Did the Twins Win or Lose the 2025 Trade Deadline? Looking Back with Fresh Eyes

[weitz41]

Kinda depends on what the plan is. Which at this point...There is a plan right? If it is to compete in 2026 big loss. 2027 and beyond. Win.

If I have to give an overall grade, I'd say B to B+ so a win (assuming the later from above)

I'd rather have an injury prone Steward over Outman and if I had to trade Varland I would have wanted an infielder or a couple A ball guys over Rodon. Nothing against him. He may be a fine MLB player for many years to come. But a person can only wear so many left shoes... Those two trades I'm pretty meh on. Wins in the others.

[bunsen82]

16 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

You put together a good argument fully dependent on if and supported by I think. I also think that the trades were good if every player develops into a regular above average player or a star.

Your mention of tanking is interesting. If it were proven and the ownership supported the front office in this plan, we won't have to worry about either the Pohlads or Falvey and those also in the know in the front office. MLB will force a sale and ban all involved from baseball. Wouldn't that be sweet? I think that the Twins fortunes would improve if that were to occur.

We are dealing with horseshoes and grenades at this point.   You have to think logically why beyond trading the rentals, why did we trade every effective reliever after that other than Sands?  1. They think relievers are replaceable.  They have stated as much and has been Falvey's main operating point, he puts minimal value into the bullpen.  2. The easiest way to cause a team to lose is eliminate the bullpen.  Even with a good pitching effort or hitting effort they can blow the lead.  Throw in playing Gasper, Outman on a regular basis and shows the intent was not to win 3. They got fairly good value for those relievers   4.  You can rebuild a pen fairly cheaply.   

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/47016601/twins-acquire-reliever-eric-orze-trade-rays

If you can move your draft pick for 10-12 to the 1-4 range that may have 4-5 high level prospects,  the trade level alone is a massive upgrade.  You may be going from a player who has a trade value of 8-10 as your 1st pick to a 25-30 value.    You have to take the tanking consideration into the philosophy of the trade.  You add in Pohlad and Falvey saying you have to take a road and know what you are doing is for the best long term benefit and you have to do it even if the fans disagree.   

“At some point you gotta look at yourself and be like, ‘You know what? We’ve gotta try something different.’ And not everybody’s going to like it," Pohlad shared. "You’ve gotta own it. Fans are going to be upset. They’re going to say what they’re going to say. And you gotta keep moving forward, and trust that you’re making the right decision.”

If tanking wasn't allowed - Houston, Baltimore, A's and Pirates would all be contracted.  

[Craig Arko]

41 minutes ago, IndianaTwin said:

Concise!

Brevity is the filet of sole.

[Riverbrian]

11 minutes ago, Craig Arko said:

Brevity is the filet of sole.

[IndianaTwin]

13 minutes ago, Craig Arko said:

Brevity is the filet of sole.

Brevity? Mrs. IT would suggest I’m not familiar with that term. 

[tony&rodney]

28 minutes ago, bunsen82 said:

If tanking wasn't allowed - Houston, Baltimore, A's and Pirates would all be contracted.

Merely object to using "tanking", which can be taken as not making an effort to win,  as a specific no-no. I would like to think the idea was to rearrange the roster in a fashion better suited to future play, which was the stated terms prevalent in other teams' rebuilds. 

The July deadline trades shouldn't be looked at for a couple of years. Didn't mean to offend with my comment.

[bunsen82]

10 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

Merely object to using "tanking", which can be taken as not making an effort to win,  as a specific no-no. I would like to think the idea was to rearrange the roster in a fashion better suited to future play, which was the stated terms prevalent in other teams' rebuilds. 

The July deadline trades shouldn't be looked at for a couple of years. Didn't mean to offend with my comment.

You didn’t offend but stating tanking is outlawed is just not correct. MLB tried to limit it through the lottery system. However when 2 of the worst teams are ineligible for a lottery pick and the Twins odds are significantly better, with a loaded draft class this is one of the few years where tanking might make mathematical sense. 

[Major League Ready]

I would not even begin to think we have more than a general idea.  Ask me in three years.  I think we might finally know how to rate the Berrios trade at the end of this year.  We might even have a reasonably good take on the Polanco trade by the end of this season as well but that one might be next year.

[GNess]

Judging trades by winning or losing is rather arbitrary and frankly doesn't really provide much insight because trades are best understood in context.

