Two things stand out on the positive side of the ledger for Carrasco. The first is his tendency to keep the ball on the ground and, by extension, in the ballpark. Merely decent strikeout and walk rates coupled with an above average home run rate can add up to a pretty solid reliever. Ground ball pitchers limit not only home runs in particular but also extra-base hits in general–grounders are less likely to find gaps than their airborne brethren. Too, more ground balls usually mean more double plays, so that’s another bonus.

The second point in Carrasco’s favor, albeit an ethereal one, is that he was pretty effective against lefties in 2010, which is exceedingly rare for right-handed pitchers. Unfortunately, Carrasco hasn’t historically been very good against left-handed hitters, and was awful against them in 2009 (.317/.392/.463). He did throw far more curveballs last season than ever before, but it’s not clear how that would have served him well against lefties.

– Eric Simon, Amazin’ Avenue.

I was down on the idea of signing Carrasco just yesterday, but I figured he’d cost more than the two years and $2.5 million he reportedly received.

At that rate, he hardly seems like an awful signing (consider that it took over a million to lock down Kelvim Escobar for 2010). As Simon points out, he yields a decent amount of ground balls and is decently, if not spectacularly, effective.

I wouldn’t get too excited over his ability to retire lefties — across his career he hasn’t been great, and I suspect his success in 2010 might be a small-sample size hiccup.

Also, one thing Simon doesn’t point out: Carrasco has demonstrated the ability to throw a good number of innings in relief in the past two seasons, chalking up 89 frames in 2009 and 78 1/3 in 2010. The Mets haven’t had a reliever throw that many innings since Aaron Heilman totaled 86 in 2007, though I imagine that has as much to do with Jerry Manuel’s quick-trigger bullpen management as anything else.

Look, I don’t have any understanding about what the payroll will be or can’t be going forward. Let’s say arguably we have $50 million or $60 million coming off next year. Do I think it would even be prudent to invest that full $50 million or $60 million again in a situation which binds us going forward so that we’re only in the market every three years when this lump sum comes off our books? No.

– Sandy Alderson.

This is interesting, and something I hadn’t really considered.

If the Mets don’t throw all of the $50-60 million that comes off the books after this season back into the team’s payroll in the offseason, of course, fans will revolt. They’ll accuse small-market Sandy of being cheap, and argue that a big-market team should never cut payroll from season to season.

But if you think about it, what Alderson’s saying here is smart. Ideally, a team should always have financial flexibility in the offseason — enough to fill any pressing needs via free agency or take on big contracts via trade.

So, looking down the road, it would behoove the Mets to either maintain a little flexibility next offseason or to stagger contract lengths to ensure that a certain amount of is freed up after every season.

That way, whenever you hit the point when it seems like you really are just one player away from a certain playoff bid — a spot where overpaying for free agents is excusable — you know you will always have the requisite payroll to lock him down.

It’s the Winter Meetings, dammit! Here’s a post where I round up all the Mets-related rumors I’ve seen on MetsBlog and spew my opinions on them. SPOILER ALERT: Just about everything I say will include “depending on the price.”

Mets interested in Fred Lewis: Well that’s cool — depending on the price, of course. Lewis would make a fine fourth outfielder, and a legitimate contingency plan for the three penciled-in starters — all of whom have struggled with injuries recently or historically. He can play the corners and fill in at center field in a pinch.

And while Lewis won’t make anyone in New York forget Mickey Mantle, he can hit a bit too — especially against right-handed pitchers. For his career, the lefty-hitting Lewis has a solid .280/.354/.442 line against righties.

Mets close to signing Ronny Paulino: I feel like Ronny Paulino has been “close” to signing with the Mets like 15 times before. Paulino has a rep as a solid defensive catcher and fared well in Beyond the Boxscore’s catcher-defense rankings. He is not a great hitter, though his career .273/.328/.383 line is pretty similar to the 2010 National League average for catchers — .253/.326/.388.

Perhaps most importantly, the righty-hitting Paulino has, for his career, a marked platoon split. He’s got a measly .635 OPS against righties but an .881 mark against lefties, essentially the Matt Diaz of catchers. Assuming he doesn’t cost multiple years or numerous millions, he would be a great choice to spell Josh Thole against tough southpaws, or even in a straight platoon — since catchers need time off anyway. Combined, they’d give the Mets excellent offense from behind the plate.

Mets “in contact” with Russell Martin: Martin would also make a nice righty-hitting complement to Thole, but I don’t see this one happening. Martin reportedly rejected a one-year, $4.2 million deal from the Dodgers, so the only way I imagine the Mets getting seriously involved in his pursuit would be if he’s still a free agent later this winter.

The one interesting thing about Martin is that he has said he’s open to playing first, second and third next year if some team wants him for a super-utility role. But since the Mets have Thole in house, they could probably find better ways to spend $5 million.

Mets among 6-8 teams interested in D.J. Carrasco: How interested, though? Because if there are 5-7 other teams bidding on Carrasco I imagine he’s going to require a decent chunk of change, and he’s really not all that spectacular. If the Mets are trying to save money they should probably be searching the scrap heap or converting starters to fill out their pen, not signing free-agents. I’d pass on this one.

