NED COLLETTI

At this point it doesn’t really matter whether the Mets mis-read the market for sluggers or they were simply caught in a perfect storm of circumstances. What matters is they can’t find a trade for Jay Bruce that they consider acceptable.

And so the question hangs over them as spring training nears:

Should they trade Bruce just to dump his $13 million salary — at least most of it, anyway — even if the return is minimal, to free up money for a reliever, as well as at-bats for Michael Conforto? Or is there more value in keeping his home-run bat around in a winnow season?

I posed the question to three former GMs, Dan O’Dowd, Ned Colletti, and Steve Phillips, who all remain close to the game as TV or radio analysts. O’Dowd and Colletti made strong cases for keeping Bruce, citing the likelihood of an injury to another outfielder — or Lucas Duda at first base — and the production he offers.

“You could end up looking for the same type hitter you gave away,’’ said O’Dowd, the long-time Rockies’ GM. “You can’t force a deal. The worst trades I ever made were ones that I forced.”

On the other hand, Phillips, the exMets GM, argued that he’d have no issue giving Bruce away at this point because the money saved would allow the Mets to address the bullpen, which he believes is their only glaring need.

“It’s more important that they go get the relievers,’’ Phillips said.

Phillips also has intriguing ideas about bigger moves he thought the Mets should have made to balance their roster, which he explains below.

In any case, last week GM Sandy Alderson said the Mets are prepared to keep Bruce — or at least bring him to spring training — if the trade offers don’t improve significantly. And that was before the Blue Jays resigned Jose Bautista, the Orioles re-signed Mark Trumbo, and the Phillies signed Michael Saunders, eliminating all three as potential trade partners. The Giants seem to have a need but they insist they’re not taking on more salary, concerned about the luxury-tax threshold, and if the Rangers sign Mike Napoli, it’s very tough to find a potential fit for Bruce.

Meanwhile, with the Mets seemingly still determined to get something of value for Bruce, after trading Dilson Herrera to get him, it’s looking more and more like the veteran right fielder indeed will be coming to Port St. Lucie.

So who’s to blame for this predicament? The ex-GMs all say they would have picked up Bruce’s $13 million option too, and believe this is a case of the Mets mostly being victims of a new CBA that increased luxury-tax penalties, together with some new-age GMs over-emphasizing run-prevention, all of which combined to diminish the demand for sluggers.

Here are their individual takes:

The former Giants’ and Dodgers’ GM, who now does pre- and post-game TV for Dodgers games, for years had a crowded outfield in LA with Matt Kemp, Carl Crawford, Yasiel Puig, and Andre Ethier, but chose to keep all four high-salaried-players rather than give one away in a bad trade.

“I lived in that situation,’’ he said, speaking of the Mets’ predicament, “and the season is so long, inevitably things happen. Is it worth making a trade when you can’t guarantee health and productivity from everybody else? With our outfield, there were far more days when only three of them were available than four. And there were a lot of days when only two were available.

“I can’t give you a black-and-white answer if payroll is part of it, but I just know that if you take away the safety net (Bruce), are you sure of what you’re getting (with Conforto)? Because if you’re not, a lot of times you will pay and pay and pay for that.

“The way I looked at it, July 31st (the trade deadline) was the day I had to have my team in place. With something like this with Bruce, my feeling was, ‘let’s start the season, see where we’re at, and we can make changes if we need to.’ Sometimes the toughest thing to have is patience. Especially there in New York.”