A Glimpse Into The Future.

The exercise of determining which site gets closed needs to take a number of factors into account, like you say.
I only said Denver because, from the viewpoint of circulating coin production, it looks like they more or less are a duplicate of Philly, and if coin demand remains where it has been the last two years, just one of those sites can fulfill the entire national demand for circulating coin production, with lots of room to spare. It's the definition of "redundant," though you'd need to look at the downside on distribution cost in comparison to the recurring fixed cost savings of closing a facility (though I think we can make an educated guess on that).

Moving equipment is very expensive and disruptive. You have to count on the time to de-commission the equipment in the current location, move it, then re-commission in the destination location. The larger the equipment, the more you want to avoid that, and I think the the equipment for striking large coins and proofs is the largest (higher striking tonnage). The reason closing Denver looks like a no brainer to me is that you might get away without moving much equipment.
Though, as they say, the devil is in the details.

On the distribution cost question ... The Mint shows that the average distribution cost for nickels, dmes and quarters in the current production/distribution model is 0.001 cent per coin. If we consider a hypothetical Denver production of 2.5 billion coins evenly split between 5, 10 and 25 cent coins (more than what was actually produced in ether 2024 or 2025), and say that their distribution cost would double if the coins were made in Philly, we get a whopping $25,000 dollar increase in distribution cost. If that's a underestimate and the costs would triple, that brings us up to $50,000.
Closing a site like Denver would probably save upwards of $50,000,000 per year, though a need to add another shift on some of the Philly equipment might cut into that a bit.

(Can you tell I've done something like this? )