Chris Sale to Boston for Moncada, Kopech, & 2 Prospects

shepard50

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 18, 2006
8,167
Sydney, Australia
The fact that Moncada
I'd be really curious to see what the Nationals had on the table beyond Giolito and Robles. Rumor is they also had Reynaldo Lopez in their best offer. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Rick Hahn was just enamored with Moncada and once he was on the table, the Nationals were basically just there to leverage the Red Sox. I can't get my head around the idea that Moncada, Kopech, Basabe and Diaz is a better package, in a vacuum, than Giolito, Robles and Lopez.That's three top 40 prospects versus a top 5 (at worst) in Moncada, a top 50 in Kopech and two guys who probably aren't top 100 guys.

At mid-season Moncada was number 1. He may have slipped a few spots by the end of the year, but it wouldn't have been by much. Giolito was number 4 on that list and will probably clock in around the same spot this spring. Robles was 13 on that list and Lopez was 48. Kopech was ranked number 93, but obviously finished strong and had helium.

Of course, this is probably just the prime example of how teams don't really do top 10 or top 100 rankings in the way we like to think about prospects. Even still, I think the Nats turned down the better overall offer in order to secure the individual player they most coveted. That's obviously a defendable decision, but I'm not sure if I'd have made the same one if I was in Hahn's shoes.
The sweetener may have been that the Red Sox are paying all of the remaining 31M on Moncada's deal. That's a lot of money for the White Sox. Moncada is the closest thing to a ML ready player in either offer (last September notwithstanding), and getting a highly touted four tool player for free is not to be sniffed at.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
The money for Moncada was a signing bonus, while it is true that the Red Sox are paying all of it, it wasn't like there was an option.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
With love and respect to Wakefield, I just want to be sure SoSH's own Steve Dillard, Win Remmerswaal and Al Nipper are cool letting Sale take #49 out there.

NUMBER 49
Pete Smith 1962-63
Craig Skok 1973
Steve Dillard 1975
Tommy Helms 1977
Win Remmerswaal 1979-81
Al Nipper 1983-87
Joe Price 1989
Paul Quantrill 1992-94
Chris Nabholz 1994
Mike Hartley 1995
Tim Wakefield 1995-2011
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
I wonder if the White Sox insisted on Moncada, or if they valued Benintendi equally and it was the Red Sox who decided they would rather have Andrew over Yoan?

If there's one thing that gave me a minor amount of pause about Moncada, it was his that he seemed to have already embraced the big league lifestyle, what with his taste for expensive cars, his own logo, etc. He has an ungodly amount of talent but he does have some serious work to do at the plate and in the field to determine if he's going to become a major league superstar or the next Ruben Rivera.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
One day in the future, we are going to be happy that Trey Ball was a late bloomer so DD didn't trade him away during the Great Reshaping . . . .

What's amazing to me is that DD has made a lot of trades over his career; doesn't seem to lose many of them (any of them?), and teams keep trading with him. He must be really good at talking up the prospects that he trades.

The money for Moncada was a signing bonus, while it is true that the Red Sox are paying all of it, it wasn't like there was an option.
People keep forgetting that the $62M figure for Moncada was 1/2 luxury tax. Red Sox had to pay Moncada's bonus over three years. According to this, Moncada is still owed $16M on the bonus: $5M by 1.31.17, $3M by 10.31.17; $5M by 1.31.18 and the last #3M by 10.31.18.

I suspect the Sox already paid the luxury tax so when people say that the Sox have to pay the remaining $32M, they are wrong.
 

Sox Puppet

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2016
724
People keep forgetting that the $62M figure for Moncada was 1/2 luxury tax. Red Sox had to pay Moncada's bonus over three years. According to this, Moncada is still owed $16M on the bonus: $5M by 1.31.17, $3M by 10.31.17; $5M by 1.31.18 and the last #3M by 10.31.18.

