Monday for Fan Graphs, the very intelligent Dave Cameron opined that if a team were looking for a cheaper alternative to Matt Holliday, Mike Cameron and not Jason Bay is the cost effective solution. With other reports, such as Adam Rubin’s for The Daily News, suggesting that the Mets may not be willing to pony up for Holliday and will thus peruse the the second tier free agent market, Mike Cameron’s name will surely come up.
Something will must have gone completely bananas – and not the good sort of bananas – this off season if the Mets end up with Mike Cameron.
When he was on the Mets, I was never really enamoured with Cameron. Yes, he is a good fielder; both the naked eye and conventional fielding statistics back that up. Yes, he has some pop in his bat. This does not mean, however, that he makes sense for the 2010 and possibly 2011 Mets team.
Cameron’s main asset is his defense. Based on hitting alone, both Jason Bay and Jermaine Dye are definitely superior options. Yet, Cameron’s main asset is diluted playing for the Mets because he by no means will be playing CF where he is expected to cover serious space. The Mets are fortunate to have Carlos Beltran roaming those grounds, so while defense should always be valued at no matter what position, Cameron’s range for a corner outfield spot would be less useful than it would be for other team’s. So, the Mets would be paying him at a rate that is higher than he is actually worth to the team.
Cameron also has pop at the dish. Looking at his past few years, expecting a figure in the low 20s for home runs and around 80 for RBI is reasonable. That said, he does a few things at the dish that really turn me off. First of all, he is a .250 hitter. He also has struck in almost 28% of his at-bats over his career, almost once per game. In fairness to him, he does walk his fair share to make up for it. I just don’t believe that he has the power to make up for his high strikeout rate. If he were Adam Dunn, or even maybe Jason Bay, it is a different story. He just isn’t.
Finally, there is Cameron’s age. Though he hasn’t shown any major signs of a decline yet, one thing the collapses of 2007 and 2008, and the injuries of 2009 should teach the Mets is that age should not be underestimated; injuries, in addition to general slowing down during the stretch run can truly kill a team. Signing a 37-year old Cameron who’s value quickly plummets in the field if he were to develop any sort of leg issues, to even a one or two year deal could be a major faux pas.
I’m not saying Mike Cameron cannot be valuable for a team this year, even the Mets. Merely, I’m positing that he is not nearly an ideal fit for the team, and for the Mets to be stuck with signing him, there must have been serious fall throughs with plans A, B, C, D and E.
Pete Lappin (3)
