Sheffield? Really?

Here I was, all geared up for the season, with tickets to one of the first home games of the season at Citi Field, and then the announcement was made today that the Mets have signed Gary Sheffield.

Huh?

My gut reaction? We don't need him. Yes, the Mets are lefty-heavy, but wasn't Fernando Tatis supposed to spell either Church or Murphy against lefties? Wasn't Church the team's best player for most of his non-concussed season in 2008? Isn't Murphy -- called "pure gold" as a hitter by many scouts this spring -- supposed to be the full-time starter in left?

And if the Mets were going to cut Marlon Anderson loose -- how he held on to a roster spot this long is beyond me -- wouldn't it make more sense to give his spot on the bench to a young player like Nick Evans, who hit well all spring and who can play first base as well as outfield?

Instead, the Mets signed -- at a bargain price, don't get me wrong -- the 40-year-old Sheffield, who hit .225 last season with 19 homers and 57 RBI, and who batted a Campenaris-like .178 this spring, earning his release from the Tigers.

If you can't make the Tigers, who have the option of putting you at DH, how are you going to contribute to a National League contender like the Mets?

Sheffield, by all accounts, was D-U-N done, but the Mets see him, somehow, as a good fit. Yes, he comes cheap and is a veteran righty bat. But he's done nothing lately and can't play defense. And I could care less if he hits his 500th homer in a Mets uniform.

This team has plenty to cheer about, with Wright, Reyes, Santana, Murphy, Pelfrey, K-Rod, Putz, and a brand-new stadium. Sheffield's selfish drive for a milestone doesn't fit in with what has, all spring, looked like terrific team chemistry.

Could he help? Absolutely. Did veteran Carlos Delgado applaud the addition? Yes. But the Mets could have done without the past-his-prime nephew of Doc Gooden, who came to Flushing 10 years too late.