I suspect the Sox already paid the luxury tax so when people say that the Sox have to pay the remaining $32M, they are wrong.
This was the one thing I wasn't clear on. The way I understood it, we were on the hook for the entire $31.5M bonus as well as the $31.5M luxury tax, meaning we were essentially giving away the $63M we spent on Moncada in order to get Sale at a below-market rate. But in essence, doesn't that mean we just paid $101M for three years of Sale ($38M of his contract + the $63M of Moncada's money)? Suddenly it doesn't seem like such a bargain, especially since we're also losing Kopech, Basabe, and Diaz in the process.

Am I wrong in my reasoning?
 

Bowlerman9

bitchslapped by Keith Law
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 1, 2003
5,227
This was the one thing I wasn't clear on. The way I understood it, we were on the hook for the entire $31.5M bonus as well as the $31.5M luxury tax, meaning we were essentially giving away the $63M we spent on Moncada in order to get Sale at a below-market rate. But in essence, doesn't that mean we just paid $101M for three years of Sale ($38M of his contract + the $63M of Moncada's money)? Suddenly it doesn't seem like such a bargain, especially since we're also losing Kopech, Basabe, and Diaz in the process.

Am I wrong in my reasoning?
The $63M is a sunk cost. No different than the amount they pay for other draft picks. Allocating the $63M that was paid last year to Sale's actual 2017-2019 cost serves no purpose.

Let's say Moncada hits .190 with a 45% strikeout rate in 2016. And he is no longer considered the #1 prospect in baseball. Heck, he might not be top 50. And then he is traded for a guy like Drew Pomeranz. You wouldnt say you paid an additional $63M for Pomeranz. It was the cost of getting Moncada in 2015 and has no baring on 2017 and beyond.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
This was the one thing I wasn't clear on. The way I understood it, we were on the hook for the entire $31.5M bonus as well as the $31.5M luxury tax, meaning we were essentially giving away the $63M we spent on Moncada in order to get Sale at a below-market rate. But in essence, doesn't that mean we just paid $101M for three years of Sale ($38M of his contract + the $63M of Moncada's money)? Suddenly it doesn't seem like such a bargain, especially since we're also losing Kopech, Basabe, and Diaz in the process.

Am I wrong in my reasoning?
The way to look at the number is this.

By adding Sale, they expect to get 15 WAR (conservatively) over the next three years for $38M, which combined with the Moncada's contract is $101M as you point out.

If they keep Sale, research has showed the a top 10 hitting prospect averages approximately 15 WAR over the 7 years of team control, but most of it comes in the final years of the contract - so, or example, 2020-2023. So in the ordinary case, what the Sox have done is to pay $38M to move that production from 2020-2023 to the next three years.

However, two things to think about. (1) If DD evaluates Moncada and doesn't see a top 10 prospect, then that 15 WAR decreases fairly rapidly. So in fact, DD has given up upside and and downside for guaranteed production.

(2) The Red Sox brought Moncada up last year. If Moncada forces his way onto the ChiSox roster this year, I believe that means he will have one year less of control. That also affects the financial calculation (though how much I will leave to people who know better than I am).

Does that help?
 

Sox Puppet

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2016
724
The way to look at the number is this.

By adding Sale, they expect to get 15 WAR (conservatively) over the next three years for $38M, which combined with the Moncada's contract is $101M as you point out.

If they keep Sale, research has showed the a top 10 hitting prospect averages approximately 15 WAR over the 7 years of team control, but most of it comes in the final years of the contract - so, or example, 2020-2023. So in the ordinary case, what the Sox have done is to pay $38M to move that production from 2020-2023 to the next three years.
[......]
Does that help?
Yes, thank you -- that makes intuitive sense. Although 15 WAR over 7 years seems like a pretty bearish projection for Moncada. That would put him just over 2.1 WAR/yr, which this year would have made him the 14th best 2B in baseball, just between Logan Forsythe and Joe Panik. As a 3B (which is presumably how we would have used him), that would be #18. And that's not counting the added WAR we could have expected from Kopech (assuming Basabe and Diaz weren't going to be real contributors).

