Rafael Furcal is an awfully good ballplayer. This season, at 27, he posted a .348 on-base average in over 616 at-bats, and stole 46 bases. The list of postwar shortstops who have gotten on base 35% of the time while swiping even 20 bases at 27 or older is pretty short, populated mainly by Cooperstown-caliber players – Alan Trammell, Derek Jeter, Barry Larkin, Pee Wee Reese, Ozzie Smith, Omar Vizquel, and so on. Furcal isn’t at that level, but he doesn’t need to be to make a lot of money this off-season, especially since he’s a fine defender,whose arm,even after a shoulder injury, ranks among the most impressive in the game.

One of the big questions facing the Mets over the next few weeks is whether they should be the team to pay Furcal his money – probably, judging by the contracts given to arguably inferior shortstops like Edgar Renteria and Orlando Cabrera,somewhere around $9 million a year for four years. They’ll face some competition, as teams like the Cubs and Mariners have money and holes at shortstop, while the Braves, the only team Furcal has ever played for, shouldn’t be counted out either. They’ll also face some problems.

Most important among those is that the Mets don’t need a shortstop; they need a second baseman. Furcal’s agent (Manny Ramirez may want to give him a call) has made the appropriate noises about his client being open to moving to second, but it’s very rare for a star free agent to sign to play at a defensive position less difficult than the one he’s made his name at, and for good reasons: It lowers his future market value, opens him to embarrassment, and goes against the competitive instincts that have made him one of the best players in the world.

Furcal did play second base for at least five years in winter ball in order to allow mentor Neifi Perez to play shortstop with the Dominican club Escogido. Still, If the Mets want to sign Furcal to play the keystone, they’re going to have to pay a premium, one way or the other.

Next is Furcal’s drinking. I’m not a moralist, but Furcal pretty clearly had a problem in the recent past – last October, he was arrested for driving under the influence for the second time. It was a probation violation, so he spent three weeks in jail and had to go to a treatment program. This is the sort of thing that should make a team genuinely wary for any number of reasons.

Last is that Furcal’s not a star – he’s very good and very consistent, but not one of the best players in the league. Every year he posts a .340 OBA, hits 10-15 home runs, steals 30 or so bases, scores 100 runs, plays solid defense, and stays off the disabled list. That’s very valuable, especially to a team that should contend for the pennant every year for the next few years.

But there are players who can do the same for less. St. Louis snapped up David Eckstein last winter for $2.3 million, and he played as well this year as Furcal likely will next year. The Mets have plenty of smart people working for them, and there’s no reason they can’t find their own bargain to fill the hole at second base.

In all, while signing Furcal for four years would hardly be a disaster, it’s also not something the Mets should really be centering their off-season plans around. Were I in charge in Flushing, I’d be taking advantage of the disarray in the Dodgers’ front office by offering to solve their clubhouse problems by taking troublemaker Jeff Kent off their hands, salary and all, for a prospect or two. But that’s just me.

***

The other much-rumored object of the Mets’ off-season desire is Angels catcher Bengie Molina. Much as with Furcal, my first thought was that he’s just the sort of solid player the Mets need to make a playoff push this year; again, on second thought, he’s probably not.

While Molina looks appealing – he’s a two-time Gold Glove winner who’s won a World Series,managed one of the most consistently excellent pitching staffs in baseball, and developed over the last three years into a viable threat at the plate, a legitimate .280 hitter with 10-15 home run power – there are some real issues with his game.

First, he’s possibly the slowest runner I’ve ever seen in the majors.That’s a problem. He’ll turn 32 next season, so he’s only going to get slower, grounding into more double plays and losing more points off his batting average and thus off his OBA, which is already marginal. (It was .336 this year, when he hit .295, and has gone as low as .274 in a full season.)

More than that, I don’t see the evidence that he’s a great defensive player right now. Last year, he threw out only 26% of baserunners attempting to steal, and this year only 31% – both numbers being way down from 2002-03, when he was at 44%.The Angels allow huge numbers of wild pitches and passed balls – 83 of them this year, compared to 69 for Jason Varitek’s Red Sox (who had a knuckleballer in the rotation) and 57 for Ivan Rodriguez’s Tigers.

Statistical systems like those of Baseball Prospectus and Bill James see Molina as a marginal defender at this point. Perhaps they’re wrong, but given his age and semi-acceptable bat, why take the risk?

As with Furcal, there’s a real argument to be made that the Mets are close enough to a pennant that they should overpay just to ensure they don’t have any holes; I’m sympathetic to the argument, but it doesn’t hold up in light of the fact that the Mets’ main strengths are Jose Reyes and David Wright, two players who most likely won’t peak for half a decade. Furcal and Molina can be answers, but they’re nothing to get too excited about. That’s what the trade market is for.

tmarchman@nysun.com