With this series of trades the FO did the following:

- Emptied out one of the best bullpens in MLB. It will likely take a few seasons to build it back. No need to move Duran, Varland or Jax given the money saved with the Correa trade. Furthermore, gutted the bullpen by trading Stewart for Outman - which made almost no sense.

- Surrendered the 2026 season most likely, especially so if they trade Lopez or Ryan and subsequently see Buxton waive his no trade clause.

- Put significant value in acquiring future assets seeking upside development. Which is far from certain particularly given that the Twins haven't been real successful developing talent. I imagine the sheer number of prospects added will see at least a few contribute eventually.

- Reduced payroll possibly just to the financial benefit of ownership if some / most of the saved payroll isn't used on players who are ready now to help the Twins compete.

This looks like a serious reset for the franchise and not necessarily for the better at least in the short to medium term, 

 

[KirbyDome89]

2 hours ago, bunsen82 said:

You have to look at it more than just the prospects received. Its partially the money saved, but the real "wild card" here is the improved draft capital.   At the all star break we had the 13th or 14th best record.   We now have high odds of getting a top 5 pick and 60% odds of a top 3 pick.   I still stand by trading all the relievers was to tank for better draft picks in a really good draft.  This has to be part of the equation. 

Pitching -  Abel, Bradley, Rojas, Gallagher (assets received currently in top 30 prospects)

Hitters - Tait, Mendez, Jimenez, Roden 

We win on the Castro,  Bader, Paddack and Coloumbe trades.  We traded less than 1/2 a season of control for Horn, Gallagher, Armstrong, Jimenez and Mendez.   I have high expectations for both Mendez and Jimenez.  

Stewart for Outman.  Trading an injured pitcher for an outfielder than can't hit.  Likely not a needle mover in either direction just looks really bad.   

Jax for Bradley.   I do this trade everyday of the week.  Trade 2 1/2 years of a volatile reliever for 3 1/2 of a younger highly volatile SP.  Both with question marks on attitude and willing to work in a team environment.   Bradley say what you will showed he was willing to be a professional with the Twins and try new things and his last start he looked really really good.  

Varland for Roden and Rojas -  I just don't know.    Varland ERA was high - but he was the Blue Jays most used arm out of the bullpen in the playoffs.  On paper Roden and Rojas is an overpay for Varland,  to me even taking the emotional arguments out of it,  I think we lose this trade.  I think Varland is either the setup man or closer for the Blue Jays for a long time.  Roden either needs to become an above average outfielder or Rojas needs to become a closer or high end pitcher.  

Duran for Abel and Tait.  I do this trade every day.   I think Abel will be a very very good pitcher for us.  His last start he had complete command of his arsenal.  I think he was tipping pitches unintentionally.   If you can control that he should be good in my opinion.  Of the pitchers I think he is the best one of the group and will be a solid #2 for us down the road.  Tait is full of potential but is still potential at this point.  

Trading Correa was just a salary dump.  Honestly I think that trade is just fine.   

Unless you think we could win the WS this year or next year - that is the only real valuation where we lose on these trade deals.  We appeared to be a broken team at the end of the season and the only 2 players who really performed for their teams were Duran and Varland.   

 

Money saved? How does that positively affect the team and/or this fan base? Money not spent now doesn't become available at a later date, no matter how hard fans try to delude themselves into believing otherwise. 

Before the deadline purge the Twins were neck and neck with Baltimore and a few games up on Sacramento, with Chicago already a virtual lock to "win," the best odds of securing the number 1 pick. If what you're suggesting is true, that Falvey intentionally gave up his best bullpen arms, all with multiple years of control, because he wanted to race Baltimore and Sacramento for the 2nd best odds, he should've been gone yesterday. That's insane...

We're declaring the rental swaps a W for the Twins despite none of the returns having seen any MLB action whatsoever. Ok....

Bradley had a 6.61 ERA in 6 starts with MN last year. This was after being demoted in TB. Go ahead and dog on Jax if it makes you feel better about the swap, but he was a pretty damn dependable (if not borderline elite) RP the previous 3 seasons. His FIP during the 1sh half with MN was half of what his ERA was, so do with that what you will. Hell, even though his TB tenure got off to a rough start he still posted solid numbers. 

