After so many cries for a clubhouse presence, one begins to get sick of hearing about it. Wax poetic all you want about team chemistry and whatnot. The object of the general manager’s position is to put the best players on the field — a task Omar Minaya has not done very well in 2008.

Team chemistry is as immeasurable as clubhouse presence. So why does it feel like media outlets blame the organization when they perceive the team doesn’t gel? And for that matter, why do media and fans alike assume how the team acts behind closed doors? Why do post-game interview soundbytes become the microcosm of the Mets’ clubhouse atmosphere?

On Mets Blog today, a story was linked from The Huffington Post where Dave Hollander talks about “The Cliff Floyd Factor.” Hollander states towards the end of the article that statistics are necessary for baseball, but the headline and discussion of Bill James seems to write them off as silly and secondary to immeasurable core team values.

Hopefully, this idea of a “Cliff Floyd Factor” is simply tongue-in-cheek because the entire notion is ridiculously tunnel-visioned. In the article, there is no mention of any other elements of the teams Floyd played on; it is simply assumed that his undefinable leadership and inspiration drove the team to victories.

Hollander even betrays his own premise in a way. He says when Floyd joined the Marlins, they immediately became that 1997 World Series team. (Obviously, that 1997 team had a huge payroll full of star players, but let’s move on.) Anyway, he then ignores the fact that Floyd remained on the team as Florida headed into the doldrums after their first infamous “fire sale.” He remained a Marlin until 2002.

And of course, the offseason spending of the 2005-2006 New York Mets and the 2007 Chicago Cubs is not mentioned, nor are all the young talent of the Tampa Bay Rays. Hollander admits Floyd is “typically not the best player” on the teams, but I’d say he’s far from the best in his last three seasons.

Look, I’m a fan of Floyd. For whatever reason, he’s a likable player, even if he’s oft injured. But no Mets fan should wonder if he should have remained a Met for his leadership and inspiration. Just because signing Moises Alou (another oft-injured, aging outfielder) was a bad idea doesn’t mean letting Floyd go was a bad idea two years ago.

Moving on to others, there’s obviously been talk of Jose Valentin returning to the Mets this year. If he provides anything more than Damion Easley would, that’ll be surprising. Pretty much the only reason Valentin is even in the cards, it seems, is because of this notion that he’s a good clubhouse presence, particularly to Jose Reyes.

Why is the New York media conditioned to treat Reyes like a toddler? Writers and commentators don’t do this to David Wright. Even when his good friend Floyd left the team and Wright went through that tough April 2007, there wasn’t much talk of Floyd’s departure being the reason. (And for God’s sake, I’m definitely not suggesting it was.)

But with Reyes, it’s always some psychological problem. Well, he’s dancing too much. Well, he’s sulking. Well, he misses Valentin. Well, he needs Rickey Henderson mentoring him. Well, Henderson is hurting him. It goes on and on. As the case with many things, good performance quiets such nonsense, and Reyes seems to be playing well the last few weeks.

Hollander says for successful teams, motivation must come outside of money, the goal of winning and sheer chance. This might seem harsh, but why? This makes it sound like million-dollar athletes on high-payroll teams are only motivated to play well when they feel like it. Or only when their teammates are their best friends. To make a crude analogy, this probably wouldn’t be reasonable in the average workplace.