Were the M & M Boys Worth Building Around?

[cmathewson]

Were Puckett and Hrbek worth building a team around? Yes? Same answer here.

[ashbury]

Were Puckett and Hrbek worth building a team around? Yes? Same answer here.

 

But But But... Postseason!

[notoriousgod71]

The only year I ever thought the Twins tried to put a legitimate team on the field was 2010. Every other season they were content to just be good. If we had made a trade or two to add a second ace or a 3b/ss/2b of high quality I think we could have won a World Series or two. Sadly in-season trades did get better with Bill Smith who added Cabrera, Rauch, Pavano, and Fuentes for nothing.

 

If only this team had been willing to add payroll.

[kab21]

I think it's pretty clear that the Twins shouldn't have even tried building around M+M because the playoff results sucked.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'm shocked there's actually a debate on this matter. The Twins should have built around them. Both had superstar potential coming into their prime, with a nice cast of above average guys to go with them.

 

If you don't build around guys like that, you won't be building around anyone. Period. Looking back at it in hindsight and saying you shouldn't is kind of silly if you ask me.

[ThePuck]

I'm shocked there's actually a debate on this matter. The Twins should have built around them. Both had superstar potential coming into their prime, with a nice cast of above average guys to go with them.

 

If you don't build around guys like that, you won't be building around anyone. Period. Looking back at it in hindsight and saying you shouldn't is kind of silly if you ask me.

 

I agree. Not only that, some would say Cuddyer, Nathan and Kubel were part of that core built around.

[notoriousgod71]

I agree. Not only that, some would say Cuddyer, Nathan and Kubel were part of that core built around.

 

Hunter, Santana, Liriano. Those 2004-2006 teams could have been special.

[gil4]

Hunter, Santana, Liriano. Those 2004-2006 teams could have been special.

They didn't win it all, but they were special. I became a Twins fan around 1972, so I experienced '72-'86 and '93-'99. Those '04-06 teams were fun to watch, especially when Santana and Liriano were piching.

[gunnarthor]

They didn't win it all, but they were special. I became a Twins fan around 1972, so I experienced '72-'86 and '93-'99. Those '04-06 teams were fun to watch, especially when Santana and Liriano were piching.

 

The big question mark of 06 was what if Liriano and Radke had stayed healthy? Radke pitched in the post season but he didn't have a shoulder. But if we had a healthy Liriano, Santana and Radke lined up? Too bad that didn't work out.

[ashbury]

The big question mark of 06 was what if Liriano and Radke had stayed healthy? Radke pitched in the post season but he didn't have a shoulder. But if we had a healthy Liriano, Santana and Radke lined up? Too bad that didn't work out.

 

Not to side-track the original topic, but a shout-out to Radke is well-deserved. He didn't get the notoriety of a bloody sock, but his decision to leave it all out there on the diamond, knowing he was going to retire anyway, is the kind of heroism that is damned fun to root for.

[The Greatest Poster Alive]

Yes.

 

that's the short answer.

 

long answer:

 

yeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssss

[gil4]

Not to side-track the original topic, but a shout-out to Radke is well-deserved.

Let's go ahead and side-track it. Radke also had an awesome TV commercial early in his career.

[Mike Sixel]

Yes, but the twins did not do that. Name the big free agents they signed.....name the MLB players they traded big time prospects to get. The issue is not the M&M boys, the issue is the Twins did not build around them well at all.

[ThePuck]

Yes, but the twins did not do that. Name the big free agents they signed.....name the MLB players they traded big time prospects to get. The issue is not the M&M boys, the issue is the Twins did not build around them well at all.

 

 

exactly! The quality players they had were already there when those two arrived or right around the same time.

[gunnarthor]

exactly! The quality players they had were already there when those two arrived or right around the same time.

 

Well, in most of the years, the team was in small market mode but they did manage to extend Santana and Hunter, among others b/c they didn't blow that payroll on mediocre free agents. In the first year of the TF, they added FAs Thome (3.5 WAR), Hudson (2.7) and Pavano (4.0).

