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

To me the worst trade of them all was including Varland, although long term it could work out.  The rest were guys that were unlikely to return next year, or at minimum give little value the rest of the year to a bad team.  Duran would have been back for sure, but at what price?  Also, how valuable is a closer on a bad team?  Think about it, if you hardly have leads late to save, how much value do they have?  Sure, if we make a huge turn around this season he will be missed, but that is not likely, and even if we do, closers across a season are way overvalued. 

Varland had years of control that is where he was surprising and felt was worst of the trades.  CC was not earning his contract, and rumors were he may have been bad for the young guys in the club house development, cannot speak to that, but if true getting rid of him is a plus. 

putting them together...trading both Jax and Varland was a huge loss......needed one to be the backend not only this year....but next year....Varland was the cheap answer...to keep budget low....turn him into a closer and get a better package for him...

2 hours ago, Trov said:

Duran would have been back for sure, but at what price?  Also, how valuable is a closer on a bad team?  Think about it, if you hardly have leads late to save, how much value do they have? 

Estimated $8M, which is a bargain. He wouldn't have to be a closer, he could pitch the 6th, 7th, 8th ect and get the highest leverage outs thereby giving you a chance to hold or take the lead. Having a good pitcher makes your team better. There's a self fulfilling prophecy element here. Varland, Duran, and Jax weren't rentals right? The rationale for moving Duran can't be "we're gonna suck regardless," if you've chosen to take steps to ensure that you're going to suck. 

On 12/2/2025 at 9:07 PM, tony&rodney said:

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? 

There's also a draft lottery for MLB and the worst record doesn't guarantee anything. Without looking into a team can't get a top 5 pick or something because the White Sox weren't able to win last years lottery.

1 hour ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

Given that Toronto picked up Dylan Cease and Cody Ponce already this off season, I think it's very unlikely Varland will back into the rotation. At this point Toronto doesn't have room for Barrios in the rotation any more, much less a failed starter like Varland. Louie is a late inning non-closer reliever in MLB. That's what he is. It's a valuable role, less valuable than a starter or closer, but still valuable and in his case, it's even more valuable because it's likely he can fill that role for 5-6 years. If you want to evaluate the trade, that's what we gave up. If Roden and Rojas are both average or better MLB players for several years, we win. If one is a very good or better player and one washes out, we win. If one is a back end of the 26 man roster guy and the other washes out or if both wash out, we lose. If they are both averagish guys for 2-3 years, it's a wash.  Way too early to know the answer.    

There was rumors at the deadline when Varland was traded,  they possibly considered him as a SP.  I think they really found him valuable in the bullpen.   

3 hours ago, JD-TWINS said:

Bradley is the only “non-prospect” they got back. (why would others be in MLB last 2 months of ‘25?) He wasn’t good but if he were good in Tampa in ‘25 they wouldn’t have traded him. He’s a relatively young guy with good upside. He has as much chance of contributing to wins going forward as Jax would have had in his role. Didn’t love the trade either but 6 starts are just that, SIX.

Thinking getting rid of $23M per year for a guy that’s hurt A LOT, and is obviously declining, makes perfect sense. The trade didn’t suck, Brooks Lee, that’s a different story.

Abel and Roden shouldn't have gotten any MLB run? Idk what you're arguing here. 

Ok, 6 starts with the Twins and nearly 400 innings of pedestrian at best production in total. Is that not a fairly significant sample size? Jax has been far more valuable the last few seasons. If Bradley is going to match that level of contribution drastic changes need to occur. 

If that money is reinvested maybe (and there's zero indication that will happen) otherwise like I said you're just spending $10M to downgrade at SS. 

5 hours ago, JD-TWINS said:

Or you could spend $33M to have a similar defensive shortstop (declining) and a guy who doesn’t hit at his previous level nor stay healthy………so Lee plays a third of the games anyway, covering for Correa’s back, feet, need for rest, etc.

Abel gave up half dozen runs in an inning plus and was sent down then pitched at MlB level again.

Roden was playing in the Show and got hurt.

Idk what you’re arguing here.

Jax, in ‘25, 4.23 ERA …. 1-7 record ……. .5 WAR. He’s got tremendous stuff!! Like many guys on the mound, I wonder about his pitch mix and what’s going on between his ears? He’s got a 4.03 ERA for his stellar career.

I like Jax - independent of that, Bradley has thrown 140 innings in the SHOW for 2 consecutive seasons - if he can’t work as a starter, I do think he has an opportunity to match Jax like numbers throwing to 3-5 guys per outing. ……. Jax too washed out as a starter…….same with Varland……..lack of durability was the root, but same for Duran.

A declining Correa posted more WAR in 50 games with Houston last year than Brooks Lee could must the last 2 seasons. Was Correa worth his salary? No. Was he a much better option than what the Twins are going to roll out at SS on Opening Day this season? Undoubtedly, yes. If the Twins take that $20M+ and opt to actually reinvest it in the on field product I'm happy to reassess, but that seems like a pipe dream at this point. The Twins downgraded (rather significantly) at SS, and one of the highest individual salaries (what a joke) on the team is the person they're paying to not play that position. 

You asked why anybody other than Bradley would've been up last season? They were each pretty terrible in limited action but neither the players nor the team would've been better served keeping those guys in AAA. 

No clue why you're using Jax's career ERA, which includes his rough stint as a SP. His career ERA as a RP drops into the low 3s. I'll point it out again, he had a 4.50 ERA and a 2.05 FIP during the 1st half with MN last season. Some guys can/will skew to one side or the other, but that gap is enormous. 

You think Varland and Jax didn't make it as SPs because they lacked durability? Hard disagree. Well, viable SP and SP for the 2026 Minnesota Twins probably aren't the same thing. Bradley will get every opportunity to prove he's the former, but as it stands he's a fringe guy. Assuming he can just step into the bullpen and match Jax feels like a stretch. 

I'm always a little flummoxed by attempts to identify a winner/loser in trades. The purpose, ostensibly, is that a trade improves the organization. As such, most trades cannot be reasonably evaluated for quite some time. In fact the conversation on this thread is largely speculative in nature about the players involved suggesting if this guy does that and so on.

Are the Twins better now? Will they be better a year from now? The first question is a short term answer which seems pretty cut and dried. The second question cannot be answered at this time. If transactions are completed for a positive outcome in mind, both teams can accomplish their goals and thus are both winners. I'm not sure how one keeps score on trades.

On 12/2/2025 at 12:26 PM, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

It's too early for these win/loss predictions.  We needed to wait until the end of next season for this article.

Isn’t that the point of evaluating trades? The FO doesn’t get to have some look into the future, like maybe the end of next year. They need to make trades in real time. If neither Tait or Abel work out, it doesn’t make it a bad trade. It was based on perceived value at the time.
The real value in this article is not in updating the evaluation with a SSS of prospect performance in a time of chaos, but in re-evaluating after being able to get beyond the emotions of the immediate trade. From what I observed that was badly needed in this situation. 

B.