I guess you're right to say $38M + prospects is the price of removing uncertainty/frontloading production, though it seems like a hefty price IMHO.

The $63M is a sunk cost. No different than the amount they pay for other draft picks. Allocating the $63M that was paid last year to Sale's actual 2017-2019 cost serves no purpose.
I guess technically it's a sunk cost, though I have a hard time seeing it that way. I think of that term in relation to something like Rusney's contract (or Allan Craig's), where the likelihood of getting ANY positive contribution for the investment is minimal. You might as well cut bait with those guys. But the $63M for Moncada came with the expectation of several cost-controlled years of (at least reasonably decent) production.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Yes, thank you -- that makes intuitive sense. Although 15 WAR over 7 years seems like a pretty bearish projection for Moncada.
It isn't really, not if you factor in the reality that even prospects as highly regarded as Moncada sometimes prove incapable of sticking in the majors. It seems like a pretty good bet that if Moncada can get over that hump and play for seven years as a regular, he'd rack up more than 15 WAR. But that's not a small "if" at this point.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
Yes, thank you -- that makes intuitive sense. Although 15 WAR over 7 years seems like a pretty bearish projection for Moncada. That would put him just over 2.1 WAR/yr, which this year would have made him the 14th best 2B in baseball, just between Logan Forsythe and Joe Panik. As a 3B (which is presumably how we would have used him), that would be #18. And that's not counting the added WAR we could have expected from Kopech (assuming Basabe and Diaz weren't going to be real contributors).
It's not that a top 10 prospect gets 7 years of 2 WAR, it's that he has five years of getting to the majors and then two years of 5 WAR seasons. At any rate, here's one study that backs this conclusion: http://www.thepointofpittsburgh.com/mlb-prospect-surplus-values-2016-updated-edition/.

Top 10 hitters: 54 players; average WAR = 15.3; surplus value = $73.5M; % chance of less than 3 WAR = 12.96%; % chance of 0 WAR or less = 7.41.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,482
I would say Benintendi has a higher chance of being a major league starter for 5-7 years. He already has hit in the majors and looked good as a starter for a decent stretch. No guarantees, ever, but he looks to be low risk. He also has a pretty high ceiling.

Moncada has higher risk. He struck out too much in AA and the in his short majors stint, and he still has development left. But his ceiling is even higher. Big power, big speed, etc.

So it depends on how you weight risk vs ceiling in evaluating prospects. Personally, if I were to trade one of the two, it probably would have been Moncada, just because of the higher certainty on Benintendi. A guy who rates prospects for a living may pick Moncada. A major league coach or front office guy might go with Benintendi. It's a debatable topic.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Groome has the ability to be a bigger pitching prospect than Kopech while Devers is the 3B of the future.
Honestly I think Dalbec is the 3B of the future and Devers the 1B. But that's obviously the point of the deal, no matter how good Moncada becomes they had a wealth of options behind him to soften the blow.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,084
Honestly I think Dalbec is the 3B of the future and Devers the 1B. But that's obviously the point of the deal, no matter how good Moncada becomes they had a wealth of options behind him to soften the blow.
Devers was considered the best defender in the Red Sox system last year. You don't move him off third.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
Honestly I think Dalbec is the 3B of the future and Devers the 1B. But that's obviously the point of the deal, no matter how good Moncada becomes they had a wealth of options behind him to soften the blow.
No one is going to know that until at least 2018. He's had 132 at bats in Lowell.
 

foulkehampshire

hillbilly suburbanite
SoSH Member
Feb 25, 2007
5,099
Wesport, MA
Devers was considered the best defender in the Red Sox system last year. You don't move him off third.
There was a point where people were worried about him getting too big for the position, mostly because he was so big at a young age. He hasn't outgrown 3B as many projected, and his conditioning has improved. The dude is built, especially in the lower half like Adrian Beltre (around the same size as him too). This could be a big year for him in AA.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
“@BNightengale: The #WhiteSox kept asking for #RedSox 3B Rafael Dever in Chris Sale trade, but the RedSox refused. Compromise: Victor Diaz and Luis Basabe.”
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,711
Good job by Dombrowski to not include Devers in this deal. Sounds like Chicago wanted Moncada, Kopech, AND Devers.