If you ignore how bad Abel was for the rest of 2025 I'm sure that single start in Philly is encouraging haha. Expecting him to be a front of the rotation guy is a lot. They gave up 2.5 years of an elite bullpen arm so Abel might have to at least be a solid middle-ish guy, especially if Tait's defense won't keep him at C. 

They're paying Correa to not be here. The Twins are essentially paying $10M to play Brooks Lee at SS. That trade sucks. 

WS or bust is massively flawed logic if we're talking about purging controlled talent. 

[Doc Lenz]

4 hours ago, JADBP said:

Interesting way to look at it.  
 

Here’s another interesting approach:  if we had made all of these trades minus one—the Varland trade—would we be more likely to declare the deadline fire sale as a WIN?  
 

I maintain that the Varland trade was both misguided and unnecessary. The return does not match the upside of Varland. At the high end, he could become the next Joe Ryan in the Twins system. At the low end he’s a #3 in the rotation.  
 

I think we could have done better trading the immensely unhappy Ryan for a massive haul.  

I think Rojas and Roden are two of the best 5 we got. Big upsides.

[darin617]

If you take away the Varland trade the Twins won the trade deadline.

[darin617]

2 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

You put together a good argument fully dependent on if and supported by I think. I also think that the trades were good if every player develops into a regular above average player or a star.

Your mention of tanking is interesting. If it were proven and the ownership supported the front office in this plan, we won't have to worry about either the Pohlads or Falvey and those also in the know in the front office. MLB will force a sale and ban all involved from baseball. Wouldn't that be sweet? I think that the Twins fortunes would improve if that were to occur.

Teams tank if they are out of the playoffs and wouldn't care if a team did it. Look at the Marlins for an example, twice they went out and signed a ton of free agents and they won the World Series. Both times the following year they had a fire sale. So if MLB can allow a World Championship team do it right after winning how would that compare to what the Twins did?

I would also think MLB is worried more about Tampa, Miami, & Pittsburgh never spending any money and getting all the revenue sharing money.

[jorgenswest]

One key to winning deals of trading veterans is bringing in the prospects and spending to maintain the payroll that should go up some every year. The key to winning the Berrios deal was reinvesting his salary in Gray while getting the two prospects.

I think this set of trades will be looked at as a loss in the end. If they are not reinvesting the dollars then the prospects need to match the number of high impact seasons they lost from the players they controlled. It won’t be about sum of WAR. Teams win with players having impact seasons and not a bunch of mediocre seasons.

[theBOMisthebomb]

Alright, I'll drink the Kool Aid on a cold December evening. 

Although I will never never never NEVER condone the Varland trade. I don't care if Kendry Rojas progresses into a Johan Santana/Frank Viola/Bert Blyleven/Walter Johnson superhero composite. You just don't do that to Louis and the Minnesota fans. 

 

[tony&rodney]

1 hour ago, darin617 said:

Teams tank if they are out of the playoffs and wouldn't care if a team did it. Look at the Marlins for an example, twice they went out and signed a ton of free agents and they won the World Series. Both times the following year they had a fire sale. So if MLB can allow a World Championship team do it right after winning how would that compare to what the Twins did?

I would also think MLB is worried more about Tampa, Miami, & Pittsburgh never spending any money and getting all the revenue sharing money.

Received plenty of heat for my original reply. I was merely suggesting that teams cannot verbalize "working" / aka "tanking" to gain a higher draft choice. That's not very controversial. Plenty of teams have gone through rebuilds and given their reasons. They can't say we want a better draft choice. Or are people trying to tell me that teams can announce or state they are tanking to get a better draft choice? 

[Hubie29]

Without listing specific players, both traded and received, it was alot of dead weight for dead weight. 

[DannySD]

For those who think Correa's "leadership" wasn't worth $70 million, that one's a win also. The Twins have one of the top ranked farm systems, another really high draft pick coming in, and they still have to trade Larnach (and possibly others). Correa was in the way. 

Even Duran and Jax's arb years were about to get too expensive for the Twins. Why spend all your money on good late inning relievers when you can't hit? Who knows how Tait/Abel/Bradley turn out, but these are both cautious wins for me also. 

Varland is really the only trade where they gave up part of the core they could afford. He could have held the bullpen together somewhat. That one is a loss for me unless Rojas and Roden are good. 

