I’ve heard it in numerous different hypothetical Mets 2009 rotations. Some of them have the Mets not resigning Pedro Martinez and Oliver Perez and replacing them with just one starter — CC Sabathia or Derek Lowe or AJ Burnett or whoever.

Ultimately, all the theories have one starter replacing two starters, which puts the name Jonathan Neise in the No. 5 slot.

I would love to think baseball is like MLB 2k8 or Baseball Mogul where I could just plug in Neise and simulate a season to see how he turns out. But it just isn’t like that, and I worry that Neise is not ready. After all, he had very limited time at Triple-A. He had three starts in the big leagues this year — two bad and one good but also the second game of a doubleheader against the Atlanta Braves.

It would not surprise me in the least if Neise is not with the Mets to start 2009. I would suspect it would take an electric spring training in addition to a wide-open vacancy in the starting rotation to put Neise with the team. I think they are inclined to both give him more seasoning and filling the vacancies through the offseason.

In the unlikelihood that the Mets actually go with Neise already in the No. 5 slot in 2009, I would fear a scenario like what Mike Pelfrey endured in 2007, where he is just met with struggling and it takes a long time for him to get over it. It’s hard for a young starter to just “learn” in the big leagues, especially with a fanbase as obsessed as the 2009 Mets fanbase will be.

When it comes to playoff rooting, there’s always two schools of thought: either you root for a team within your division (or league) or you root against said teams because of the bitter rivalries from the season.

I am in the latter group. This might sound sacreligious, but I would never describe myself as a “National League fan” or an “NL East fan.” Sure I love National League baseball. I think it’s more interesting and requires more strategy. And uh, I’m a fan of the New York Mets in the NL East. But I’m not blindly a fan of all the teams in the division and/or league.

In fact, when I think about it, I usually find myself completely against those teams. When the playoffs started, I identified the Tampa Bay Rays as the team I’d root for. I also decided I wouldn’t really care if the Boston Red Sox or the Los Angeles Angels won either. Those three teams are AL teams.

When glancing over the NL teams, I really didn’t care for any of them. I decided to hope the Los Angeles Dodgers won the league because they were the lesser of the four evils. And it would stick it to the New York Yankees, which is funny.

But out of all eight teams, I despise the Philadelphia Phillies and prayed they would be quickly eliminated, hopefully in a three-game sweep at the hands of the Milwaukee Brewers. Yes, the Brewers took the last playoff spot. They celebrated on the last day of the season at the expense of the Mets. But to be honest, the Phillies and Marlins left more of a bad taste in my mouth on the last weekend than the Brewers. The Brewers were inconsequential. They contributed friendly fire and accidentally shot us down on the way to glory. I don’t really hold anything against them. So I was fervently rooting for Bud Selig’s boys against the Phillies.

Of course, they failed, which honestly makes me more bitter about the Mets not making it. I felt the same way in 2007. When the team that claimed your playoff spot just dies in the first round, it’s like they wasted it. (I realize these are contradictory ideas, but it being the Phillies dying in 2007 made me feel better. The Brewers just makes me resentful of them.)

So now I root for the Los Angeles Dodgers, and right now it looks like they are going to fail as well. I don’t know if I can take a Philadelphia Phillies World Series, especially coming off a Super Bowl that was absolutely hellish for a Jets fan (New England Patriots vs New York Giants. There’s not a worse possible matchup for a Jets fan to endure.)

So please, Dodgers. Please Red Sox. Please Rays. I cannot take the Phillies really being “the team to beat,” not just for the NL East but for all of Major League Baseball.

Compared to a lot of the other reactionary talk surrounding the team immediately after the season, I feel like the conservative Mets fan.

Firstly, as others have pointed out, Jose Reyes, David Wright, and Carlos Beltran should stay for obvious reasons. They are a part of the illustrious Mets “core” and should go nowhere. Why? Because they are good players.

Secondly, I am for picking up the option for Carlos Delgado. Like virtually everyone else, I did not think I would take this stance months ago, but not only has Delgado won over the hearts and minds of Mets fans (at least for one more year) with his clubbing power, but there really is no one else. Mark Teixeira is just not worth the money, either, especially when there is pitching to be had.

Rather than going after Orlando Hudson or bringing back the aging tandem of Luis Castillo and Damion Easley, I think the Mets should turn to Daniel Murphy at second base next year. This reasoning is also rather predictable. Like many other Mets fans, I like Murphy’s potential, especially since he’s such a patient hitter at such a young age. And he’s got INTANGIBLES~! since he always seems like a guy who is hard-nosed in interviews. Murphy’s most value would be at second base, but encouraging reports from the Arizona Fall League would make Mets fans feel better about Murphy’s defense there (or anywhere).

