It’s raining today in midtown Manhattan. Forgive me if you’ve already heard any of my umbrella-inspired fury on other rainy days via Twitter. Here’s this edition:

From the Wikipedia: Umbrella

Umbrellas have existed for protecting the human head from both sun and rain since at least the 5th century BCE. Some form of umbrella existed in ancient times in Europe, East Asia, South Asia, Asia Minor, Africa and the Americas. If Aboriginal Australians also developed a form of portable head-protecting canopy, the Wikipedia is not aware of it.

In early times, umbrellas were normally associated with wealth or status, and umbrellas were rarely carried by the people they were meant to protect.

This tradition is boldly maintained today by Sean “Diddy” Combs, whose umbrella man probably had to suffer through the recording of the single worst rap performance of all time on “Come With Me.”

Umbrellas, like most things not named “the Bubonic Plague,” were hard to find in the Dark Ages in Europe. According to the Wikipedia, cloaks were the most popular method of personal weather-protection in the era.

Umbrellas today principally serve both their intended purpose and a second, ancillary function: pissing me off.

Look: An umbrella is a great way to protect yourself from the elements if you get caught in the rain in some open space. But in urban centers, people should be required to have licenses to carry umbrellas.

Honestly, you wouldn’t think it should be that hard to understand that, when carrying an umbrella, you take up a lot more space than you normally do. I mean, the whole point of the umbrella is that it extends beyond your person in every direction, assuming you’re not fatter than your umbrella.

But no. People just keep walking as if they’re unencumbered by umbrellas, as though they’re occupying only their usual diameter. And umbrellas are almost always soaking wet, so when people bump into you with their umbrellas while they’re carrying an umbrella and you’re not, you get doubly soaked.

And to make matters worse, umbrellas are armed with pointy things at just about every extremity, so it’s not like those of us who are left without umbrellas, walking around avoiding umbrellas, are every diving out of the way of getting our eyes poked out by cotton balls.

If you’re carrying an umbrella, you absolutely must watch where you’re going, for the good of humanity. A good rule of thumb: If when you’re looking forward, you see only the inside of your umbrella, you’re carrying your umbrella too low.

And once your umbrella is held at an appropriate level to accommodate your vision, consider the people walking toward you on the crowded sidewalk. If the person isn’t much taller than you, a good method is to raise up your umbrella as you pass him by, avoiding his head and providing him with a brief bit of umbrella coverage, to boot.

If the person is too tall for that, then gently move your umbrella away from him. This is tricky, of course: Be aware of any other passersby that could be in your general vicinity before any umbrella adjustments.

And please: NO SUDDEN MOVEMENTS! It’s difficult enough for people coming your way or trying to pass you to predict how you’re going to be walking when you’re not carrying a pointy, three-foot wide weapon.

Good lord. Just be considerate, that’s all.

And with that, I’m off to walk to Grand Central Station in the rain, without an umbrella.

The Mets are reportedly close to a one-year deal with Alex Cora worth about $2 million.

I’ve said my piece on Cora, and I’m not out to repeat myself any more than I already do.

Instead, I’ll turn it over to “Hit the Weights Zeile,” a commenter on MetsBlog who put it pretty clearly:

Not worth 2 million. This team just can never figure this out but if you give out 3-4 contracts like this to guys who simply arent good you couldve used that money for useful parts. Cora’s production can be replaced for a fraction of that contract.

As they say on the Internet: This.

It’s nothing against Cora. It’s something against guaranteeing Cora $2 million.

And it’s nothing against making Cora and Elmer Dessens the first two offseason acquisitions. The Mets entered the offseason needing depth in the middle infield and the bullpen.

It’s about allocating resources where they do not need to be allocated. It’s about promising a roster spot — and remember, this front office rarely gives up on sunk costs until long after it should — to a guy who should be competing for one.

And it’s about committing to a guy to fill a need that might be filled more adeptly by a non-tendered free agent before anyone is certain who will be non-tendered.

I’m sick of making this argument, and I have a feeling I’m not going to change anyone’s mind anyway. The bottom line is that Cora won’t prevent the Mets from competing in 2010 or beyond, but he’s not likely to help them either.

I used to work with a really awesome guy who wasn’t very good at his job. People would complain about his various inabilities all the time, and then they’d inevitably punctuate their complaints with, “But hey, great guy.” So here’s that for Alex Cora:

But hey, great guy.

D.J. Short absolutely nails it for NBC Sports: The Mets would be silly to shell out a multi-year deal for Bengie Molina when Kelly Shoppach could be non-tendered by the Indians.

Check it out: Even in Shoppach’s down year in 2009, he posted a 98 OPS+ to Molina’s 86.

Shoppach played nearly a full-time role for the Indians in 2008 when Victor Martinez was struggling with injury, but apparently the Indians are content to make due with Wyatt Toregas and Lou Marson while they await the arrival of Carlos Santana, whose songs all sound the same.

Shoppach’s not the world’s best defender behind the plate, but neither is Molina. And Shoppach is six years younger.

He might not have Molina’s Major League track record, but he’s almost certainly a better bet moving forward.

Plus, he looks just a tiny bit like Todd Pratt.

Tim Dierkes at MLBTradeRumors.com has this year’s Elias rankings for Type A free agents.

It’s probably time someone updates the formula.

This is not an adequate ranking of these players by value.

For a thorough explanation of why the players are ranked this way, check out Tim’s post from 2007.

