TOR⇄ARI

TORTOR Ross Atkins net +$0.8M net +0.3

received +$1.6M+$0.8M ± $10M expected surplus · +$0.8M realized received 0.5 ± 1 expected · 0.3 realized WAR

Playoff odds: this deal moved TOR's 2026 odds 21.0% → 21.4% (+0.4 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗

receives — most valuable first

Luis Urías2B/3B·29y·R/R

+$1.7M+$0.9M± $10M exp surplusrealized +$0.8M 0.5± 1 exp WARrealized 0.3

Prior

no pedigree — league baseline → 0.21/yr

Evidence

recent form 1.0/yr over 1.4 season

Talent

0.58/yr blended

Horizon

1.5 control yr × 0.54 age decline

why ▾hide ▴

ARIARI Mike Hazen net −$0.8M net -0.3

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 ARI's 2026 odds 60.5% → 60.0% (-0.5 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 →