bighurt574

Pretty sure the bulk of that is sunk costs for Boston at this point, certainly the signing bonus and penalty. It's sort of funny, to date, Boston has probably paid more for Moncada than we have for Sale.

In FanGraph's trade value series last summer, they had Sale at #15 with 17.1 projected WAR from 2017-19 and Moncada at #26 with 15.6 projected WAR from 2017-21. From their write-up on Moncada: The best prospect in baseball, the market has already put a high value on Moncada once, back when he came with more uncertainty and was even further from the big leagues. 15 months after signing Moncada for $31.5 million, plus paying another $31.5 million in penalties because of the deal, Moncada looks to be worth well more than what Boston paid, and is generally considered to be the best prospect in baseball at this point. Overflowing with upside, Moncada looks like a potential franchise player with both speed and power, and while he doesn’t offer the present value that most of the rest of the players on this list do, people in the game think he could be a regular as early as next year, and be a star not too long after that. Given his upside, it’s very unlikely the Red Sox trade him; if they do, they’re going to have to get back a pretty great player, because Moncada’s now the kind of prospect that doesn’t get traded very often. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-trade-value-21-to-30/

If you go by MLB.com's top 100: 1. Moncada 57. Fulmer 67. Kopech 80. Collins NR - Basabe, Adams, Burdi (no particular order)

QUOTE (Real @ Dec 6, 2016 -> 01:07 PM) last two pages of that red Sox thread is primarily positive reactions, which makes sense since they won the trade. You're seeing mixed reactions on both sides, which tells me it was a fair trade.

QUOTE (soxforlife05 @ Dec 6, 2016 -> 12:48 PM) Would've rather taken Moncada/Devers/Groome over Moncada/Kopech/Basabe/Diaz Don't think we got enough but this FO was hell bent on trading him for some reason. I would have rather taken Moncada/Benintendi/Devers, doesn't mean it was on the table.

A little disappointed with the bottom/depth of the deal, but we obviously gave up some of that to land Moncada.

Looks like the original scoop was pretty spot on. A 3rd may be Basabe then. Hopefully the 4th is another top guy.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Dec 6, 2016 -> 12:06 PM) To be fair, everyone has said Sox are looking at Shelby Miller trade ++ as template. Depends on what the market will bear, but you could try adding a few smaller pieces to that. I wouldn't underestimate JBJ -- I know prospects are sexier, but if a lot of these prospects developed into that type of player, any team would be thrilled.

Going back to the Shelby Miller deal as a template (except for a real ace in Sale), JBJ could certainly fill Inciarte role, with Moncada filling the Swanson role. So it may not be crazy to get both. Maybe you net one more top 100 prospect (e.g., the Aaron Blair role), but probably not much more than that.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Dec 6, 2016 -> 09:08 AM) Yup. Complete outlier that was a consensus moronic overpay by a terrible front office. Yeah, it was an overpay for Miller, who never deserved the ace label, but it still seemingly provides a reasonable enough template for dealing a legit ace.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 6, 2016 -> 08:55 AM) I wouldn't say that. Dombrowski is NEVER out. Boston just traded Shaw to Milwaukee for relief help. Not sure if that makes Moncada less likely to be traded.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 6, 2016 -> 08:49 AM) We'd all love Turner, Giolito, and Robles. Jesus christ people. Turner was like a 3.5 WAR player last year in 70+ games. He'll be a 5 WAR position player. Sale is a a 5-6 WAR pitcher. Trading Turner to acquire Sale doesn't really do anything for the Nationals. There is no chance that they do that and we'd all be better off not expecting it anymore. Giolito is best pitching prospect (outside of Urias) in baseball. Robles is a legit stud. They need other pieces for sure and I'm guessing would get them. Bregman isn't available. Red Sox seem to be out. You can totally tell who has done research and who just chooses to freak out by just reading this thread. It also doesn't do a whole lot for us as far as building depth. If Washington somehow caves on including Turner, you're probably getting Turner and some second-tier prospects. You're not going to get Turner and Giolito and Robles.

Washington isn't just going to throw in Turner on top of Giolito and Robles. They're not going to trade the guy period, but even if they did, the rest of the deal would diminish significantly. Hope BOS/HOU step up too. Giolito and Robles are solid headliners but a SP and a years-away CF isn't exactly what we need.

Robertson for Soler. Who says no? Cubs?

Seeing what other teams have received for a half or full year of a top pitcher in recent years, I'm not convinced we'll be getting a fair "multiple" of that by trading Sale now with three years of cheap control. There seem to be some diminishing returns with the extra length. We could still net plenty at the trade deadline or next winter. That assumes he stays healthy of course, but you can say that for anyone.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 5, 2016 -> 04:02 PM) He's talking about trading for them. Right. It goes back to targeting the right guys in trades before they hit the majors. Granted, that didn't leave a bunch of time for Turner or Benintendi, who were always hyped, and we may not have been ready to rebuild this time last year.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Dec 5, 2016 -> 05:05 PM) If we don't trade Sale hen I am fine with it. We are taring to see prospects from our own system devel;op. You build around pitching-that is still the name of the game IMO. We get what we demnd for a player of Sale's ability or we don't trade. PERIOD END OF STORY If teams aren't willing to give up "untouchable" prospects, we can likely get similar packages at the trade deadline or next winter. No need to rush. If we can't get fair value for Sale, I just hope there are enough free agents left to coble something together for another shot at it in 2017.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Dec 5, 2016 -> 03:53 PM) There's was speculation out of the draft room in 2014 that the Sox were considering taking Turner above Rodon. They've coveted him for a long time. We keep hearing that about Benintendi, Turner, etc. If that's the case, they really should have made their moves for these guys sooner.

QUOTE (bjm676 @ Dec 5, 2016 -> 02:51 PM) Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal 33s33 seconds ago Sources: #Nationals more focused on Sale than Cutch. #WhiteSox likely would get Robles, Giolito, much more. No indication deal is close. That's a decent start, but I still like what BOS and HOU have to offer better -- near-MLB-ready position players.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 5, 2016 -> 02:45 PM) I would think Sox fans would be happy with Rodon. He is pretty good. The guy drafted #4 right after Rodon is pretty good too. Should probably wait a few more years to make judgments about that draft class....

Turner probably has more trade value than Eaton (not quite as established, but higher upside, cheaper, extra year of control).

QUOTE (Baron @ Dec 5, 2016 -> 12:05 PM) He specifically mentions no Robles in the McCutchen trade but then there's that sentence that I posted. Makes it seem they are trying to keep Turner and Robles then decimate the rest of their farm. It's not possible. Yeah, all the actual info on Robles seems to be vis-a-vis McCutchen. Seems like some of these articles are then extrapolating out that they won't deal him for Sale. Might not be the case.

It could be that they won't include Robles in a McCutchen deal but would in a Sale deal.

QUOTE (Baron @ Dec 5, 2016 -> 11:56 AM) There was an article by a Washington Beat Writer that was suggesting they are trying to go after both players without giving up Robles and Turner. I have no idea how that's possible. Yeah, maybe if they part with a piece or two from their MLB roster.

Reports of a "mystery team" in on Cutch. If they were going for it, this would be a total Sox move. But that doesn't appear to be the direction.