bring me lofton, even if he is 487 years old.

I guess I'm not thrilled about any of the options being discussed.  I'd like Lofton a whole lot better if he weren't so bad against lefites [2007 OPS: .545].  Gonzo's really old and anecdotally has a noodle for a throwing arm, but he approaches credible from both sides of the plate on offense.

As for Cameron...

• His stats are here.  The JS Blog report is here and here.
  
• I mentioned this elsewhere, but in 2005, he played almost entirely in right field for the Mets.  In theory, we could move Corey Hart to left and keep Billy in centerfield.
  
• There's reason to think Moustache knows what he's doing.  Cameron had a pretty bad season last year, but was pretty good in 2006, where he set a career high in OPS (.837) and had his highest OBP (.355) since 2000, all in a pitcher's park.  I still give Moustache the benefit of the doubt, even if he has missed on outfielders in the past (TGH).  If we can coax a repeat of 2006, it'd be a fine signing, though I certainly wouldn't bet on it.
  
• He just turned 35 this week, a spring chicken compared to his would-be competitors.
  
• His splits are interesting: although he tends to hit lefties better than righties (.914/.700 OPS in 2007, .843/.767 career), in his fabled 2006 season, he was better against RHP, .844 vs. 810.  I'd presume we wouldn't platoon him.
  
• He won't be playing in the team's first 25 games aftre a suspension for banned stimulants.  This would be quite the reputation we're developing.
  
• FWIW, if we signed Cameron, I assume we'd be set for our lineup (assuming that we'd move him/Billy/Corey/Ryan around in some configuration).  Given our plethora of pitching, I'd also assume that any trades involving our pitchers would be for prospects, then?  It seems to me it's easier to swing a deal when you have a need, like for a leftfielder.  Maybe it's only me, but getting our rotation taken care of is as pressing a need as signing an ancient leftfielder.
  
• For the record, I'll still be pissed if we traded Billy Hall, especially if it's precipitated by signing Cameron.  

But.  There's some available logic that supports the move.  Cameron would appear to be an improvement defensively in center over Hall, and Hall almost certainly would be an improvement defensively over Braun at 3rd.  Braun will probably struggle defensively in left, particularly early, but the available LF's out there appear to be no more than adequate defensively, at best.  Theoretically, the defensive upgrade at Center and 3rd would over come the diminished defensive performance in LF.  Then there's Hall's offensive production.  The argument that the move to Center made him focus so much on defense that his offensive stats suffered doesn't make much sense to me.  Far less than the available conclusion that 2007 was simply a regression to the mean and that 2006 was a statistical anomaly for Hall offensively.  But I'm certainly no expert.  If Melvin believes that Hall's offensive numbers will approach 2006 levels again if he's playing a defensive position he's comfortable with, then the interest in Cameron becomes more understandable, since it would result in offensive upgrade from Hall as well as the defensive upgrades at Center and 3rd.

If they sign Cameron, I sure as hell hope that thinking is correct.  Trading Hall now, after he struggled offensively last season, doesn't make a lot of sense to me, particularly since he can play so many positions if injuries crop up.  Besides, once he turns 30 he'll qualify as one of those crusty veteran types Ned loves so damn much.

If Cameron does sign, my guess is we'll get 25 games of Gwynn/Gross in C and Hall will play 3rd all year (barring injury).  He belongs in the IF anyway.      

The question is does the defensive improvement in C justify all the other positional switches?