If only Brodie Van Wagenen had exhibited the same patience and deliberation with his inherited players as he did with his inherited manager, the Mets would be entering 2020 in considerably better shape.

Conversely, if Van Wagenen had acted as decisively on the manager as he did on his roster, perhaps these guys would be getting ready for the playoffs right now.

Those observations aside, there existed a certain nobility in Van Wagenen and the Mets’ owners sticking with Mickey Callaway for the entirety of his second straight roller-coaster ride. With the Mets’ 2019 season nearly in the books, however, that calculus changes.

A call to let Callaway finish his three-year contract — which seems unlikely, to be clear — would not score any more points for loyalty or constancy for Van Wagenen, who is finishing his own first season as the Mets’ general manager. On the contrary, going with the status quo would intensify the scrutiny on Van Wagenen as he prepares for Year 2.

With his missteps, primarily in the strategic and public-relations arenas, Callaway — whom Sandy Alderson hired in October 2017 — has provided Van Wagenen sufficient license to switch managers. Actually, given Callaway’s unpopularity among the Mets’ fan base due to those missteps, not making that switch now would constitute the bold call.

This will all play out soon enough, with a resolution as soon as the middle of next week; don’t expect the Mets to make any sort of announcement during Rosh Hashanah, which begins Sunday night and ends Tuesday night. If the Mets let Callaway go after two years, they’ll join a group of skipper-seeking teams that already includes the Giants, Padres and Royals and will shortly include the Cubs and quite possibly the Phillies, with the Pirates also a candidate for turnover.

Extra industry curiosity surrounds the Mets’ situation because of Van Wagenen’s unconventional background and unpredictable first year on the job and the Wilpons’ eternal sensitivity to instant media reactions. Do Van Wagenen and his deputies want to operate in the modern style of heavily controlling their manager (as they did this year with Callaway), or are they willing to hire an experienced, pricier person who will bring more credibility and gravitas to the extremely challenging position and treat him as more of a partner than an underling?

They should seriously consider doing that. We know Van Wagenen doesn’t mind contradicting trends, so let him be the one who opts for the veteran manager like, say, John Gibbons, Joe Girardi or Ron Washington. It surely would go better than his faith in older players like Robinson Cano and Jed Lowrie.

If they wanted to try again with a rookie skipper after enduring Callaway’s growing pains, the mention of Astros bench coach Joe Espada by ESPN’s Buster Olney makes sense for one reason in particular: Van Wagenen is very close with Espada’s direct boss, Houston manager A.J. Hinch, who was his teammate at Stanford. A Hinch recommendation would carry considerable weight with Van Wagenen.

Or, if Van Wagenen stunned us all again like he did with the trade-deadline acquisition of Marcus Stroman and determined that Callaway’s growing pains would lead to growth and improvement, that would represent quite a bet by the GM. One which would put him on an island.

It felt weird Friday at Citi Field before the Mets’ 4-2 victory over the Braves, with Callaway fielding questions about the futures of Mets like J.D. Davis, Seth Lugo (who curiously threw 41 pitches for a two-inning save in this meaningless game, which Callaway said afterward would be Lugo’s last of the year), Amed Rosario and Dom Smith when his own future rests as so tenuous. The manager did get off a good line when asked about his 82-year-old pitching coach Phil Regan, quipping, “At 82, I don’t even picture myself being alive.”

Being a Mets manager will age you, no doubt. Being a Mets GM is no picnic, either. Van Wagenen’s best chance at survival comes in changing the conversation around this team, getting folks to focus on someone new and shiny. It would buy the GM some time as the Mets, rich in core players yet poor in farm-system depth, try to make this shaky plan take flight.