Jump to content

Kershaw wants Puig off the Dodgers?


GGajewski18

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (SouthSideSale @ Nov 19, 2015 -> 03:11 PM)
If we were close to a championship team id say no. But we're not. Go get him Hahn

 

I think the complete opposite. If you are close to a championship team, the winning could override any chemistry issues a player could cause. If you are young and/or rebuilding, adding a volatile player could make matters worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

i have always had a problem with the idea of getting Puig.

 

first and the exclusive one, the cost??? what will the cost be in prospects???

is this ok with J Abreu, remember they had a problem since coming to the states.

is he a clubhouse cancer as the dodgers are claiming or is he too much of a prim-madonna

 

those are my concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Nov 19, 2015 -> 03:52 PM)
Yes. And multiple World Series appearances will likely follow as long as they use this approach for most roster decisions going forward.

So our FO should pull a Costanza......I agree 100%. If this is the case then the first thing to discuss is a long term extension for KW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard Greg Amsinger on the radio today saying the same thing. Said he could see them trading Puig and signing Heyward.

 

Correction: Actually, he was saying it about Greinke, and that he may not want to return if Puig was there.

Edited by Leonard Zelig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 19, 2015 -> 05:24 PM)
Hell no to Puig. Last thing Sox can afford is giving up someone like Quintana for Swisher 2.0

 

Wouldn't be surprised to see Puig to the Indians for Salazar.

 

FWIW Puig's first two years are better (by fWAR) then anything Swisher has ever done.

 

2015 Puig is troubling but I'm willing to take him on in the right move. Team needs to inject position player talent and high risk high reward moves are the type that need to be made. This isn't a team that will get anywhere playing it safe and making small upgrades that are likely to work but also likely to only add half a win here or there.. You need to make big moves that might pan out in order to go from 75ish wins to 85ish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Nov 19, 2015 -> 06:37 PM)
I heard Greg Amsinger on the radio today saying the same thing. Said he could see them trading Puig and signing Heyward.

 

Correction: Actually, he was saying it about Greinke, and that he may not want to return if Puig was there.

 

Greinke is such a b****. The way he beaned Q and then b****ed about it has always rubbed me the wrong way. Also he says a lot of dumbass s*** to the media about his team and team mates and the opposition and then falls back on the "I'm a misunderstood introvert" BS.

 

No, you're just a dick dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Nov 19, 2015 -> 11:50 PM)
FWIW Puig's first two years are better (by fWAR) then anything Swisher has ever done.

 

2015 Puig is troubling but I'm willing to take him on in the right move. Team needs to inject position player talent and high risk high reward moves are the type that need to be made. This isn't a team that will get anywhere playing it safe and making small upgrades that are likely to work but also likely to only add half a win here or there.. You need to make big moves that might pan out in order to go from 75ish wins to 85ish.

 

Was referring to Swisher not fitting into the clubhouse after the Sox paid a huge price for him, only to have to dump him a year later for a terrible package

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, to be honest I'm not exactly sure what a package for Puig would be at this point. I don't think Q should be required considering the year and willingness to sell. Going to guess the Dodgers would want pitching, however. I would do a deal surrounding Spencer Adams but not sure that is attractive at all to Dodgers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 19, 2015 -> 08:00 PM)
Was referring to Swisher not fitting into the clubhouse after the Sox paid a huge price for him, only to have to dump him a year later for a terrible package

 

 

Well duh that was implied and I get it they are both headcases. I'm saying that Puig is arguably a better player in his first two years then Swisher has ever been in his much longer career. The upside is higher with Puig and the downside is what exactly? More s*** seasons? More getting little return on investment?

 

Opportunity cost would be the big downside but hell who is he gonna block?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Nov 19, 2015 -> 06:32 PM)
Opportunity cost would be the big downside but hell who is he gonna block?

Blocking isn't the opportunity cost. The opportunity cost is using assets on Puig instead of improving several other positions.

His D is less than exemplary as well.

Sox need to build, not star-gaze.

 

In one sense, though, he's the anti-Swisher. While Swisher didn't fit into the clubhouse, Puig's clowning would fit right in as long as Ventura is in charge.

Building is the priority, so any consideration of Puig has to be at a steep discount.

Edited by GreenSox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...