Bob Nightengale ‏@BNightengale 8s8 seconds ago
The #WhiteSox kept asking for #RedSox 3B Rafael Dever in Chris Sale trade, but the RedSox refused. Compromise: Victor Diaz and Luis Basabe.
Yeah, that's huge. Seems like DD is well aware of not completely strip mining the system; didn't he make a comment about restocking today? I'd be very surprised to see Devers or Groome go anywhere as long as they maintain positive trajectories.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,482
Yeah, that's huge. Seems like DD is well aware of not completely strip mining the system; didn't he make a comment about restocking today? I'd be very surprised to see Devers or Groome go anywhere as long as they maintain positive trajectories.
Well, who else would you trade them for? They don't seem to want to go over the luxury tax limit, so anybody coming back would have to be young and either still under arbitration or on a really cheap deal. And they'd have to be an upgrade on a position. Catcher, 3B, 1B/DH would be possible. Probably not another reliever or starter at this point. Possibly a cheap reliever. So who falls under that umbrella: dirt cheap, substantially better than Moreland, Vazquez/Leon/Swihart, or Sandoval, and the team wants to move them. I think that would be a pretty unlikely trade.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Yeah, that's huge. Seems like DD is well aware of not completely strip mining the system; didn't he make a comment about restocking today? I'd be very surprised to see Devers or Groome go anywhere as long as they maintain positive trajectories.
That's a compromise in favor of Boston. I really don't see Basabe as anything special. I could be wrong but the only thing I understood is that he was young and projectable. He actually seemed like the type of prospect that could most likely flame out.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
That's a compromise in favor of Boston. I really don't see Basabe as anything special. I could be wrong but the only thing I understood is that he was young and projectable. He actually seemed like the type of prospect that could most likely flame out.
Dombrowski apparently realized that Hahn coveted Moncada more than anyone the Nationals were offering and forced him to accept a downgrade from Devers to get the guy he really wanted.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Given the biggest worry about him was his defenses and staying at 3B, I'd say it's pretty relevant.
A lot of the scouting reports on him since he's come stateside show surprise in his athletic ability and defense. I think the award itself is probably more a reward for hard work than him actually being the best defensive player the sox have in the minors. Moving him off the position would be dumb, but not because he won some award.
 

TimScribble

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,474

So, the White Sox farm system is now stacked.

With what the market is, gotta wonder what Clay, Pom or EdRod would fetch.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,084

So, the White Sox farm system is now stacked.

With what the market is, gotta wonder what Clay, Pom or EdRod would fetch.
I mean they are 2 totally different trades with 2 totally different major league players, but my god that makes me feel good about the Sale deal.
 

TimScribble

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,474
That was my thought also. That package is similar to what the Nats were offering for Sale.

 

koufax37

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,472
I love this trade.

Pessimistic Downside: giving up cost controlled Cano and Syndergaard for Rich Hill

Optimistic Upside: Getting the potentially best pitcher in baseball for three cheap years for giving up a couple guys who are overhyped and might not make it big.

I was very disappointed in what I saw of Moncada. I think he still has huge upside potential, but pitch recognition has nudged more than a few prospects from the Great track to the Good track, and he has to show, even at such a young age, that he can progress at this. I think he will be a very good player, but as a 21 year old he had a K% over 25%, while at the same age at a higher level Cano had one under 12% which I think sort of blows up that comp a little bit and makes you concerned about his discipline long term.

