MIN⇄TBR

MINMIN Derek Falvey net +$2.4M net +0.6

received +$3.2M+$3.2M ± $36M expected surplus · +$2.4M realized received 1.4 ± 4 expected · 0.6 realized WAR

Playoff odds: this deal moved MIN's 2026 odds 25.9% → 26.2% (+0.3 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗

receives — most valuable first

Yoendrys GómezP·26y·R/R

+$3.5M+$3.5M± $36M exp surplusrealized +$2.4M 1.4± 4 exp WARrealized 0.6

Prior

no pedigree — league baseline → 0.21/yr

Evidence

recent form 0.1/yr over 1.2 season

Talent

0.31/yr blended

Horizon

5.5 control yrs × 0.79 age decline

why ▾hide ▴

TBRTBR Erik Neander net −$2.4M net -0.6

received +$0.0M+$0.0M ± $0M expected surplus · +$0.0M realized received 0.0 ± 0 expected · 0.0 realized WAR

Playoff odds: this deal moved TBR's 2026 odds 97.1% → 97.1% (+0 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗

receives — most valuable first

cash / PTBNL

+$0.0M+$0.0M± $0M exp surplusrealized +$0.0M 0.0± 0 exp WARrealized 0.0

Cash or player to be named — no projection

why ▾hide ▴

Each player is valued on what he was expected to produce at the time of the trade, versus what he actually produced for his new team.

Expected WAR blends a player's pedigree (Baseball America rank / draft slot, or a baseline) with his recent track record, projected over the years of team control acquired. The ± band is the uncertainty — wide for unproven prospects, tight for established veterans. Surplus values that production at the FA market price of a win (~$8M/WAR) minus salary — so cost-controlled players carry large surplus and expensive ones little, even at the same WAR. Who won is descriptive, not a skill claim: ~99% of a trade's outcome is unforeseeable at the time.

Historically these expected values are unbiased and land within ±2 WAR of reality 75% of the time — yet the side the model favors actually comes out ahead only 53% of the time. The grade is a calibrated bet, not a prediction. Why trades are an efficient market →