We should keep Jerry Hairston Jr.’s name in mind: I have no idea what that means, but I will do just that. I am a fan of Old Man Hairston’s kid. Plays every position pretty well, gives a team a lot of flexibility. Also, good guy.

Mets interested in every living unspectacular or recently injured free-agent starting pitcher: I mean, someone’s going to need to pitch. Maybe it’ll be Freddy Garcia or Chris Young or Jeff Francis. This one is almost entirely based on information I do not have access to: The cost and reports the pitcher’s health. Hard to speculate on which one of these guys would be best if I don’t know who seems most likely to hold up for a season.

Mets willing to take calls on every player, unlikely to deal stars: This seems like it’s probably true every year, right?

Mets might hire Moises Alou as first-base coach: Not a chance he stays healthy for the full season.

What’d I miss?

The Mets signed catcher Dusty Ryan to a Minor League deal today and invited him to Spring Training.

It’s certainly not a high-impact move or a big Winter Meetings splash. I imagine it won’t preclude the Mets from signing a more experienced right-handed complement/backup to Josh Thole, and I would guess that if Dusty Ryan ends up on the Major League Mets in 2011 it means someone is either hurt or woefully underperforming.

But Ryan — unlike so many of the guys signed by the Mets to be Minor League roster filler in recent years — actually has some upside. He is 26, for one thing. For another, he actually has some mild history of offensive production in the Minors.

Ryan does not make a ton of contact — he hit .199 in Triple-A in 2010. But he has demonstrated a decent batting eye at the level, and can boast a decent-for-a-catcher .237/.348/.416 line in 631 plate appearances in Triple-A. (As a point of reference, Omir Santos’ career Triple-A line is .251/.305/.324.) There is some chance Ryan can improve or enjoy a career year and actually contribute something positive to the Mets at the Major League level.

Right around this time last year, I wrote:

What neither Coste nor Cora will provide is upside. Upside is the chance a player can actually provide more to his team than he’s being paid to provide. Upside is something the Mets should be searching for among the potential Rule 5 Draft picks and non-tendered free agents. Upside is something worth committing money to when a team is operating with a finite budget.

Maybe I’m again reading to deeply into a minor move, or maybe the acquisition is yet another sign that things are looking up for the Mets. Point is there’ll be someone behind the plate in Triple-A that might actually outperform expectations and that’s, you know, cool.

Makes some of our contracts look pretty good. That’s a long time and a lot of money. I thought they were trying to reduce the deficit in Washington.

– Sandy Alderson, on Jayson Werth’s seven-year, $126 million deal with the Nats

Badumching, heyooo!

I don’t want to belabor the terms of the Werth deal too much here because based on the Internet’s reaction it doesn’t have a whole lot of supporters. Straight up: It would be at least vaguely defensible to commit that much money and years to a 31-year-old corner outfielder if your team hoped to contend with in the next years. If the Red Sox or Yankees signed him they could say, “Well, he’ll produce excellent numbers for the next few years while we compete for championships, and we realize we’ll have to shoulder the back end of his contract when he’s declining.”

But since the Nationals appear unlikely to contend with or without Werth in 2011, since Stephen Strasburg likely won’t be back until at least the middle of the season and since their best pitcher in 2010 was Livan Hernandez, giving Werth that much money now merits the hefty snark from Alderson. Even if the Nats can compete in two years, they’ll likely have to do so with Werth’s contract entering its albatross phase.

It seems like a perennial loser like the Nats has to overpay just to get a free agent of Werth’s caliber in the door, but that’s the thing: They should first work to make the team a legit contender so they can then woo top free agents without ridiculous terms.

Anyway, it seems like most Mets fans think Alderson’s comments are awesome and hilarious. There’s some tiny fraction of the fanbase that has pointed to them as indicative of Alderson’s small-market approach, and chastised him for not himself chasing Werth.

Those people are probably incapable of being convinced that Alderson’s prudence this offseason is what’s best — and perhaps all that’s feasible — for the franchise. They do not want to hear that the Mets will still very much be spending like a big-market club in 2010. The team will probably enter the season with a payroll around $140 million. It’s not Alderson’s fault that much of it will be allocated to dreck.

So to those few impatient Mets fans, and perhaps to the Mets themselves for abiding such lavish and irresponsible spending the past few years, Alderson will bring nothing but coal and a couple of scrap-heap pickups for Christmas. Frankly, it’s what they deserve. Advocating for or consenting to giant contracts and big splashes and a wholesale lack of foresight puts you on the naughty list in baseball.

For the rest of us, we get some of the greatest gifts a fan could wish for: hope, promise, reason. But to stay on the nice list, we must continue to be patient. We must withstand the onslaught of nonsense from the winter meetings and shoulder the idiotic rantings of the angry “small-market Sandy” set. And we must spend the offseason remembering that though the Mets likely won’t be making any exciting moves, the most exciting thing of all is a front office that’s committed to and perhaps capable of creating a long-term sustainable winner.