[JD-TWINS]

9 hours ago, mickster said:

True case of have to wait and see how it works out in the end.    But from the deadline through at least 2027 it is a big L.   Had they pivoted and added, I think a contender was at hand.   Detroit faltered down the stretch and left the door open.   Even if they would have kept 2 of the 3 arms of Jax, Duran and Varland it would have been more tolerable for fans.    Bader and Castro were goners and they did well with the return there.

Stewart has always been an injury waiting to happen - no issue there. No issue with Bader/Castro - Coulombe was a short time signing so no issue. Dobnack & Paddock were not worthy of keeping. Correa move made sense due to his level of health/performance & saved $24M/yr over next 3 years.

Jax - Duran - Varland are the guys that stung on differing levels. Bradley, Rojas, Tait, & Abel have the ability to make the sting subside, over time. Sure should’ve some results from pitching options well before the end of ‘27!

I don’t see the deadline as some “firesale” since most of the $$ saved revolve around just the Correa move.

[RaoulDuke]

I wish they would have gotten more prospect heavy returns instead of almost ready or maybe ready guys, but overall I didn't hate most of the moves.  It seems odd to specifically target close to the MLB talent while selling most of your MLB roster.

Correa was a pure salary dump, screw the Pohlads.

Duran is awesome, the one that was really sad to see go but brought back a good return for a reliever.

Jax for Bradley is interesting, I don't love it.  If you can spend Jax into a good starting prospect that is a win, if Bradley can't make it as a starter he has a decent chance to be Jax as a reliever.

Varland is the one that everyone is truly upset over, local dude/ years of control/ presumable new closer ect.  I still think it was a decent trade.  If you can convert a reliever into a starter prospect + a bat prospect that is probably a win.  Its not like he is a lock down closer or bullpen ace, he has 1/2 a good season as a reliever with full control that could be a setup guy.

Anything for expiring like Bader/ Castro was a win.

I am amazed they got an ok prospect to dump Paddack/ Dobby.

Brock Stewart showed why his return was a total flyer.

If they truly blow everything up and trade Ryan/ Lopez/ Buxton/ Jeffers I hope the focus on the returns is prospects and not players to make 2026 look slightly more competent.  

 

[DocBauer]

I really don't like this OP. It's WAY TOO SOON to even be talking about this! It's really another version of the Berrios trade. Has Berrios been good for the Jays? Yes. Has he been a STUD? No. But has SWR turned out to be a solid ML SP who has shown potential? Yes. Has Martin finally started to look like a solid player? Also yes. Does it matter if BOTH teams got a good return?

We're AT LEAST 2yrs before we can determine who WON a trade. But since I'm a sucker for Twins commentary, I guess I'm going to have to make some comments.

1] I didn't like Stewart for Outman simply because I thought Stewart might help the 2026 pen. Lose-lose for for both teams and it doesn't matter.

2] Paddack, an impending FA who wasn't coming back for a decent catching prospect with some solid potential behind the plate and AT the plate? WIN.

3] Coulombe for a younger LHP who MIGHT make it, but also might just become a solid LHRP, sort of "replacing" Coulombe in the future? And we can still resign Coulombe this offseason? WIN.

4] Bader, an impending FA looking for a better deal that wasn't coming back...especially with 3 top 10 OF prospects scheduled to debut in 2026...for an interesting LH OF/1B option with potential, and a low A flier? Gotta say WIN again.

Here is where it gets tough. 

5] Jax for Bradley. I think Jax was undervalued due to a weird season where he was great, but also had weird inconsistentcy and bad luck. While still very young and talented, Bradley is a WILD CARD in regard to his future. No insult to him, but will he mature with a new organization that will work with him and he will accept new ideas and coaching to be a top 1-3 rotation arm? Or is he destined to be a BP arm who is a talented setup man or potential closer? I'm saying NUETRAL on him until I see improvement. He might be a younger Jax replacement. 

6] I'm a big fan of Castro. He was a tremendous find for the FO. I'm hoping they can find someone even close to what he was this offseason. But somewhere along the line, in 2025 he became more of an OF and less of an INF option. Was that Baldelli? Or was it an erosion of his glove? I really don't know. But I think I'd trust him more, slightly, than Fitzgerald at this point, with no disrespect. Gallagher was a 6th round pick by the Cubs in 2024 who didn't play pro ball until 2025 wherr he reached AA status and he did OK as a 22yo "rookie". He's actually a fairly solid prospect. Armstrong is just a big, strong kid with limited potential who needs to move to move to the pen with any hope. Considering Castro wasn't going to be resigned, and with SOME potential in Gallagher, I'd say NUETRAL at this point. 

