If he holds a private meeting with the three guys and tells them where they stand right now, the same can be accomplished without airing their dirty laundry publicly. Or better yet, he has the luxury of evaluating their performance over the course of the spring and making a decision based on that. In the end, there simply seems to be far more downside to his proclamation about Murphy than upside. Your thoughts?
-- Brendan K., Boston

The decision and the timing of it did raise my eyebrows. But Manuel was quite impressed by Murphy last summer. I am a pretty firm believer in what Davey Johnson used to say -- that jobs are neither won nor lost in exhibition games; that is that managers almost always have a sense of what they want before the first exhibition game pitch. So why not implement the plan at the beginning?

I'm not surprised by Murphy being afforded the chance to play every day, but reducing the playing time of Church did surprise me at first. And now that Manuel has explained that Church will be the everyday right fielder, it all makes more sense.

Moreover, the defense Church provided in right field was quite good, equal to or better than that of all but a few right fielders in Mets history -- Rusty Staub, Mike Cameron and Elliott Maddox -- and as good as most in the league. His throwing was a revelation.

Church's defense is superior to Tatis', and with three of the five starters likely to be right-handed and the three primary relievers right-handed, the right fielder is likely to get his share of chances. So all that confuses me.

But managers see what they see; they're not trying to undermine the team. I don't believe Manuel thinks he has to light any fires. And I didn't think the laundry was particularly dirty.

We've had the privilege of seeing games live on terrestrial television here in the UK since the mid-90's. At the risk of being dismissed as naive by my American cousins, I can't help but think the Mets' starting pitching staff is woefully short of the quality required. After Johan Santana, the rest look either average or just above that at best. This won't lead the ball club to a pennant or a ring. It's a nagging thought as the season approaches. I hope I'm wrong and would love to have my fears allayed! Your thoughts?
-- Geoff M., London, England

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:

Well, the Mets' rotation is not Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, etc., but it does have a chance to be above the league average. My sense of it is that Mike Pelfrey is the swing man. He can make the rotation special or it can be average if he doesn't emerge as the pitcher the Mets anticipate him being.

At this time of year, people tend to make their assessments based on the best possible scenario. With the four definite starters, that would mean 20 victories from Santana, 18 or so from Pelfrey, and 15 from John Maine and Oliver Perez. That's a lot to ask -- and how often does everything go right? But I do think the Mets have three pitchers -- Santana excluded -- who could win 12-15 games. No one could be disappointed by that. Santana will be beyond that.

There was something I picked up on that I wanted to share. Over the past two years, Maine and Perez have had very similar stats. But this year, Perez will make $12 million and Maine will earn $2.6 million How messed up is that?
-- Alex L. , Syosset, N.Y.

It is the wonder of salary arbitration and free agency at work. Maine has been arbitration-eligible for one year and needs two more full seasons before he is eligible for free agency. Perez was awarded $6.5 million in arbitration last year and signed for $36 million for three years on the open market. I'm not sure that the circumstances you cite point to the system being "messed up" or illustrate what a genius Marvin Miller was when he had arbitration negotiated into the collective bargaining agreement and then won free agency rights for players.

Either way, Maine will get his chance.

Can you explain to me why, in this depressed market, the Mets felt it necessary to jump all over a pitcher who has never been good in his career and give him $2.25 million -- Tim Redding? They have since signed Freddy Garcia and Livan Hernandez to compete with Jon Neise and Bobby Parnell. The money spent on Redding could have been put toward Orlando Hudson ($3.5 million) or Bobby Abreu ($5 million) or Will Ohman or Juan Cruz.
-- John F., Kings Park, N.Y.

Risk is involved with Garcia and Hernandez, while injury trails Garcia and age is an issue with Hernandez. I believe the club sees Redding -- even with the foot and shoulder problems that have developed in camp -- as less of a question than either of the others, though Garcia is likely to provide more if he is completely healed. If Garcia or Hernandez wins the fifth spot, then Redding can be the long reliever. If not, then either or both can pitch in Triple-A and provide the depth that almost certainly will be needed.

In none of the cases you have cited is the amount of money particularly high. Moreover, the Mets were opposed to bringing in Hudson and paying for him with a pick in the June First-Year Player Draft so long as they had Luis Castillo on the roster. They had little interest in Abreu. What they're paying Redding is irrelevant.

No one can predict when a critical injury may occur. In what area do you think the Mets lack depth and would be in trouble if a critical injury or two occurred?
-- Mark J., Atlanta., Ga.

The way the game is these days, almost every team lacks genuine depth at every position. The Mets couldn't possibly replace the production of David Wright, Jose Reyes or Carlos Beltran for any extended period. They probably would have to change assignments for Tatis were Carlos Delgado to become baseball-incapacitated. If Brian Schneider were to go down, how long would Ramon Castro remain in one piece if he played every day? Alex Cora could replace Castillo.

But as Manuel said last week, Cora was brought in to serve as a reserve. And asking a player to do more than was originally intended can become dicey. Rare is that instance in which the understudy provides more than was expected of the starter. See Jose Valentin replacing Kaz Matsui in 2006.

And even if a reserve fares well, which player takes the place of the reserve?

An injury to an outfielder late enough in the season might prompt the club to summon Fernando Martinez if he has demonstrated a readiness for the big leagues. Jon Niese, if he doesn't win a place in the Opening Day rotation, would be available to take the place of one of the starters, and J.J. Putz certainly could close if Francisco Rodriguez were unavailable. So the Mets appear to have pitching depth.

But no team has the kind of depth teams had even 25 years ago. Remember, neither Howard Johnson (one year removed from a 30-30 season) nor Kevin Mitchell (three years shy of an MVP season) played regularly for the '86 Mets.

With all the guys gunning for the fifth starter's spot, is there anyone that Mets management would like to see most win that spot? And who do you think would ultimately make the Mets roster as the fifth starter?
-- Steven B., Brooklyn, N.Y.

I suspect the best of all possible worlds for the Mets would have Niese blossom to such a degree that he'd force his way on to the Opening Day roster or into the big leagues by mid-May. But in the real world, it is more likely the club would have him pitch extensively at Triple-A and afford the club a late-season alternative.

I think the more conceivable scenario the Mets want is for Garcia to regain his strength and stuff and be the pitcher he was. The staff would be quite special then. I don't believe anyone sees it as possible that Hernandez regain his touch of six or seven years ago. If Garcia makes it back, the Mets can afford to give Niese additional time to develop and use Redding in long relief.