Like many other Mets fans, I am in favor of letting go of many of the team’s free agents (Moises Alou, Pedro Martinez, Orlando Hernandez, even Oliver Perez unless he would settle for like a two-year deal or something.) Even more disappointing about this season is I feel like half of it was convincing Omar Minaya he had made mistakes he needed to correct in the future, such as signing El Duque, Alou and Castillo. And while it was always talked of as a possibility to bring back Pedro, his 2008 made sure (at least, I hope) that he never pitches in Citi Field.

As for Minaya and Jerry Manuel, I feel ambivalent to their returns. While neither particularly excites me, potentially because they’ve been with the team for a while now, I can’t really think of any exciting replacements. And chances are, a regime change might slow down the progress of the team, and I don’t think the fanbase is even close to being ready for a poor season after the last two heartbreakers.

So yeah, I have a lot of predictable opinions about the Mets, which makes me the ultimate conservative fan. The only shed of excitement I could offer for the Mets’ offseason plans would be to stock up all the saved money from letting go of free agents to go after a highly-touted pitcher — CC Sabathia or Francisco Rodriguez. It may make more sense to go after multiple, lower-tiered pitchers to fill up more of the Mets’ holes, but the hot stove has not revved up, and I’m not thinking straight yet.

It was easier this time.

Not because the Mets “collapsed” in 2008. SNY’s Ted Berg gives a good case for why the Mets did not collapse, and after reading it, it really started to bug me when ESPN could not talk about the Mets missing the playoffs without using the word “collapse.”

Grant it, they were just as brutal on the Chicago Cubs on Saturday. (I think it’s hilarious that the Cubs were swept. Like Andrew Beaton, I don’t buy the “lovable loser” moniker either, and somewhere along the way, I grew to want to see the Cubs lose. Maybe it’s all the media attention. Regardless, the best team in the National League was swept in three games. Hilarious.)

It’s not because I didn’t think the Mets would get out of the first round. While I was pessimistic, for sure, I could see the Mets pulling what the Dodgers pulled this week. Everything changes in October. We’ve seen it before.

It’s not even because I thought the 2008 Mets couldn’t get the job done on the final weekend. I honestly thought maybe they could.

It was simply because it had happened before.

For some reason, 2007 feels so much worse than 2008, and I don’t know why. Maybe it’s because, throughout 2007, we as Mets fans deluded ourselves into thinking this was the same team as the 2006 Mets when, at least after April, they really weren’t. In 2008, after the calamity of being under .500 in June and the firing of Willie Randolph, there were no more delusions, only harsh reality.

But it’s weird because, at the same time, I don’t really buy the argument that the Mets overachieved either. No self-respecting Mets fan thought in March, with the acquisition of Johan Santana, that the Mets would be good to simply add one more win to their total and not make the playoffs again on the last weekend. Just because the Mets were terrible in June does not make those expectations go away.

Personally, I always look back on full seasons, and I think of 2008 as yet another lost opportunity. I just hope the door is not shutting, and none of us are noticing yet.

There is something really depressing about the end of this season. After the 2007 season, I felt heartbreak beacuse the NL East division crown felt entitled to the Mets after such a large lead in mid-September. This year, a playoff berth did not seem a given at all, and as a result, when the Mets did not achieve a spot, I just feel empty. I feel like another improvement year from David Wright was wasted. So were all those outings by Johan Santana. So was Jose Reyes‘ 2006-like season and Carlos Delgado’s potential last-hurrah power surge.

It feels like this team had so many extraordinary independent accomplishments but too many lineup holes and bullpen woes to get them to October.

While Mike Pelfrey showed a marked improvement around the beginning of the 2nd half, Carlos Delgado clearly has had the biggest turnaround. And it’s not like nobody is talking about this because everybody is. The constant MVP debate around the Mets has been sparked by Delgado’s resurgence.

But it cannot be overstated just how Delgado’s comeback came out of nowhere. This is a man who fans and commentators thought could be cut midseason. People were talking about the Mets making grabbing Richie Sexson to play a little first base in a platoon. He was playing that poorly. In the Willie Randolph clubhouse, the media isolated him as the de-facto leader of the “anti-Randolph” camp, if such a camp even truly existed.

But now he’s belting homers left and right. And like it’s been said, these aren’t “Citizens’ Bank Park homers,” such as the one Jimmy Rollins hit today against the Brewers, these are no doubt shots. He’s clobbering home runs in key situations.

NL MVP? I’m not so sure. I’m not even sure about Mets’ MVP, to be honest. But if there is some Most Improved Player award we can hand out, let’s symbolically give the nod to Delgado, a man who has not always felt the love around Shea. Maybe even a Delgado Appreciation Day on his birthday? Eh, that’s probably going too far.

It’s amazing how quick Jose Reyes has established himself in the Mets’ recordbooks. Reyes obliterated the single-season Mets steals record with his 78 in 2007. And in just his fourth full season, Reyes has already captured the club record for steals, eclipsing the mark of Mookie Wilson. He managed to do it in nearly 400 less games than Wilson.

If David Wright keeps it up, he could easily break the Mets’ all-time home run record, as well.

