I don't disagree that the Twins haven't been as aggressive as they should during their better seasons.
What I liked about the post is the implication that subtracting cheap "wins" for a few additional expensive "wins" doesn't make much sense when your team is probably going to struggle to cross the 80 win threshold.
If you're a 90 win team looking to shoot for a 95 win season, these moves make more sense. When you're a 66 win team looking to cross into the realm of respectability, it makes far less sense to trade cheap seasons and wins for a couple of essentially pointless expensive wins in the short-term.
If we knew which prospects would provide cheap wins and which would flounder, then this wouldn't be a conversation... On the other hand, no GM would trade for those floundering prospects, either. But when your team needs as many cheap wins as possible just to get to the .500 mark, you want all those prospects, knowing some will fail while others will succeed.
It can be argued that these types of moves are difficult-to-impossible to craft all into one seasson and therefore shouldn't be looked upon merely as short-term, feel-good, 66-win- to-72-win transactions. Only so much elite talent becomes available each season. As Levi brought up, the Tigers fleeced the Marlins by dangling oodles of prospects and then ponied up big bucks to Cabrera, it took the Tigers Four Years after acquiring Cabrera before they even made the playoffs again. But ask Dombrowski if it was still worth the few additional expensive wins in the short-term that Cabrera provided in the interim seasons of 2008-2010 when the Tigers clearly "failed". (Which is why a deal for Giancrlo Stanton for prospects should have been more aggresively pursued with the Marlins).