In retrospect, I'm not sure why I bothered. i thought it had been implied that we should use some level of intellectual honesty in this exercise i defy you to find one solitary reputable opinion/source who thought at the time Puig was the better bet than Soler; so, in this alternate utopia, this becomes a what-if of the FO making every correct move (fine, whatever) and also a few of the wrong moves which somehow worked out wonderfully anyway? i don't understand the point, unless the argument is that there was indeed an infinitesimal chance of being serious contenders by now/next year had we used the correct dozen-acquisition permutation