And Kopech has shown us all an electric tool that has people projecting what he could be, but as a 20 year old with 134 pro innings, we are a long way from knowing that he will be more Syndergaard/deGrom and less Billy Koch.

For me those are dealable pieces when what you are getting is three peak cost controlled years of one of the best pitchers on the planet.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
By what measure? On WAR alone, Eaton is basically those two guys combined, good enough for 15th overall in the MLB last year, and it's not just on defense alone.
Over half of it is and he sees another nice bump for his base running despite only being 14 of 19 in stolen base attempts last year.

Further, those same metrics that loved his defense this year graded him substantially net negative just last season and slightly negative the year before. Key difference: He played mostly RF this year while those years he played CF.

His wRC+ was 24th among all OFs last year. Dexter Fowler is a substantially better hitter who is a free agent and could likely also break defensive runs above average metrics if played in a corner OF spot instead of CF. He wouldn't have cost one of the better prospects in all of baseball, just money.

But Eaton does have a pretty team friendly deal overall, that's a definite plus.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,753
Pittsburgh, PA
We need to auction off a "surplus" starter...
It's this attitude that leads to AAAA types getting major league starts. You need 6 starters over the course of a season, and have plenty of long relief opportunities for the #6 in between the inevitable DL stints. I wouldn't say we NEED to auction one off. If the bidding gets high, then sure, go right ahead. But a #6 starter is a material asset to the big club, it's not your 6th OF or your 3rd Catcher.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,386
This is a must listen


ROB BRADFORD CHATS WITH DAVE DOMBROWSKI AT MLB WINTER MEETING

its 16 min long and worth every min.
That was great, @soxhop411 Thanks for sharing it. I'm a little surprised they never even touched on the Moreland signing but maybe there's an t to be crossed or a j to be dotted before he can comment publicly. Also surprised Rob never asked him if he felt he had accomplished all of his goals for the meetings or if there was something, obviously that he wouldn't give away, that he was still hoping to do. They had such a busy day yesterday that I'm wondering if they are pretty much ready to close up shop until after the holidays and then see what's left to check off, other than shedding salary.
 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
3,646
Arkansas
A Broncos and Yankees fan? How/why?

And hugely disagree. Roberts was crucial, but they wouldn't have even been in that spot without Foulke. Lots of heroes on that 2004 squad, though.
Broncos its easy the main reason is there is a town 3 hours north of where i live that is full of mountains its called the ozarks its lead by mt home mt view its basically Denver with about 14'000 pop mt home Denver was the underdogs for most of my childhood no way was i was going to be a cowboys or pitt fan Tennessee also had just got a team my 7th/8th grade jr high teacher is a huge Pats fan from new hamp i really like teasing her about the pats Celts O' S and back then she was hot but with her mood swings u never know what teacher u got Denver just fits because i get mad when they lose and super happy when they win as a kid now i am much more even about the game

Yankees i actilly hated the Yankees for about 18 years and 9/11 chaned that i was a white sox fan in the mid 90's then in 1997 they traded Hernandez darwin to SF a game out on July 31th and that ticked me off i did not know back then about $$ and minor leauses i just throuht u go for it no matter what then i through about being a dodgers fan because when i was 9 i had like a woman helper that was a dogers fan then i saw yankee stadium and fenway on TV in 2002 2003 the Yankees red sox on TV and i Loved the passion between the teams fans and i liked the no beard thing better so basically i am a Yankees fan because of uniform no face hair i polb would had went Boston if i knew their history better before 2002 but i did a report on the St louis Cardinals in school because i am only 4 and a haif hours from st louis

oh BTW here why i dislike St louis cards

i had a surugy in 1999 in St louis to make my legs move better more feeler anyway they take us to busch stad i got to go on field watch BP then Mark Mcguire almost tips my chair rental over did not say sorry exuse me nothing and their pr team made exuses for him he is foused it was game 6 of 162

anyway a player named joe mcweing came over and talker to everyone of us kids and signing balls he did this for 2 min

i know he was not a great player but his actions that night spoke 1'000 words and i rooted for him the rest of his carrer
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,461
Somewhere
Over half of it is and he sees another nice bump for his base running despite only being 14 of 19 in stolen base attempts last year.
The flip side of that argument is that he wasn't as bad in centerfield as the 2015 fWAR/UZR would imply, either. Eaton is a prime-age 120 WRC+ right/center fielder with good base running instincts and a long reliever's contract.

