Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

MinnCentric Forums

The Store

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email


Salt, meet wound

  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#31 CDog


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 856 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 01:20 PM

My biggest issue with the Hardy loss lies in the rumors that the Twins and Hardy butted heads on his reluctance to hit to all fields. Willingham and Plouffe showed this year that for right handed hitters, Hardy's philosopy was the correct one at Target Field.

according to hardy............. that is not a rumor. that comes from hardy.

According to the same Hardy that gave credit to Vavra and his approach of going with the pitch for turning him around and helping him greatly? That same one?

#32 Fire Dan Gladden

Fire Dan Gladden

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 382 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 01:27 PM

I didn't have a problem with trading Hardy at the time. I think if they would have received two relievers who were at least decent it wouldn't have been so bad. But getting nothing for him, and then him going and having his one great year last year kind of combined to a perfect storm. I'm surprised he didn't win the Gold Glove last year when he hit better.

I had a problem and I still do. SS has been an issue for the Twins forever. The had a younger, good hitting and fielding replacement that they gave away for nothing. In the context of that, it would have to go down as one of the worst Twins moves in recent memory.

#33 snepp


    Curve Hanger

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,339 posts
  • LocationSioux Falls

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:07 PM

Hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure there were more than a few here (maybe with paper bags over their heads now) who were fine with jettisoning the fragile Hardy for the next big thing from Japan.

Besides, to reiterate, Gold Gloves are kind of stupid. Mike Trout didn't win one? That pretty much says it all.

There's nothing 20/20 about it. The Hardy deal was horse**** right from day 1, and it was widely panned as such.

Besides, to reiterate, the GG has nothing to do with it. As already noted, it's just a dash of salt in an already gaping wound.

#34 Badsmerf


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,772 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:18 PM

The Twins got a pass "at the time?" Is anyone serious with those statements? I remember complete fanatical melt-downs on the topic. Also, it was worse with Nishi because of how much money they were throwing at him and his clear lack of proven track record. Giving away Hardy for nothing was a huge mistake, amplified by the lack of competent options in the organization.
Do or do not. There is no try.

#35 wavedog



  • Members
  • 86 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:04 PM

I do remember a lot of questions at the time of the trade - we had just traded for him the year before and he did not have a bad season. I know he was injured a little but he still played at the end of the season and in the playoffs. Adding salt to the wound that we traded him for a couple of beans instead of a major league ready player. He certainly must have rubbed somebody wrong in the organization. What was the timing - did we sign Nishi first - $4M signing fee plus $3M salary - so we had to dump Hardy's salary equivalent? That was gold.

#36 The Greatest Poster Alive

The Greatest Poster Alive

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 221 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 04:02 PM

Posted Image


#37 mikeee


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 815 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 11:06 AM

I always liked Hardy...

#38 ThePuck


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 04:23 PM

Let's get the timeline right. Twins announced Hardy was traded in an article written on the 9th of December. Twins announced they had signed Nishioka in an article written on the 17th. In other words, Hardy was traded before Nishioka was a Twin, not the other way around. And yes, I know they won the rights to Nishi around the same time...but it wasn't a done deal

Nishi was also brought in to play 2B cause Gardy was planning on using Casilla at shortstop. Saying he liked how Casilla came in on balls along with his speed and athleticism. He even went so far as to say, before Hardy was trade, that even if Hardy was on the team, Casilla would compete with him for shortstop.

Edited by ThePuck, 01 November 2012 - 04:31 PM.

#39 ThePuck


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 04:26 PM

I always liked Hardy...

I was downright giddy when we signed him and absolutely pissed when we traded him

#40 Fire Dan Gladden

Fire Dan Gladden

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 382 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 07:35 PM

I always liked Hardy...

I was downright giddy when we signed him and absolutely pissed when we traded him

My sentiments exactly.

#41 Guest_USAFChief_*

  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:24 PM

And, frankly, it was a very defensible trade at the time. Hardy missed a lot of games in 2010, leaving Gardy with a 24 man bench. His play had declined two years in a row and he was due a large raise in his arbitration year. The Twins decided that money would be better spent on Thome and Pavano.

1. No. It wasn't defensible "at the time." Not remotely so. It was poorly thought out, which was obvious then, and it doesn't look any better in retrospect.

2. Hardy did miss 61 games in 2010. As I recall, he had a wrist injury. But he didn't "leave Gardy with a 24 man bench." He spent two separate stints on the DL, during which, presumably, the Twins called up someone to take his place. Those two DL stays account for 40 of the 61 games he missed. When he wasn't on the DL, he performed well. In fact, when his wrist healed, and he played almost every day during the second half of the season--the time during which the Twins made their run, going 48-26--he put up a .304/.363/.442 line couple with excellent defense. Heck, he's one of the primary reasons they WENT on that run. In any case, if the you truly believe Hardy "left Gardy with a 24 man bench," wouldn't that be on Gardy? Or Bill Smith? Of course, it's moot, since that wasn't the case.

3. The "large raise" he got in arbitration? $750K, from $5.1M to $5.85M. Hardy actually cost less in 2011 than Nishioka, if you consider the posting fee, which by the way has proven to be a complete and total waste of money. Might as well have burned it. For the record, Hardy later signed a 3 yr extension, for $7M per year, which any of us would be thrilled about were he still a Twin. There was, and is, zero monetary argument for dumping Hardy. None.

4. Since signing Nishioka cost MORE than it would have to take Hardy to arb, they couldn't have used any money saved to sign Thome or Pavano. Additionally, Thome signed for little or nothing, which they could have done in any case. As for Pavano, I don't see how the Twins making what seemed to me an obviously stupid decision then--to give Carl Pavano $16.5M--somehow justifies dumping JJ Hardy. Two bad decisions don't make a correct one. And remember...they didn't SAVE ANY MONEY that year by signing Nishioka instead of Hardy anyway.

I repeat...the Hardy decision was an obvious blunder by Bill Smith then, and it looks even worse now. Your post is revisionist history at best, outright falsehoods at worst.

Edited by USAFChief, 01 November 2012 - 10:26 PM.