On July 25, Nathan Eovaldi was traded to the Boston Red Sox.

On Oct. 26, in an effort that's best described as Herculean, Eovaldi pitched six nearly flawless innings for the Red Sox out of the bullpen, his third appearance in a row, in a Game 3 that could have been directed by Peter Jackson.

On June 28, Steve Pearce was traded to the Red Sox. On Oct. 28, Pearce was named World Series MVP. On Oct. 28, the Red Sox won the World Series.

Both guys were set to hit free agency after the season. Pearce re-signed with Boston. Eovaldi remains a free agent.

MORE: MLB free agent tracker — See who goes where this winter

A funny, heated and intriguing debate broke out on Twitter (what else is new?) yesterday, after I posted a fake trade proposal that centered around the Giants' Madison Bumgarner and the Yankees' Miguel Andújar. The common refrain: why trade Andújar, who put up a stellar rookie season, for a "rental?"

#Yankees send: Clint Frazier, Miguel Andujar, Albert Abreu to SF.#Giants send: Madison Bumgarner to NYC.



Who says no? — Joe (@JoeRiveraSN) November 27, 2018

Trades for "rental" players are subject to ire, criticism and very few times praise from fans. The fact that Bumgarner, a top-10 starting pitcher in MLB when healthy, is relegated to nothing more than "rental" is an entirely separate debate. But why are fans looking at "rentals" as some sort of a bad thing now?

A guy like Madison Bumgarner, who has done historic things in the World Series, shouldn't be looked at as a detriment because of his contract. That should be irrelevant in the grand scheme of trying to win a championship this year.

MORE: If Bumgarner is moved, here are his five best fits

Fans today are privy to more baseball information than ever before. It's fascinating how that knowledge has changed fans from cheering on the now, the chase for a championship, to wanting to delay gratification for a lot of maybes and potential in a few years' time.

Rental players don't always work out, and those players sometimes have different goals. Maybe it's to shore up a bench, or to provide bullpen depth. They're not always going to be the No. 1 reason in a championship run. But where would the Red Sox be without the Pearces or Eovaldis of the world? Where would the Royals be without Ben Zobrist in 2015?

Aroldis Chapman was a rental, and that worked out pretty well for the Cubs in 2016, even though he returned to the Yankees the following offseason. Yoenis Cespedes single-handedly bludgeoned opponents while leading the Mets to the World Series in 2015, their first Fall Classic appearance since 2000. The Brewers made a deep run in 2018, thanks in part to Mike Moustakas and Jonathan Schoop.

If teams feel they're a player away, even if the player is a free agent following the season, then why are fans so unwilling to accept that? If prospects could maybe make an impact on a big-league roster down the road, why not trade them for a sure thing right now, in the midst of a potential championship run? If you have spare parts on offense — like the Yankees do — then why not use that to strengthen a weakness?

MORE: Each contender's No. 1 priority this offseason

Sure, there's a mixed bag of success when it comes to rental players: Jon Lester didn't boost the A's to a championship in 2014, though he was excellent down the stretch for Oakland. CC Sabathia didn't re-sign with the Brewers following the 2008 season, but his heroics heading into the postseason were well worth the return that the Indians got; a prospect haul highlighted by Matt LaPorta and, oh, Michael Brantley.

Today's diehard fan thinks more in line with the general manager than the guy sitting in Section 216, sucking down a hot dog and an expensive beer. Not that it's problematic to think in business terms or along the same line as a front office; fantasy baseball and even baseball video games have put an emphasis on it.

But the dangers of that thought process puts an emphasis on the future, rather than the present. It devalues the importance and impact of that one year, this year, may have on future success. Today's baseball and owners — in which front offices cling to unproven prospects for cost reasons, selling fans on hope and a future that may never come — has found a way to brainwash fans into thinking dynasties and sustained success are easily achievable — if they save their money and if bide their time and land big free agents and if prospects pan out.

How has that worked out for the Cubs, baseball's next big dynasty? Or the Phillies, who surely had more than one championship run in them in the late 2000s? Even the Giants, baseball's last "dynasty," missed playoffs in between their World Series wins in 2010, 2012 and 2014.

MORE: The top 79 free agents, ranked

The future is never guaranteed, especially in baseball. Just ask the 2015 Mets. Or the 2016 Cubs. Or the 2015 Royals, for that matter. But that problem wouldn't stop any of those teams from making the moves they did — trading for Cespedes, Chapman, Zobrist respectively — for a chance at winning a title.

Saving money for future free agents and holding onto prospects certainly help teams in the rebuilding process, but prospects are suspects until they prove otherwise, and a prospect that's two years away from a MLB debut won't help teams win a championship now. Spare parts who don't have a future on a team for something better is not a bad thing. Trades are supposed to hurt. Embrace it.

Fact is, it is incredibly difficult to repeat or form a dynasty in any sport, let alone baseball, in which parity is a very real thing. It's hard enough to win one World Series, and if the fear of impending free agency scares off teams from parting with adored players, then maybe that team wasn't ready to win in the first place.

Rentals are worth more than the connotation of the term. One World Series win? That's something worth owning.