I managed to stumble across the Mets' 40-man roster on Mets.com and noticed something that seemed off to me: the Mets have 5 catchers on the 40-man roster. I quickly looked at all 30 teams to see if this was abnormal. (For the purposes of this, I am assuming that MLB.com's 40-man rosters are accurate.)

2 Catchers (10)

Baltimore
Cincinnati
Detroit
Houston
New York (A)
Oakland
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Seattle
Toronto

3 Catchers (12)

Arizona
Atlanta
Chicago (A)
Chicago (N)
Colorado
Florida
Kansas City
Milwaukee
San Diego
San Francisco
Texas
Washington

4 Catchers (7)

Boston
Cleveland
Los Angeles (A)
Los Angeles (N)
Minnesota
St. Louis
Tampa Bay

5 Catchers (1)

New York (N)

The Mets are the only team with 5 catchers on the current 40-man roster. This suggests to me that this is bad practice--if it were a good idea to carry so many catchers on the 40-man, you would think that other teams would do it, as well.

This is a minor point, I suppose, but the Mets have had serious issues with 40-man roster management in the past (see: Jesus Flores in Washington). The Mets have Rod Barajas, Henry Blanco, Chris Coste, Omir Santos, and Josh Thole on the 40-man. Barajas and Blanco will likely make the big league club. Thole is a prospect and a candidate to be starting in 2011. Coste was brought in specifically to mentor Thole. This leaves Santos as the odd-man out.

The way I see it, the Mets have two options:

1. Trade Santos.
2. Continue to have a disproportionate number of catchers on the 40-man roster.

Even if the haul isn't worth much, I think you are better off with the additional slot on the 40-man than a catcher who is at least 4th on a reasonable depth chart, and is preventing you from using the slot on a player at a position of need. Middle infield, anyone?