What will it take to call last years sell off success?

[Trov]

We all know most of the fans were upset with the full sell off last year, keeping only a couple of valued controllable players.  Rumors that Buck would have been part of it had he wanted to as well.  Really, it was a sell off of rental arms with only a year or two of control left.  The highlight trades were dumping CC contract for a discount of what they had to pay, no real return.  Duran for Abel and Tait. Jax for Bradley. Varland and France for Roden and Rojas. Not going to list all the minor trades of guys that had no years of control and were not in plans beyond last year anyways, like Stewart, Coulombe, Bader, and others that if you get any value from return it will be a plus.

Many were upset at Duran, Jax, and Varland, and Varland seemed to upset most due to years of control. So what will it take to say it worked for the Twins?  First, we have no clue if the pitchers sent out would pitch the same with the Twins as they are for their current teams.  We also have no clue if we would have retained beyond their FA years.  What we do know is that the guys in return will have longer control.  It will be years before we see any return from Tait, and will not know until long time from now.  

However, Abel, Bradley, Rojas, and Roden are all at or near MLB level.  Rojas was injured, but had a decent first start back.  All three pitchers all could pitch for the MLB team this year and next year, barring trades and injuries. So what will it take to be considered good?  Right now Bradly first three starts is Cy Young level.  Abel had rough start to season, piggy back on Ober first appearance and first start, but last two has been good to great. Even if we do not consider what others are doing, Jax is struggling, Duran has been great(not that we would have needed him yet to make a difference), and Varland has been great too, just giving up 1 unearned run.  

Of course if the guys in return fall on their face it will be terrible, but so far the results are good.  I think getting average starting from them will be considered a win, and if any of them can flirt with all-star or cy young votes it will be a huge success. 

[Possumlad]

I mean... if Bradley and Abel are really legit MLB starters the combined deals were a win on that basis alone.

Rojas & Roden turning in to useful big leaguers would be a cherry on top, and Tait reaching his potential would put it in to "all-time coup" territory.

[Brock Beauchamp]

If Bradley and Abel are legit starters, it was a success. If more comes down the pipe in time, it becomes a resounding success.

While the Twins traded *a lot* of players, they were almost exclusively expiring contracts or bullpen arms. The loss of an entire bullpen hurts for one, maybe one and a half seasons, but the upside on the return is so much more than that.

[Trov]

13 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

If Bradley and Abel are legit starters, it was a success. If more comes down the pipe in time, it becomes a resounding success.

While the Twins traded *a lot* of players, they were almost exclusively expiring contracts or bullpen arms. The loss of an entire bullpen hurts for one, maybe one and a half seasons, but the upside on the return is so much more than that.

I fully agree, people were upset with our three top pen arms being dealt, all of which would have been back this year, and a couple next year.  The issue with that is a pen arm has much less value than a starter, just based on innings pitched.  So far this year, maybe just maybe 1 game would have been different with those three guys in our pen, but then you need to remember we would have had different starters so may just maybe we lose a couple more as well.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, Trov said:

I fully agree, people were upset with our three top pen arms being dealt, all of which would have been back this year, and a couple next year.  The issue with that is a pen arm has much less value than a starter, just based on innings pitched.  So far this year, maybe just maybe 1 game would have been different with those three guys in our pen, but then you need to remember we would have had different starters so may just maybe we lose a couple more as well.  

My issue with last deadline - and 90% of my issues with the team, really - involve ownership. Sure, you can make a baseball case for trading the entire bullpen and trading Carlos Correa.

But from an immediate competitive standpoint, money needs to be spent afterward to rebuild what was lost. Ownership has and continues to refuse to do that. The Twins are playing well, and that's really fun, but let's not fool ourselves. This bullpen is not built for 162.

[Possumlad]

2 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

My issue with last deadline - and 90% of my issues with the team, really - involve ownership. Sure, you can make a baseball case for trading the entire bullpen and trading Carlos Correa.

But from an immediate competitive standpoint, money needs to be spent afterward to rebuild what was lost. Ownership has and continues to refuse to do that. The Twins are playing well, and that's really fun, but let's not fool ourselves. This bullpen is not built for 162.

