David Lennon theorized earlier this week that Minaya would likely get an extension. But Matthew Artus in his Always Amazin says otherwise:

I’m not so sure that’s a safe assumption to make quite yet.

As the Mets are in “Win Now” mode, anything less than the playoffs represents failure. Failing to make the playoffs two years in a row would be the antithesis of “Win Now.” So if you are not “Winning Now” and the results show you’re not “Winning Now,” then I can’t see how your job is safe.

We’ve questioned a lot of the moves Minaya did and did not make. We railed on him when he didn’t pony up the dough for Barry Zito (good move). We questioned him when he let Chad Bradford walk and then signed Scott Schoeneweis to a big-money reliever deal (bad move). We worried about Pedro’s long term contributions (more good than bad). We fretted over selling the farm for Johan (good move). We shouted obscenities when Minaya remained quiet at this year’s trade deadline (so far, so good).

I’ve called for the extension of Jerry Manuel’s contract to bring some stability. He’s been terrific and has not allowed the club to slide when it looked at times they would. I don’t believe that the Mets would have swept even a poor Washington Nationals team without the stability and leadership that Manuel has provided.

So why hasn’t this happened yet?

I hope that one thing the Wilpons have noted is the influnce that Minaya’s #2 Tony Bernazard had in not only Randolph’s ouster but in his behind the scenes manipulation of players. Has this ended? Or do the Wilpons see things dissimilarly?

If so, they may see the need to make a move in the offseason that could involve Minaya’s dismissal. Under those circumstances, they might want the new GM to have input of whom manages next season. If the Minaya-Bernazard power structure is seen as positive by the Wilpons, then Manual’s extension beyond interim staus makes sense.

Unless all parties concerned are still traumatized by Randolph led meltdown last season (which I still find Minaya and Bernazard complicit) and the malaise caused by Randolph’s dismissal, a real stamp of approval for Manual should be under consideration. Managers of clubs in first place in August don’t make out the line-up card while in lame duck status.

I like the job Minaya has done since Randolph’s dismissal. A GM overwhelmed by the desperation to keep his job might have payed the steep price it was going to cost the Mets to acquire a Brian Fuentes or a Raul Ibanez. To his credit Minaya did not. He put faith in his home grown talent, rolled the dice and hit paydirt in Daniel Murphy. Its hard to imagine that even a veteran bat like Ibanez’ would have provided the lift that Murphy has.

And as for Manuel, he showed the kind of courage that was needed to go with young players in Murphy, Argenis Reyes and Nick Evans in the everyday line-up over subs like Endy Chavez and Marlon Anderson who’d served the club well in their time. Youth injected a new energy. Even more impressive is that Manual never paniced over bullpen drama.

Manuel’s moves also provided order to the bench. In veterans Chavez, Marlon Anderson and Damion Easley he has players whom inspire confidence. Having three catchers gives him extra options and it seems his desision to platoon catchers has helped.

If word comes that Manuel will be retained beyond this season, it will offer a boost to the ballclub while eliminating unnecessary whispering around the organization. More importantly it will empower Manuel and allow him even more influence than that which appears to have been earning on his own.

Why the Mets have not gone in this direction yet is a bit of a mystery.