 

So I guess this gets us back to the same old BS argument. One side argues that Ryan never adds big time free agents while ignoring his budget constraints. They bitch that the team never made win-now moves but then ignore that Smith added several good FAs to go with the M&M core in 2010.

 

And now Ryan has managed to add some quality free agents his first year back - Carroll (3.5 WAR), Willingham (3.3), Doumit (1.3), Burton (1.3), Fein (1.0) but we get more ***** about not spending money on unnamed free agents.

[ThePuck]

Well, in most of the years, the team was in small market mode but they did manage to extend Santana and Hunter, among others b/c they didn't blow that payroll on mediocre free agents. In the first year of the TF, they added FAs Thome (3.5 WAR), Hudson (2.7) and Pavano (4.0).

 

So I guess this gets us back to the same old BS argument. One side argues that Ryan never adds big time free agents while ignoring his budget constraints. They bitch that the team never made win-now moves but then ignore that Smith added several good FAs to go with the M&M core in 2010.

 

And now Ryan has managed to add some quality free agents his first year back - Carroll (3.5 WAR), Willingham (3.3), Doumit (1.3), Burton (1.3), Fein (1.0) but we get more ***** about not spending money on unnamed free agents.

 

Adding players for one year (Hudson and as it turns out Hardy) doesn't add to a core. It's a band aid. I LOVED those moves though, loved them. It was the best I felt about an offseason in years.

 

Extending players we had doesn't negate what I wrote...they were already there when those two arrived or right around the same time

 

We wanna talk about adding Carroll, Willingham, Doumit and relievers...but conveniently forget we lost Cuddy, Kubel and Nathan at the same time? Why isn't that brought up? Yeah, we saved money with the switch out...and didn't do anything with the saved money. BTW, before our 2011 seasons was even over, I said two guys we need to target are Willingham and Doumit, so it's not like I didn't like those moves.

 

None of this changes what I wrote...and I don't appreciate the tone either. Grow up and talk to people with some respect around here.

[gunnarthor]

We wanna talk about adding Carroll, Willingham, Doumit and relievers...but conveniently forget we lost Cuddy, Kubel and Nathan at the same time?

 

Well, Carroll, Willingham and Doumit greatly outperformed those three for one so it's a bit of a reach to say it was a switch out. It was an improvement. And happened to be cheaper.

[Mike Sixel]

Adding players to replace guys on your roster, not to replace guys you let leave. You may also note that Smith was "fired" over philosophical issues, I'm guessing those were about playing to win now......

 

 

None of the guys you list were guys they said, "yes, Cuddy is on this roster still, but we are going to ADD a player to the roster", they instead (wisely) let Cuddy go then signed a cheaper guy. But they aren't adding FAs or MLB players to the roster to make the team better. I don't get how the difference between keeping good players, and then spending more money to add more wins is different than letting guys walk and signing cheaper players....are not clearly two different things.

 

they did not go out and ADD more good MLB players around M&M while they were healthy. The chose not to do it, for whatever reason.

[gunnarthor]

Adding players to replace guys on your roster, not to replace guys you let leave. You may also note that Smith was "fired" over philosophical issues, I'm guessing those were about playing to win now...... Yeah, probably.

 

None of the guys you list were guys they said, "yes, Cuddy is on this roster still, but we are going to ADD a player to the roster", they instead (wisely) let Cuddy go then signed a cheaper guy. (I only mentioned a few guys) But they aren't adding FAs or MLB players to the roster to make the team better. (They were trying to make it worse?) I don't get how the difference between keeping good players, and then spending more money to add more wins (Like what they did the first year they actually had money to do so?) is different than letting guys walk and signing cheaper players....are not clearly two different things.

 

they did not go out and ADD more good MLB players around M&M while they were healthy. (Sure they did, you've just refused to accept it) The chose not to do it, for whatever reason (Being a small market team in the dome had a substantial impact on payroll.

 

At this point it looks like we just arguing around each other. I'm baffled on how you (and others) can stick to your position when it's demonstrably wrong and how you continue to ignore facts that you find inconvenient.

 

In any event, this thread asked were the M&Ms worth building around and I think yes.

[Mike Sixel]

And I think yes.

[RIP BYTO]

Yes. Did it work out? No.