Is Mike Cameron better than Jason Bay?

Leave a comment

Cameron.standard[1].jpgWho would you take, Mike Cameron or Jason Bay?

It seems like a silly question on the surface. Bay is widely considered the No. 2 position player on the free agent market behind Matt Holliday, while Cameron is largely ignored even in Milwaukee, where he has played the last two seasons.

Over at Fangraphs.com, though, Dave Cameron makes a strong case that Mike Cameron (no relation, I hope, otherwise this whole thing is a sham!) is actually the better player despite his age (36, while Bay just turned 31). Cameron will also come cheaper, making him the better value.

So how can a guy who hits for a lower average and less power (they both strike out a ton) be the better player? The answer is defense, dummy.

Cameron covers center field like a gazelle, while Bay only looks decent in left field at Fenway because Manny Ramirez preceded him there. A run saved is just as good as a run driven in right?

If you think Cameron’s on the verge of collapse (he’s shown no signs of it) and you don’t trust defensive metrics (in this case, the conclusions are pretty obviously true), then you think that they’re similarly valuable. In reality, the odds are pretty good that Cameron is going to outperform Bay next season, just as he’s done in most every season recently, and he’s going to do it for far less money.

If you want a right-handed hitting outfielder this winter, and you don’t want to pony up for Matt Holliday, Jason Bay is not the alternative. Call Mike Cameron instead.

OK. You’ve got me convinced. Now where did I leave my checkbook?

Follow me on Twitter at @bharks. For more baseball news, go to NBCSports.com.

Must-Click Link: Mets owners are cheap, unaccountable and unconcerned

Getty Images
1 Comment

Marc Carig of Newsday took Mets owners Fred and Jeff Wilpon to the woodshed over the weekend. He, quite justifiably, lambasted them for their inexplicable frugality, their seeming indifference to wanting to put a winning team on the field and, above all else, their unwillingness to level with the fans or the press about the team’s plans or priorities.

Mets ownership is unaccountable, Carig argues, asking everything of fans and giving nothing in the way of a plan or even hope in return:

Mets fans ought to know where their money is going, because it’s clear that much of it isn’t ending up on the field . . . They never talk about money. Whether it’s arrogance or simply negligence, they have no problem asking fans to pony up the cash and never show the willingness to reciprocate.

And they’re not just failing to be forthcoming with the fans. Even the front office is in the dark about the direction of the team at any given time:

According to sources, the front office has only a fuzzy idea of what they actually have to spend in any given offseason. They’re often flying blind, forced to navigate the winter under the weight of an invisible salary cap. This is not the behavior of a franchise that wants to win.

Carig is not a hot take artist and is not usually one to rip a team or its ownership like this. As such, it should not be read as a columnist just looking to bash the Wilpons on a slow news day. To the contrary, this reads like something well-considered and a long time in the works. It has the added benefit of being 100% true and justified. The Mets have been run like a third rate operation for years. Even when the product on the field is good, fans have no confidence that ownership will do what it takes to maintain that success.

All that seems to matter to the Wilpons is the bottom line and everything flows from there. They may as well be making sewing machines or selling furniture.