Agree, The trades are looking net positive at this point (both current & long term), but separately the bullpen now sucks. We should have been able to add back 2-3 more competent bullpen arms this offseason. My suspicion is the FO didn't really plan on us being competitive. Will be interesting to see if we become bullpen buyers if we're above 0.500 closer to the deadline.

[mickster]

A pennant within the next 5 years.   Some trades look better now then they did at the time.  If they could take back the Varland trade, we would have a closer to upgrade the pen without taking anything away from the current roster.

[The Great Hambino]

3 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

My issue with last deadline - and 90% of my issues with the team, really - involve ownership. Sure, you can make a baseball case for trading the entire bullpen and trading Carlos Correa.

But from an immediate competitive standpoint, money needs to be spent afterward to rebuild what was lost. Ownership has and continues to refuse to do that. The Twins are playing well, and that's really fun, but let's not fool ourselves. This bullpen is not built for 162.

Beyond spending money to replace what was lost, teams like Milwaukee that have stayed at least moderately successful have someone internal ready to step up when they trade away a Corbin Burnes or a Josh Hader.  Varland seemed to be potentially that guy for the Twins after Duran/Jax were sent away ... but then he got traded too.  For me, that - not his place of birth - is what bothered me about his trade.  It signaled to me that they were punting on competitiveness for the duration of the Lopez/Ryan contracts.  So when they signaled their intent to remain competitive while not committing any real resources - internal or external -  to replace what they lost in the pen, it got extra frustrating. 

They still haven't committed any internal resources to replacing the top end of the bullpen - the only relief outings made by anyone that could've been considered a starting pitching prospect at any point during 2025 have effectively been piggyback starts by Abel and Morris.  Maybe they will do so as the season progresses with Festa or Zebby or Morris or others.  The fact that the pen has been able to smoke-and-mirrors their way to some success so far has bought them some time, but I'm not sure how long that can hold up.   I hope it does, and I'll enjoy it while it lasts, and I can at least see a path to competitiveness this year that I didn't see in the offseason, but I'm still wary of seeing a short-term payoff from last year's trades if they're not willing to do what's necessary to reinforce the top end of the bullpen.  As @mickster noted above, there as of yet has been zero benefit provided to the major league roster from the Varland trade.

Long-term payoff from the trades, on the other hand, is looking very very promising.  Bradley looks like the best version of himself and Abel looks like a keeper too.  And by sheer volume, someone from the haul currently in the minors is bound to break through as a valuable piece in the future

[Possumlad]

2 hours ago, mickster said:

A pennant within the next 5 years.   Some trades look better now then they did at the time.  If they could take back the Varland trade, we would have a closer to upgrade the pen without taking anything away from the current roster.

The Varland trade was the weirdest at the time & continues to be. 

[Danchat]

To be clear, I was a fan of selling off at the deadline, I just wasn't a fan of the return of the bigger moves. Getting quality talent under cheap team control is enough for me to call it a win, at least the Jax and Duran trades so far. The Varland trade looks like a mistake and I'd undo that trade in a heartbeat even though I like Rojas (and I don't see how they're going to extract value out of Roden outside of trading him).

I'm not sure how much factoring in the front office's refusal to fix the bullpen after the trade deadline should be factored in, depends if you grade it in a vacuum or not. The reality is the majority of relievers in the pen right now are not going to be on the team / in the MLB bullpen next year. It's certainly easier [cheaper] to find relievers than starters, but they have to make an actual attempt to sign and develop some.

[Bangkok Twins Fan]

On 4/16/2026 at 6:59 AM, Brock Beauchamp said:

While the Twins traded *a lot* of players, they were almost exclusively expiring contracts or bullpen arms. The loss of an entire bullpen hurts for one, maybe one and a half seasons, but the upside on the return is so much more than that.

Very very true, Yes, we decimated the bullpen, but getting arms like Bradley and Abel was HUGE. I think history will show that this so-called sell-off was actually a prudent move. 

[Bangkok Twins Fan]

15 hours ago, Danchat said:

To be clear, I was a fan of selling off at the deadline, I just wasn't a fan of the return of the bigger moves. Getting quality talent under cheap team control is enough for me to call it a win, at least the Jax and Duran trades so far. The Varland trade looks like a mistake and I'd undo that trade in a heartbeat even though I like Rojas (and I don't see how they're going to extract value out of Roden outside of trading him).

