So ... controversial point here:
There are some advantages to the American system of trading players rather than buying and selling for cash as is the norm in world football. (Principally, it limits the ability of a rich owner to acquire players without giving any up.) But there are serious disadvantages.
Monetary economists argue that the advantage of money transactions over barter is the elimination of a "double coincidence of wants." Under barter (as in MLB), we not only have to find a seller with something we want, but he must want something we have. Only a few teams are interested in a 2B and they may not have the ideal trade pieces that the Twins would want for Dozier, for example.
One way in which this impacts the Twins currently is the inability to use multiple small sales to finance one big purchase. For example, suppose that we were able to sell 4 players (Dozier, Lynn, Duke, and Rodney, for example) for $5m each. We could then use that money to fund a $20m purchase (Realmuto?). The numbers are made up, but you probably get the idea.
Under the current system, no one wants to pick up 4 useful but not stellar players that we could offer (especially a team like Miami). So although we may have sufficient assets to obtain a star, the transaction technology prevents us from doing so. This means that (as per my earlier post) we are left with trading away each of our "little" pieces for other little pieces like non-elite prospects.
All of the proposed moves discussed in the article seem to me unlikely to make the Twins better in 2019 and beyond. We are shuffling off little pieces we don't need for someone else's little pieces they don't need. Under a monetary system, we could sell multiple resources that have higher value to others than to us and pool the proceeds to buy a difference-maker.