It seems to me that there's a lot of straw-manning going on. I think the general argument against a Verlander-type trade is that the prospect cost outweighs the benefit, and that such a move, while it might have some immediate impact, would actually hurt long term sustainability. No one is arguing that the Twins shouldn't make moves, just that they need to make the right moves, which aren't always the splashy ones.
As far as Verlander is specifically concerned, I think there are plenty of reasons why he was never a viable option. Listing those reasons would be redundant.
Right. The Tigers got themselves into a position to where they had to let Verlander go in spite of his upside. The Twins would have been going down a similar path had they given up a lot to get him. The Twins don't have a lot that I would call "expendable" and they still would have half a pitching staff that needs upgrading.