It is actually a sad testament to how few players have had long tenures with the Mets. Gary Cohen and Ron Darling discussed the issue shortly after Reyes broke the record earlier this week. Cohen said only somebody like Ed Kranepool, who spent his entire 18-season career with the Mets, has the kind of long tenure you’d expect from club recordholders. Team icons like Tom Seaver (roughly 10 and a half seasons) and Mike Piazza (7 seasons) had a number of years (and a few major accomplishments) without the Mets. The same can be said for team leaders from that 1986 championship team like Keith Hernandez (6 and a half seasons), Darryl Strawberry (8 seasons), and Dwight Gooden (11 seasons).

When thinking of some of these iconic Mets, it makes one wonder whether fans jump the gun in assuming Reyes and Wright will be with the Mets for their entire careers. For sure, they will play through the rest of their current contracts, which are pretty sizable ones. But how can we say what the state of the Mets will be after the 2011 season? And especially after the 2013 season? Who knows just what the productivity of those two players are at that time or the state of the Mets’ payroll?

For what it’s worth, though, the Mets have established their identity as Reyes and Wright ever since the beginning of the 2005 season and perhaps, even before then. It is what made not resigning Mike Piazza and Cliff Floyd, marginal past team leaders, all the easier. And Reyes and Wright have matured and filled those roles admirably, especially Wright who has remained a leader in the clubhouse when others (Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado) have occasionally faltered in that capacity.

Hopefully, if the two keep it up through their prime, the Mets can continue to identify Reyes and Wright, along with Beltran, Johan Santana, Mike Pelfrey, and others as the team’s core for years to come.

Throw me in to the crowd who is puzzled over why Billy Wagner is already writing off his Mets career. As has been said, if he begins the recovery now, wouldn’t he have a shot at relieving in 2009? And even if the Mets decided not to pick up his option for 2010, how is there no possibility that the Mets won’t take a flyer on Wagner’s future?

I can understand that Wagner is severely depressed over the news of his season ending, but hopefully, when his head cools, he’ll start to open up to these possibilities. Because they exist, or at least, they should exist.

Also, I don’t agree with Linda Cohn about Wagner’s departure, either. Because it doesn’t make much sense to me.

I have subscribed to the MLB.TV service since the beginning of the 2005 season, allowing me to watch about 95% of the Mets games over that span. I’ve also been able to watch historic moments (such as Clay Buchholz’s no-hitter, which aired on a Saturday night, thus not even ESPN broke to it) and interesting match-ups (like Barry Zito’s first game against the Athletics). I’m a big fan of the service since all you need to subscribe is an internet connection, instead of a bulky, unnecessary digital cable package. And the actual cost of MLB.TV is less than that of MLB Extra Innings.

But enough shilling for MLB.TV. When I first got the service, it arbitrarily chose some networks over others. For example, Yankees games were virtually all shown on YES, and Red Sox games were virtually all shown on NESN. For the most part, the Mets’ home announcers were chosen more often than not, if memory serves.

But then, MLB.TV took a more fair approach, deciding to carry only the home team’s broadcasts. As a result, I’ve had to suffer through hearing the Braves, Nationals, Marlins, and Phillies announcers more than I’d like. (For instance, that horrid four-game Mets-Phillies series was in Philadelphia last year, so the sounds were of jubiliant Phillies announcers, not downtrodden Mets ones.) Only games that were blacked out by the home team were carried by the road team’s announcers.

But now, MLB.TV’s premium service has added the feature that I think all subscribers really wanted — the ability to choose between home and road feeds. And with that, MLB.TV has risen in value tenfold. I still have the regular MLB.TV service, since I normally don’t have the time to watch six games at once, but now I’ll have to seriously think about getting the premium service. And I’ll probably just splurge for it because choice of feeds is such an awesome feature.

So yeah, MLB.TV rocks. And now it offers SNY for 162 games.

It’s so hard to sweep a doubleheader. Teams rarely do it. So the most likely result tomorrow would be a split.

At the same time, a split, while usually OK, would feel like failure, considering the Mets lost the first game of this series. I feel like I am setting myself up for a major disappointment on Sunday because the Mets absolutely have to sweep the doubleheader to win the series. And if they don’t win the series, it’s a series loss to the Phillies. The world isn’t over, by any means, but it’ll be a disappointing finish.

The Mets really need a big performance out of Johan Santana now because they may need that bullpen in the other game with Pedro Martinez. While Pedro has pitched well as of late, I have more confidence in Santana going longer and Santana dealing with the Phillies’ potent lineup. (After all, Santana has dealt with it in the past.)

But the Mets’ bats really need to rake in this doubleheader, or the team won’t stand a chance. Perhaps the biggest reason why these doubleheaders always lead to splits is because one game will have the team putting up a good number of runs and then the regulars will be tired and lose vigor. Or vice versa. Hopefully, that doesn’t happen tomorrow night.

I realize this is all ancedotal evidence and may not amount to much, but having this doubleheader be against the Phillies makes me really uneasy.