The WGOM

per ESPN:

DeRosa has been traded to the Cleveland Indians for minor league pitchers Jeff Stevens, Chris Archer and John Gaub. DeRosa will likely slide into Cleveland's opening at third base.

I'm sure this will irk fans who long for the Twins to do something and especially those who would like the Twins to add someone they've heard of before, but DeRosa wouldn't really be a significant upgrade.

In related infielding news, the Cubs signed Aaron Miles. Elsewhere, I've seen the total value of the contract listed at 2 years/$4.9M.

For these two infielders, some internal options, and other names we've heard this offseason, let's look at projected wOBA (as determined by Marcel the Monkey), and career OPS+.

.394 wOBA, 147 OPS+ -- A-Rod
.350 wOBA, 97 OPS+ -- DeRosa
.335 wOBA, 105 OPS+ -- Blake
.329 wOBA, 97 OPS+ -- Harris
.323 wOBA, 93 OPS+ -- Buscher
.308 wOBA, 77 OPS+ -- Miles
.299 wOBA, 74 OPS+ -- Punto
.290 WOBA, 67 OPS+ -- Cesar Izturis

DeRosa's a little younger than Blake, which is likely the main reason his projected wOBA is better than Blake's. DeRosa has been much better than his career averages over the last three years, which is likely the main reason that his projected wOBA is better than Harris'.

First we see that none of the non-Rods are elite hitters and Punto isn't so bad when you compare him to other guys who have gotten similar 2-year deals this offseason. If we're considering these guys as potential full-time players, let's look at how many runs above average their wOBA would make them over 550 PA:

29.7 -- A-Rod
8.6 -- DeRosa
1.4 -- Blake
-1.4 -- Harris
-4.3 -- Buscher
-11.5 -- Miles
-15.8 -- Punto
-20.1 -- Izturis

DeRosa is better at the plate than Harris and Buscher, by maybe about one win over the course of the season. Then it becomes a matter of how well everyone can field. Defensive stats are a bit of a mess for a number of reasons, but let's take a look at career UZR per 150 games at third base for these guys. There are definitely sample size issues here, and I don't think all of these ratings make sense, but it will give us a place to start the conversation.

18.7 -- Punto
8.2 -- Izturis
0.9 -- A-Rod
??? -- Miles
-3.4 -- Blake
-4.1 -- DeRosa
-12.8 -- Buscher
-18.3 -- Harris

First things first--I think that Punto's rating and Harris' rating are each too extreme. No one else seems to rate Punto that high at 3B and I would guess that he's closer to a +10 defender at 3B. Harris, on the other hand, has started only 39 career games at 3B, so there are extreme sample size issues with that number. UZR has him as a -3.9 runs/150G defender at 2B and a -9.9 runs/150G defender at 3B. Compared to other metrics, I think that's generous, but given his tools and the information from 200 games started at 2B/SS, I think it's reasonable to expect that Harris can be a -5 defender at 3B. Optimistically, I would guess he's average and pessimistically, I think -10 is about right at 3B.

Taking those things into consideration, and rounding to emphasize that these are rough measures, here is how I would rate those players as defenders at third base, in runs above average:

10 -- Izturis
10 -- Punto
0 -- A-Rod
0 -- Miles
-5 -- Blake
-5 -- DeRosa
-5 -- Harris
-10 -- Buscher

Using those defensive estimates, we get, for overall value at third base, in runs above average:

30 -- A-Rod
4 -- DeRosa
-4 -- Blake
-6 -- Punto
-6 -- Harris
-10 -- Izturis
-12 -- Miles
-14 -- Buscher

Of the group, I also have the least confidence in Buscher since he had an awfully weak history before the last couple of years and I'm most concerned about his defense, which could very well be worse than -10.

The more I look at it, the more I would lean towards making Harris the full-time 3B, with Buscher playing against tough right-handed pitchers or when we're not as concerned about infield defense. Harris seems more or less to be Casey Blake from 6-8 years ago, and we doesn't cost us anything to acquire him.

I think DeRosa would have been an upgrade. But he would have been a small upgrade, and for an extra $5.5M in salary, plus giving up more talent than the Indians gave up. I'm not sure at all about how good those minor league pitchers are (I suspect they aren't very good), but I'm sure that they have some value. $5.5M and low-value prospects are more than I would have given up for one extra win.

The Twins did a lot last offseason, and they did have done very little this offseason, but given their performances in 2007 and 2008, I think that makes sense. In 2007 we had a number of below-replacement-level performances. Upgrading from awful to mediocre is the easiest kind of improvement that you can make.

In 2008, a big reason that the Twins improved is that they had barely any below-replacement-level performances. Monroe and Everett, for instance, were annoying, but as a group they were only as far below replacement level as Darnell McDonald, Matt LeCroy, and Chris Heintz were (as a group) for the Twins in 2007. Mike Lamb was all kinds of fail this year (especially when you include his glove), but that's nothing compared to the devastation that Rabe, Garrett Jones, Luis Rodriguez, Rondell White, Alexi Casilla, and Nick Punto brought us the year before.

All totalled, the Twins improved from -76 runs in below-replacement-level performance in 2007 to just -19 runs in below-replacement-level performance in 2008. That's a 5-6-win improvement in just replacing your worst players with barely adequate players. That's very nearly as good as the difference between A-Rod and a replacement-level third baseman.

I think that's a pretty overlooked part of the '07 to '08 improvement, but it also means that we've more or less exhausted the cheap and easy ways to improve the team--at least in position players. We ought to be scouring the waiver wires and looking for interesting NRIs to shore up the bullpen and rotation depth. Even there, I don't know how much you can realistically expect improvement. On results, Bonser sucked last year, but I suspect he'll be at or above replacement level this year. Bass was also bad, but he wasn't even below replacement level based on runs allowed--so I wouldn't expect for miracles in improving the bullpen.

The Twins have a roster that can be substantially improved for 2009 in three main ways:

1) Fleece someone in a trade
2) Trade future value for present value
3) Spend $$$$ to improve spots where we are okay but not great

The first option always sounds great, but you can't always depend on deals with suckers to come through. The second option probably doesn't make sense for the Twins because money is a very scarce resource for them and prospects usually costs less money than players you would acquire in a trade. The third option doesn't work because we're not lucky enough to be sitting on a 25-million-resident gold mine.

I didn't really plan on coming back to this, but here I am again. For as much as some people want to be delusional about the advantage that the Yankees have, it's ridiculous to think that small-revenue teams like the Twins aren't at a significant disadvantage compared to large-revenue teams when it comes to assembling their roster. I can hope that the Twins can turn fool's gold into gold, but it's not reasonable to expect that, and I see no obvious, significant upgrades for this team.

Terry Ryan built the basis for this team by being patient and not trading the future for one wild run at a ring. Bill Smith would be wise to follow that precedent. Our offseasons are bound to be boring not because of our management, but because of our budget. Until MLB decides to do something about that, it's just the way it is.