He's also two years younger than Fowler (a decent comparison). Revere is about as close a comparison as Cespedes. They aren't the same player at all.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
It's this attitude that leads to AAAA types getting major league starts. You need 6 starters over the course of a season, and have plenty of long relief opportunities for the #6 in between the inevitable DL stints. I wouldn't say we NEED to auction one off. If the bidding gets high, then sure, go right ahead. But a #6 starter is a material asset to the big club, it's not your 6th OF or your 3rd Catcher.
True, but Buchholz and Pomeranz are too valuable to be those guys.

If two years of 175 innings from dirt-cheap Drew Pomeranz is worth a Top 50 pick in this market, it'd be stupid to turn him into Robbie Ross. Dangle him to someone who doesn't want to pay for Quintana (HOU, ATL, TEX, SFG, SEA, COL) and sign a reliable swingman like Scott Feldman (who was brutally unlucky in Toronto yet had the same 2016 xFIP as J.A. Happ), to say 1/$5m.

Maybe Houston has soured on A.J. Reed.
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
It's this attitude that leads to AAAA types getting major league starts. You need 6 starters over the course of a season, and have plenty of long relief opportunities for the #6 in between the inevitable DL stints. I wouldn't say we NEED to auction one off. If the bidding gets high, then sure, go right ahead. But a #6 starter is a material asset to the big club, it's not your 6th OF or your 3rd Catcher.
Thing is, they currently have SEVEN potential starters, so auctioning one off to the highest bidder still leaves them with six. The only argument I can see for keeping all seven guys into spring training is the possibility of injury to one or more of them. But if everyone's healthy, breaking camp with all seven on the roster is untenable. Either someone is going to rot from lack of use or get used mostly in short stints and not be able to stay stretched out.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,482
Thing is, they currently have SEVEN potential starters, so auctioning one off to the highest bidder still leaves them with six. The only argument I can see for keeping all seven guys into spring training is the possibility of injury to one or more of them. But if everyone's healthy, breaking camp with all seven on the roster is untenable. Either someone is going to rot from lack of use or get used mostly in short stints and not be able to stay stretched out.
If we had 6 outfielders without options, or surplus at any other position, I'd be suggesting trading them as well. Keeping as much pitching talent as possible is a good idea, especially when factoring in injury rates. We all agree on that, I'm sure. But I think the do not trade a starter camp are just not factoring in how hard it would be to keep all those starters on the roster without negatively impacting them. Either Pomeranz or Edro would have their development set back by being in the pen or the minors, or in the best case Buchholz and Wright aren't stretched out and ready to be used as starters when you need them. And you are possibly ignoring better bullpen options, or losing bullpen arms because you didn't have enough roster spots to keep them all. If someone is advocating waiting until spring training to make the trade just in case there is a spring injury, then I can understand that viewpoint. But planning to go into the season with seven guys who are starters on your MLB roster is just a bad plan.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
How many of us regret the Sox giving up Hanley to get Beckett?
I'm guessing more than you think.It's perfectly plausible there would have been a different title another year absent that trade as the difference in money/production at SS from 2006-2011 was pretty huge. (Edit: I mean difference between Hanley and Renteria, Lugo, Scutaro etc).
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
I'm guessing more than you think.It's perfectly plausible there would have been a different title another year absent that trade as the difference in money/production at SS from 2006-2011 was pretty huge.
Sure, it's plausible. What's definite is that there was one with Beckett and Lowell, and another year where they made it to game 7 of the ALCS. I'll take the bird in the hand.