7] Varland for Roden and Rojas. I wouldn't have made this move. I think the controllable Varland would have been the best arm in the 2026 bullpen. Roden has potential to be a solid player. His limited pro debut shouldn't discount him. He's got a nice set of skills to make him a valuable 4th OF or potential 1B even. And he wouldn't be the 1st rookie to struggle in a SSS. But this trade reality comes down to the potential of Rojas. Despite being pushed to AAA unnecessarily by the Twins and initial poor results reflect his potential, or is he a young arm they really believe will thrive in the future based on potential? I want to say the Twins lost on this one, but what if Roden becomes a solid bench player and a year from now Rojas looks like a really nice rotation arm? 

My initial grade is a LOSS. But this COULD be a win a year from now.

8] Duran for Tait and Abel. How can you possibly expect to WIN a trade when you move a talent like Duran for prospects? And I suppose it all depends on who the Twins sign in FA, and how the talent on hand translates to the bullpen. Duran was only a prospect until he wasn't.  Same with Jax. Same with Varland. Same with so many past Twins closers and top setup arms in the history of the Twins. But it's also hard to acquire 2 top 100 prospects in Tait and Abel and say the Twins blew a trade. I'm really torn on this one. I can see Festa, maybe Bradley, suddenly taking over Duran's role. And IF that happens then the Twins do win this trade. It's really hard to see a WIN here right now. 

I'm FORCED to say NUETRAL for NOW because Duran is so damn good, but there's enough talent on hand to potentially replace him. Who was he before he became a stud? Who was Perkins or Nathan before they became who they were?

8] I HONESTLY can't believe I'm saying this as I became a big fan of the man and the player, but are we better off without Correa? 

I just recently turned 60yo. Between radio and limited TV, Smalley was my youth SS. And he was damn good. But Gagne was the best SS, undervalued, I've seen in my 50 plus years watching the Twins. And then Correa came on board. I've seldom seen anyone play SS the way he did with the Twins. He was so good, so smart, and when healthy, he put up some of his best numbers as a Twin. And he was so ENGAGED as a Twin that he knew knew the prospects in the system. 

But is it possible that the Twins only got to see a glimpse of his previous talent interrupted by injury? It appears that might be the case. And that's really unfortunate. But whatever his future might hold, $20M of his contract is off the books. Some have speculated he might have had a negative affect on younger players per his expirations. I have no clue about that. I just know that when he was healthy he was awesome in the field and quality at the plate.

But sometimes things just don't work out. So this trade might just work out if the Twins re-invest his deal for 2026. It's really, really hard to call anything here. But IF they can spend the $20M GAIN in the trade, it MIGHT be a win.

[Brandon]

I liked the Duran and Bader trades the most.  I am surprised that the C from Detroit is better than I thought and is a solid prospect.  

I hated the Jax trade and Stewart trade.  Jury is out on Varland trade.  I also didn't like the Correa trade.  We should have received more salary relief or a better prospect with the 30 million price tag we still have.  

I am indifferent on the Castro and Coloumbe trades.  the prospect for Coloumbe could turn out into a useful reliever.  

[dxpavelka]

Botom line is Correa is a push that the had to do for financial reasons.  Varland deal is a push.  Jax was about to become a cancer so moving him before that happened is a plus.  Duran was the one guy it really would have been nice to have kept but every time I pull up MILB.com's Twins prospect listing the guy we got in return sits squarely in top 3.  The rest of the dudes we moved were putrid sludge and bringing them back in 2026 would only have lead to more of the same as 2025.  So all in all, WIN.                                                 

[old nurse]

The Stewart trade was a player that was injured for most of 5 years for a player that was mostly ineffective for two. There are no winners in that type of trade, The Twins did not have to pay for Stewart’s surgery and rehab.  That was the only win.

Jax had said he wanted to start.  Maybe Tampa will give him the chance the Twins were not going to give him. A failed starter that is now disgruntled for a failing starter is about even. 