Interesting piece on Drew Brees in the Times today from Judy Battista. Battista details Brees’ history of being told he was too short to play quarterback and examines some of the perceived limitations for short quarterbacks in the NFL.

The money quote comes from a former Cowboys executive who developed a computer program that concluded NFL quarterbacks must be at least 6-foot-1:

“Brees is a 1-in-100 guy. If you look around, the quarterbacks that are playing the best, they’re all at least 6-3.”

Well, yeah, but if you’re unwilling to draft quarterbacks below 6-foot-1, then, ahh, you know.

Drew Brees was excellent in high school, then he was excellent in college, then he surprised everyone by being excellent in the NFL.

I feel like the NFL’s talent scouting system is pretty terrible across the board. A lot of that has to do, I think, with the nature of the sport: No football player ever plays in isolation; his success inherently depends on that of his teammates.

But it seems like there’s way too much emphasis on size and combine numbers and not nearly enough on ability to play football.

My colleague Mike Salfino loves to point out that an NFL draft selection has only a 47 percent chance of having a better career than the next player selected at his position. It’s an interesting point.

Someone thought Vernon Gholston would be good. Someone thought Kurt Warner should be bagging groceries. Everyone needs to pay more attention to what happens on the field.

Tom Singer at MLB.com hits on a point I’ve touched on before about how and why the league’s free-agent market is changing.

Mark Sanchez played a big game of red-light, green-light with Rex Ryan yesterday, and it appeared to work out.

The legend of Ike Davis is growing. Both Darryl Strawberry and Ike’s dad contribute.

Lawrence Frank was the longest-tenured coach in New York. Now he’s the most recently unemployed, and the Nets are 0-17.

The following trailer comes courtesy of Brett from SNY promos. I have nothing to add:

According to the New York Times, as of midafternoon Friday the Mets Clubhouse Store on 42nd St. hadn’t sold any of the team’s new home jerseys, released just in time for the biggest shopping day of the year.

Not good.

Ad sales in the offseason make up a big part of the Mets’ annual revenue, and so a complete lack of interest among fans — foreboding, presumably, less interest from advertisers — is the type of thing that could prompt the front office to push to make a “splash” this winter.

That could be a good thing, for sure. Some of the potential cannonballs in the offseason pool — Matt Holliday, for example — are great players who could help the Mets in the upcoming season and those to come.

But making a splash for the sake of making a splash, especially for a team shrouded in uncertainty, could turn out terribly.

I’m not saying that fans should buy more jerseys to keep Omar Minaya from doing something silly, nor am I saying one day’s worth of bad merchandise sales will affect the Mets’ offseason outlook. But the team competes for advertising dollars in the market with the reigning world champions, and that creates a lot of pressure to grab headlines and fan attention this offseason.

Sometimes it seems like Mets brass are more concerned with improving the perception of the team than with improving the actual team, and more concerned with winning airtime on talk radio in March than winning games in October.

But offseason headlines, lucrative though they may sometimes be, are short-lived and unsustainable. Even if it means taking a one-year hit in offseason revenue, the Mets need to focus on creating a perpetual winner, something that will eventually earn them a whole lot more than a new look or a rash move.

According to an article in today’s Daily News, a Brooklyn judge tossed out a lawsuit against the city by property owners in Willets Point, the “neighborhood” across from Citi Field.

The suit alleged that the city was purposefully neglecting the area to drive down property costs to make the planned redevelopment there less expensive.

Eminent domain is a sticky issue, and I have far from all of the facts in this case. But to Mets fans, this is pretty clearly a good thing.

I’ve been lucky enough to visit 23 Major League stadiums, and I can attest that the ones with places to go in the immediate vicinity before and after games make for a much, much more pleasant experience. You can get delicious green chili across the street from Coors Field and tasty microbrews around the corner from Safeco.

You can’t even see a bar or restaurant from Citi Field.

I’ll believe that Willets Point will have all the things the city is hoping to put there as soon as I see it. The area doesn’t even have working sewers yet, so I imagine it’s a good ways off. But man, it’d be pretty great to have someplace to go for a meal before the game or a drink afterwards that didn’t involve a trek or a subway ride.

Over at the Perpetual Post yesterday, I threw in my two cents in a multi-part discussion over the relative benefits of cake and pie.

To me, cake is clearly better than pie. As I wrote:

Cake, at its best, is spongy and moist. It features, almost by design, a rich blend of amazing flavors: the cake part of the cake, and the frosting part of the cake. Both parts are excellent. It’s not like sweet goo in boring crust, like pie. It’s synergy, that’s all.

My colleagues over there all have interesting and funny takes, but several of them are downright wrong.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t enjoy your pie this Thanksgiving, of course. You should. But just do it while considering how much better cake is.

I quoted a friend in the article, actually the fellow who introduced me to the merits of on-base percentage when I was in 10th grade. He is responsible for one of my favorite sayings of all time:

“I’m going to die someday, and when I’m on my deathbed, I’m probably going to say, ‘I should have had more cake.’”

So if you’re looking for something to excuse your gluttony today, say that.

Happy Thansgiving, and enjoy Adam Sandler:

This is only tangentially related to sports, but it’s far too important to ignore.

South African baboons can now open car doors and have taken to raiding unlocked cars for food. Experts fear it will get worse when the World Cup hits Cape Town in 2010.

The most baffling quote in the article:

“The perception is that the baboons are harmless and they’re not. They’re wild animals.”

Wait, who perceives baboons as harmless? It’s not like they’re cute little monkeys. Lock your damn doors.