In the last part of the series on leadership in the New York Mets club house, we will look at several player options.

Those options include Carlos Beltran, Jason Bay, Jeff Francoeur , Rod Barajas , Ike Davis and Jose Reyes. We have reviewed Johan Santana, David Wright and Francisco Rodriguez.

Now, moving on, let’s further examine the rest of that list, starting with Carlos Beltran.

Beltran was brought in to be the playoff-tested veteran. He was supposed to bring experience and leadership to a young core to push them over the top.

He has brought the experience, but he never has brought that leadership the team sought.

Too often, his mouth has written checks that his abilities couldn’t cash. That has gotten his reputation into poor standing in both the league and the clubhouse.

Then, his health became an overwhelming issue. It still is.

A leader, as previously stated, must be both on the field and produce.

He has not been both at the same time for a few years. The franchise is still desperately holding on to hope that he will magically heal, and become the leader they envisioned him to be. He is only getting older and slower. It most likely will not happen.

Another player recently brought in for such a role was Jason Bay. Bay is far too quiet for this role and far too new to the team and city to take on such a position. He is still relearning the National League and his own ballpark.

He has yet to truly produce in New York, and so he had his own struggles to be concerned with before he can convince anyone that he can help them with their struggles.

Even if he didn’t have these productivity issues, he is not the fiery type that is needed to be the unquestioned leader.

The next one is fiery, however.

Jeff Francoeur is the epitome of fire and passion. He is the man a teammate wants in the trenches along side of them. But he is also too emotional and too passionate to be the sole leader.

He can help be an enforcer, but not the main leader. He has the emotion and the mouth to be a leader, but he often loses his grip on that emotion. A leader must have control of himself before he can take control of a team.

Rod Barajas has been well underrated and unnoticed in the offseason hoopla that surrounded the Mets ‘ need for a catcher.

In the talk of the team signing every available player over 35 to fit the mold and the pursuit of Benjie Molina, Barajas was lost in the shuffle. He was signed as a last desperation move.

It was a stroke of luck on the part of Mets GM Omar Minaya .

Skill had nothing to do with this acquisition. Minaya was simply desperate after he was embarrassed that Molina shunned him publicly by taking a hometown discount in San Francisco.

This lucky move has paid dividends already for the Mets . Barajas has had multiple big hits and moments of productivity.

He has performed well above expectation, but while he is the present, he is not the future. That distinction goes to Josh Thole.

Thole is widely regarded as the next great hitting catcher, and is expected to take that role for many years to come.

Barajas , though productive, is just a bridge to the future. Therefore, he can not be a long-term leader. Thole will need a few years to grow into the role, if he develops the brashness and the production, he could fit the bill.

Time will tell, but for now he needs seasoning.

We continue, to Ike Davis.

Davis has been the young gun. The player that everyone adores. He is the real deal. So much in fact, that he pushed the opening day first baseman to the bench or the minors.

The first baseman I speak of is last year’s golden boy, Daniel Murphy.

Davis is so good, that Murphy conceded and admitted that Davis belongs as the starter. Davis has shown the heart and hustle as the newest face of the franchise, and has captured the collective hearts of the fans.

The problem with Davis, however, is that he lacks the experience to be the leader at this time.

He may be able to in the future, but for now, he must show that he can respond to the adjustments that the rest of the league will inevitably make against him. He is a welcomed addition to both the lineup and the clubhouse, but as of now, not a leader.

Finally, we come to Jose Reyes.

Reyes is a very important component to the Mets franchise. I have him last on this list for a purpose.

He is one of the first names that come to mind when thinking of a leader for the team; however, he is the greatest example of the biggest problem with this team—identity.

Leadership is only forged after identity is established. When a player has an identity, they have confidence and confidence brings leadership.

Reyes has had a headline filled offseason that continued into the first few weeks of the regular season as well. He has yet to truly find his role on the team.

Is he a leadoff hitter or a No. 3 hitter?

This is an important question to ask.

Essentially it is a question of whether or not he is the table setter or the meat of the lineup? Is he better to the team at starting rallies or continuing them?

We all know what Reyes is capable of doing on the field. The problem is that Mets manager Jerry Manuel knows this too, and is still undecided on how to properly utilize him after almost a year of having him as a weapon at his disposal.

That indecision has hurt Reyes and his production. Therefore, it has hurt his role on the team.

If a player is not only undecided on his role to the team, but is uncomfortable as well, it is impossible to expect him to lead.

How can he lead with so many other issues?

Reyes cannot lead until he is settled and comfortable with one role, whatever that role may be.

So, therefore, he can’t be the leader because Manuel is holding him back from being it.

He certainly has the ego, the energy experience and the mouth to be the leader. But until he is assigned a role and is allowed to stay in it to allow himself to get comfortable, he cannot be a leader. He will just be a follower.

Here lies the essential problem with the Mets .

They have too many potential chiefs, but no one capable or willing to stand out to lead the tribe. All of them are followers that aspire to lead to an extent. That’s not leadership; that’s called aspirations.

No team has ever won based on aspirations. Teams need bonafied leaders in the trenches with them. Then the rest will follow suit and fall in line. That is what history has proven.

Going back to my very first example of leadership, George Washington.

Washington, like so many others, took control of the confused and directionless troops around him. Only when there was unity and true leadership on the field of battle, did victory emerge as a byproduct.

It was only under true leadership that this group of colonies prospered into a nation.

It will only be due to unity from true leadership that this slightly above average team of followers that we call the New York Mets will prosper into a contender and a champion.

Read more MLB news on