Correa on the way out said that he had been asking to not play shortstop anymore. The trade was better than a salary dump. It was moving what was becoming a negative before the team had to pay more to move on from the player. That would be a win of a move, but also makes the whole Correa signing a bigger loss 

[TJSweens]

17 hours ago, JADBP said:

I maintain that the Varland trade was both misguided and unnecessary. The return does not match the upside of Varland. At the high end, he could become the next Joe Ryan in the Twins system. At the low end he’s a #3 in the rotation. 

Varland was moved to the bullpen where he had success. He was a complete failure as a starter. The plan was to see if he could close until Toronto called and offered Kendry Rojas who was perceived as too good to pass up. Rojas could actually be the starter you described.

[JD-TWINS]

18 hours ago, JADBP said:

Interesting way to look at it.  
 

Here’s another interesting approach:  if we had made all of these trades minus one—the Varland trade—would we be more likely to declare the deadline fire sale as a WIN?  
 

I maintain that the Varland trade was both misguided and unnecessary. The return does not match the upside of Varland. At the high end, he could become the next Joe Ryan in the Twins system. At the low end he’s a #3 in the rotation.  
 

I think we could have done better trading the immensely unhappy Ryan for a massive haul.  

The Varland trade was definitely difficult to understand at the time. Bottom line is it was Rojas for Varland…….a very good prospect, left handed, with a chance to be in the rotation by ‘27. Roden was a throw in sweetener as a flyer, no real expectations.

I like Louie and was not in love with the trade. However, Varland was a 16th round (close) draft pick and he’s overachieved. He’s very durable at this point and has great potential as a mid inning/set-up guy! Probably effective but a real ceiling.

Not personal here but to all his supporters here at TD, if he was from Kenosha and pitched at Wisconsin Stout I think there would be far less angst. Still a questionable move but not nearly as sensitive.

[TJSweens]

The way I look at it, with the pending lockout, the Twins aren't likely to return to relevance until 2028 at the earliest. They aren't likely to make any investment into their product until revenue sharing and cap issues are resolved. The players the Twins traded away will all be in their 30's by then. What the great purge did was expand the prospect base that should be major league ready at that point. 

[Jeff K]

10 hours ago, DocBauer said:

I really don't like this OP. It's WAY TOO SOON to even be talking about this! It's really another version of the Berrios trade. Has Berrios been good for the Jays? Yes. Has he been a STUD? No. But has SWR turned out to be a solid ML SP who has shown potential? Yes. Has Martin finally started to look like a solid player? Also yes. Does it matter if BOTH teams got a good return?

We're AT LEAST 2yrs before we can determine who WON a trade. But since I'm a sucker for Twins commentary, I guess I'm going to have to make some comments.

1] I didn't like Stewart for Outman simply because I thought Stewart might help the 2026 pen. Lose-lose for for both teams and it doesn't matter.

2] Paddack, an impending FA who wasn't coming back for a decent catching prospect with some solid potential behind the plate and AT the plate? WIN.

3] Coulombe for a younger LHP who MIGHT make it, but also might just become a solid LHRP, sort of "replacing" Coulombe in the future? And we can still resign Coulombe this offseason? WIN.

4] Bader, an impending FA looking for a better deal that wasn't coming back...especially with 3 top 10 OF prospects scheduled to debut in 2026...for an interesting LH OF/1B option with potential, and a low A flier? Gotta say WIN again.

Here is where it gets tough. 

5] Jax for Bradley. I think Jax was undervalued due to a weird season where he was great, but also had weird inconsistentcy and bad luck. While still very young and talented, Bradley is a WILD CARD in regard to his future. No insult to him, but will he mature with a new organization that will work with him and he will accept new ideas and coaching to be a top 1-3 rotation arm? Or is he destined to be a BP arm who is a talented setup man or potential closer? I'm saying NUETRAL on him until I see improvement. He might be a younger Jax replacement. 

6] I'm a big fan of Castro. He was a tremendous find for the FO. I'm hoping they can find someone even close to what he was this offseason. But somewhere along the line, in 2025 he became more of an OF and less of an INF option. Was that Baldelli? Or was it an erosion of his glove? I really don't know. But I think I'd trust him more, slightly, than Fitzgerald at this point, with no disrespect. Gallagher was a 6th round pick by the Cubs in 2024 who didn't play pro ball until 2025 wherr he reached AA status and he did OK as a 22yo "rookie". He's actually a fairly solid prospect. Armstrong is just a big, strong kid with limited potential who needs to move to move to the pen with any hope. Considering Castro wasn't going to be resigned, and with SOME potential in Gallagher, I'd say NUETRAL at this point. 

