The debate rages on in the comments section on yesterday’s qualified defense of the Mets’ offseason. It’s currently 49 comments deep and no one’s compared anyone else to Hitler yet, so that’s awesome. One guy called me a shill, but other than that, it was good work all around.

Anyway, I want to reiterate a point I made in the post but that I think got missed, at least based on the thrust of most of the comments. I in no way meant to excuse the Mets for their general lack of moves on the big-league level this year, but only to commend them for not selling the farm. As I wrote:

The Mets had opportunities to inexpensively improve their chances for 2010 without jeopardizing their future and missed them. I don’t know if there’s truth to the reports of budget constraints or bureaucratic inefficiency, or if the problem stems from either or both or is simply an innocent — and damning — misreading of baseball’s marketplace, but whatever it is, it isn’t good.

To that point, Howard Megdal wrote a good column for SNY.tv on Monday about how the Mets could have upgraded their roster for little more than the money they offered to Bengie Molina.

Sam Borden touched on a similar note today, pointing out that, as nice as it is that the Mets are playing up their past, it’d be nice if they did a little more to improve their present.

And if that weren’t all depressing enough, Mike Salfino uses the Bill James Handbook and catches up with Gene McCaffrey of Wise Guy Baseball to project how the Mets’ pitching staff will fare in 2010.

Because, you know, these websites are all about shilling for corporate interests. That’s precisely what we do here. (I honestly don’t know why I get so burned up by that, except, I guess, that it couldn’t be further from the truth, and I hate that anyone might think anything I write could be disingenuous.)

Anyway, Sam argues that my post yesterday defending the Mets for not destroying their future was akin to commending a man for not falling down the stairs on his trip to the basement, and maybe to some extent he’s right. Maybe that’s just how low my expectations have sunk.

I’m not sure, though. I’m still holding out hope that the Mets made a conscious decision to not trade prospects, and that it represents some sort of fundamental philosophical shift for the organization. And that could be very optimistic, I realize.

Regardless, now reports have it that the Mets have no money left. If that’s true, it’s both extremely bad and completely baffling, because, you know, what happened to that money they were ready to offer Bengie Molina and Joel Pineiro and all that?

And it’s a shame because, if it’s true, it would prevent one of the inexpensive moves the Mets could still make to upgrade their 2010 roster: signing Felipe Lopez.

I don’t want to burst anyone’s bubble here, because I got plenty of comments and e-mails this offseason from Mets fans eager to see the return of Mike Jacobs to Flushing.

And I don’t want to waste too many words on the subject, because I don’t really want to imagine a situation wherein Jacobs plays too big a role with the big-league club.

But Mike Jacobs is about as one-dimensional a baseball player as could possibly survive in the Major Leagues. He is a power hitter. He does not hit for average, he does not get on base, he does not steal bases in the rare event he gets on, and he is not a good defender. Mike Jacobs sometimes crushes the ball. That’s his game.

It is not enough to make him a good Major Leaguer, or even really a capable Major Leaguer. By WAR, Jacobs has been below replacement-level for the past two seasons, and only barely above it in 2007.

That’s not to say it’s a bad move for the Mets to scoop him up on a Minor League deal. It’s a Minor League deal, after all. It will likely be a bad move if they cite his Major League experience and 32 home runs in 2008 and give him a 25-man roster spot over a more capable and deserving player, but since they haven’t done that yet, I’ll wait on it.

What’s a little bit baffling is where Jacobs fits in with the Buffalo club he’s likely destined for, since Ike Davis seemed destined to be the team’s starting first baseman. Plus the Bisons already have corner bats in Val Pascucci and Mike Hessman, and also Nick Evans and/or Chris Carter if they don’t stick with the big club out of Spring Training.

I guess Davis could be heading back for another go-round at Double-A to start the season, but given the way he torched that level in his half-year there in 2009, I can’t imagine he needs much more time there.

This is speculation upon speculation and I have no idea that it could be the case, but it would sure be neat if adding Jacobs to the Triple-A mix had something to do with giving Davis some time in right field. Davis played two games in right field at Double-A Binghamton last year and supposedly has a great arm — he was a pitcher in college — so having him take some turns in right could give the Mets some flexibility in their future handling of Davis.

Of course, since Hessman, Pascucci, Evans and Carter all have plenty of experience at first, I have no idea why Jacobs would change the way the team uses Davis in Buffalo. I’m just fantasizing, really.

On the whole, Jacobs is a low-cost, low-risk pickup. Since he’s unlikely to post a Major League on-base percentage north of .300, I wouldn’t call him a potential “high-reward” guy, but who knows?

This might be more of the Mets’ whole “doing better by the city of Buffalo” thing they pledged last season. But if that’s the case, man. I sure wish they’d have paid as much attention to the Major League roster as they did to the Triple-A one.