cone.

The rotations of the late '60s and early '70s -- with Tom Seaver, Jerry Koosman, Gary Gentry, Nolan Ryan and, later, Jon Matlack, were extraordinary. Those rotation had two future Hall of Fame pitchers and Koosman and Matlack regularly pitched on the same level or higher than Seaver and Ryan. And I've had retired players tell me that, as it was with Fernandez in the '80s, the pitcher they hated to face was Gentry.

If the projected rotation for 2009 approaches the level of rotations from 40 and 36 years ago, who plays left and how Luis Castillo hits won't be an issue.

I've been a Mets fan since 1962, through good and bad times. I personally think they do not need Manny Ramirez as much as Orlando Hudson. What do you think?
-- Jeff S., Barnaget, N.J.

Ramirez certainly would enhance the offense; so would Hudson, though. And Hudson would be a genuine asset in other areas; not so much Ramirez. And he could become a problem.

With this whole Bernard Madoff scheme (taking money) from the Wilpons and the Mets denying the losses have changed their offseason personnel plans ... do you see any truth in that? All I see the Mets having done to this point is acquiring J.J. Putz. They had Perez and K-Rod just replaces Wagner. Why can't they sign Hudson or Manny if the loss of that money had no effect on the organization? Are the Mets the Royals now?
-- Bryan M., Center Moriches, N.Y.

It seems to me you ought to be a lot less cynical and a lot more realistic. Why doubt the public statements the Mets have made?

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:

The Mets gave every indication before we learned Bernie Made-off with millions that they would keep their payroll essentially where it was for the 2008 season. And the signing of Rodriguez -- or some closer -- was essential once Wagner went down. It's not as though the club is without obligation to Wagner. It must pay Wagner $10.5 million for '09.

"Why can't they sign Hudson or Manny if the loss of that money had no effect on the organization?" The answer is because they have a budget. Moreover, I'm not convinced the club's sense of risk with Ramirez is limited to money. The Mets saw what we all saw last summer when Ramirez laid down on the Red Sox. You want that player -- that influence -- in the clubhouse?

And what would be the off-the-field impact of Manny as it regards the media? He would cause a feeding frenzy that would dwarf what developed with Brett Favre. And it would be daily for six months. That was a consideration for the club.

Hudson is a different situation. The Mets have a second baseman in Luis Castillo. What would you do if you no longer wanted a car you hadn't paid off? Buy another one and leave the first one in the garage?

One other thing from a previous Inbox:

Mea culpa: Three players and some coaches wore No. 8 for the Mets since Gary Carter's last day with the club in 1989.