I'm not sure how much factoring in the front office's refusal to fix the bullpen after the trade deadline should be factored in, depends if you grade it in a vacuum or not. The reality is the majority of relievers in the pen right now are not going to be on the team / in the MLB bullpen next year. It's certainly easier [cheaper] to find relievers than starters, but they have to make an actual attempt to sign and develop some.

Yeah, the Varland trade was the most troubling of the bunch, but I think that Roden COULD end up being a good MLB player. It may take another year or longer before the jury comes to a decision.

[Trov]

22 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

My issue with last deadline - and 90% of my issues with the team, really - involve ownership. Sure, you can make a baseball case for trading the entire bullpen and trading Carlos Correa.

But from an immediate competitive standpoint, money needs to be spent afterward to rebuild what was lost. Ownership has and continues to refuse to do that. The Twins are playing well, and that's really fun, but let's not fool ourselves. This bullpen is not built for 162.

I agree in part with spending again, when you dumped the CC money.  However, as a mid-market team, spending just to spend is not always the best.  That is how some FA in the past started getting these bloated deals that ended up being terrible because they were the best FA out there and the teams had money to spend.  If it is a single season okay that is fine, as they will not carry the profits from one year as a possible deficit the next, but signing a free agent to a multiyear deal, just to do it, does not make sense either.  Spending the money the right way is good, but spending because you have it does not make sense some times.  Not defending the lack of looking to bring in some pen arms this year, they should have.

[Brock Beauchamp]

15 minutes ago, Trov said:

I agree in part with spending again, when you dumped the CC money.  However, as a mid-market team, spending just to spend is not always the best.  That is how some FA in the past started getting these bloated deals that ended up being terrible because they were the best FA out there and the teams had money to spend.  If it is a single season okay that is fine, as they will not carry the profits from one year as a possible deficit the next, but signing a free agent to a multiyear deal, just to do it, does not make sense either.  Spending the money the right way is good, but spending because you have it does not make sense some times.  Not defending the lack of looking to bring in some pen arms this year, they should have.

In no way am I advocating to spend just to spend, but there were a dozen acceptable bullpen arms available for between $5m and $15m on one-year contracts. That could have done wonders for this team over the first half of the season (I think they're able to patch together more young arms as the season progresses).

[ziggy]

• IMHO, if the Twins were honestly planning on competing year in and year out (this year) they would not have traded Varland nor given up on Correa. Back to topic.....

I think each trade needs to be graded seperatly but as a whole if 2 out of 3 prospects makes meaningful contributions to the big league club then the sell off was a large success. As for the fan apathy I feel and have felt since the trades that will be soothed with a consistent winning team.

I have asked this before but if every trade turns out to be a huge win for the Twins can Falvey win the excutive of the year award after being fired?

[Linus]

If we end up with Abel and Bradley as viable starters for the next 5-6 years it’s already a win. If Tait ends up good it’s a steal and if Rojas makes it its highway robbery. 

[Jim H]

I also believe the deadline trades need to be evaluated separately. I also believe it is far too soon to have a firm opinion on how well the Twins actually executed the mass selloff.  Several conclusions can be drawn about why they did what they did, however.

First, they had no confidence in the catching prospects throughout the system. Beyond the 2 prospects they added at the deadline, they have continued to remake the catching even up to the major league level. 

2nd, they have really added to their pitching "pipeline". Clearly, they weren't too confident in their near ready starter prospects too be able too cover their potential needs. Whether Abel and Bradley will be to continue to perform at a high level is to be determined. But they are ahead of anybody who was in system.  That they added a bunch more arms at the deadline also suggests they lacked a certain amount of confidence in what was already in the system.

Finally, I really am confused about why they added 3 more corner outfield left-handed bats at the deadline. Maybe they will make some trades to clarify that, eventually.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

We can have fun with this. However, do not crumple up your original scouting report based on 2 starts. (or even 10 starts - most pitchers who reach this level are capable of going on a nice heater for a couple of months)