7] Varland for Roden and Rojas. I wouldn't have made this move. I think the controllable Varland would have been the best arm in the 2026 bullpen. Roden has potential to be a solid player. His limited pro debut shouldn't discount him. He's got a nice set of skills to make him a valuable 4th OF or potential 1B even. And he wouldn't be the 1st rookie to struggle in a SSS. But this trade reality comes down to the potential of Rojas. Despite being pushed to AAA unnecessarily by the Twins and initial poor results reflect his potential, or is he a young arm they really believe will thrive in the future based on potential? I want to say the Twins lost on this one, but what if Roden becomes a solid bench player and a year from now Rojas looks like a really nice rotation arm? 

My initial grade is a LOSS. But this COULD be a win a year from now.

8] Duran for Tait and Abel. How can you possibly expect to WIN a trade when you move a talent like Duran for prospects? And I suppose it all depends on who the Twins sign in FA, and how the talent on hand translates to the bullpen. Duran was only a prospect until he wasn't.  Same with Jax. Same with Varland. Same with so many past Twins closers and top setup arms in the history of the Twins. But it's also hard to acquire 2 top 100 prospects in Tait and Abel and say the Twins blew a trade. I'm really torn on this one. I can see Festa, maybe Bradley, suddenly taking over Duran's role. And IF that happens then the Twins do win this trade. It's really hard to see a WIN here right now. 

I'm FORCED to say NUETRAL for NOW because Duran is so damn good, but there's enough talent on hand to potentially replace him. Who was he before he became a stud? Who was Perkins or Nathan before they became who they were?

8] I HONESTLY can't believe I'm saying this as I became a big fan of the man and the player, but are we better off without Correa? 

I just recently turned 60yo. Between radio and limited TV, Smalley was my youth SS. And he was damn good. But Gagne was the best SS, undervalued, I've seen in my 50 plus years watching the Twins. And then Correa came on board. I've seldom seen anyone play SS the way he did with the Twins. He was so good, so smart, and when healthy, he put up some of his best numbers as a Twin. And he was so ENGAGED as a Twin that he knew knew the prospects in the system. 

But is it possible that the Twins only got to see a glimpse of his previous talent interrupted by injury? It appears that might be the case. And that's really unfortunate. But whatever his future might hold, $20M of his contract is off the books. Some have speculated he might have had a negative affect on younger players per his expirations. I have no clue about that. I just know that when he was healthy he was awesome in the field and quality at the plate.

But sometimes things just don't work out. So this trade might just work out if the Twins re-invest his deal for 2026. It's really, really hard to call anything here. But IF they can spend the $20M GAIN in the trade, it MIGHT be a win.

I'm with you on nearly all of this.  I really think that Jax was just bad last year.  While the metrics are saying bad luck, his sample size of getting crushed was significant.  I think that trade is a win; however, as you and others have stated, we need a couple of years to know.

[IndianaTwin]

20 hours ago, JADBP said:

Interesting way to look at it.  
 

Here’s another interesting approach:  if we had made all of these trades minus one—the Varland trade—would we be more likely to declare the deadline fire sale as a WIN?  
 

I maintain that the Varland trade was both misguided and unnecessary. The return does not match the upside of Varland. At the high end, he could become the next Joe Ryan in the Twins system. At the low end he’s a #3 in the rotation.  
 

I think we could have done better trading the immensely unhappy Ryan for a massive haul.  

You're a lot higher on Varland than me, but that's okay -- that's part of what comes with being a fan. 

I do think you're on target in that the Varland trade has seembed to be the biggest lightning rod move in the batch. 

[IndianaTwin]

12 hours ago, JD-TWINS said:

...I don’t see the deadline as some “firesale” since most of the $$ saved revolve around just the Correa move.

I've had the same reaction to the "fire sale" language. Trading five guys who are going to be lost to FA at the end of the year isn't a fire sale. While painful in its own way, trading four relievers (one of whom isn't arb-eligible and one who will barely get above the minimum) isn't really fire sale either. As you note, that only leaves Correa,