This is definitely not the worst case. He could do much more damage to a young team than wasting a couple of Million $. AJP has been a pretty good citizen since joining the Braves. I would not expect the same from Puig.
A case for keeping Markakis and adding Puig
- Thread starter Enscheff
- Start date
This is definitely not the worst case. He could do much more damage to a young team than wasting a couple of Million $. AJP has been a pretty good citizen since joining the Braves. I would not expect the same from Puig.
He has done nothing but get worse since his very first day in the majors, and he is now basically replacement-level.
I don't want the standard for the Braves going forward to be 'he's not worse than what we already have.'
I'll go with Kemp/Inciarte/Mallex next year over Puig replacing any of them.
chop2chip
Well-known member
Ask yourself this question, if Puig isn't a clubhouse cancer, then why would LA want to rid themselves of an uber talented 25 year old?
I hate the alleged DV case from last year. I know Puig didn't have charges pressed against him, but I'm not touching a guy like that with a 10 foot pole (especially after HO)
They are trying to win a pennant. They are attempting to win now, they aren't trying to develop players or create value. And Puig was in a slump the first half of the year.
We take on scumbags on the time, very rarely are they as talented as Puig. We know we aren't going to win or get anything long term form Smith, Kemp, Markakis; Puig at least gives us a chance to have some value long term or by improving his value and trading him.
GovClintonTyree
<B>Vencer a Los Doyers</B>
With decent power (plate discipline, contact) at 3B and C, that OF sounds interesting. I like both CFs. Hey, what if Mallex really was developing a little pop?
But shouldn't that say something that LA is willing to give away a player as talented as him for peanuts?
Personally, I'm the fence on it. We do have a good amount of veteran guys now who seem to be willing to take on a leadership roles. I don't want Puig to be a cancer in the clubhouse either, but we aren't competing for anything this year. You could consider the rest of 2016 to be a trial run. If his attitude is a problem, you simply cut him free and you don't really lose anything.
It wouldn't be called "buying low" if he was tearing the cover off the ball and had a sterling clubhouse reputation, now would it?
The point is if he can be acquired for nothing of note he has the potential to be good and pay huge dividends. That is a point of a buy low option.
And you'll have the lowest WAR of any OF in the game. Not exactly the best way to build a winner.
Southcack77
Well-known member
They aren't going to win next year and they aren't going to have Mallex and Inciarte playing together whenever they get around to trying in earnest.
GovClintonTyree
<B>Vencer a Los Doyers</B>
9 WAR. Not bad.
Given the total lack of offensive firepower this team possesses it is absolutely bewildering to me that there would be any sort of anti-Puig contingent. If the acquisition cost is cheap, it's a complete no brainer. The benefits far outweigh the potential pitfalls.
GovClintonTyree
<B>Vencer a Los Doyers</B>
But Hawk, if he were all that, why would the Dodgers be getting rid of him? Remember the last time we took a disappointing Cuban off their hands?
Puig wouldn't improve that, that's my point.
He doesn't have power.
Sure he would. You think he's a 1 WAR player?
He had a .126 Iso so far in half a year. Was at .181 last year. Surely, he has power.
Exactly the reasons they don't want him around. Neither do those of us who don't worship the all-knowing numbers.
Wait a minute - wasn't the first half of your reasoning for this thread that Markakis (and his 0.9 WAR) should be kept around??? Color me confused.
Apparently. 1.1 WAR last season, 0.8 this year. Maybe those numbers at Baseball Reference are wrong though.