Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
July 26, 2024

TBRNYM

unsettledToo soon to call — players still accruing.
TBRTBR Erik Neander net +$2.4M net +0.8
received +$0.0M+$0.0M ± $13M expected surplus · +$2.4M realized received 0.3 ± 2 expected · 0.8 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved TBR's 2024 odds 5% → 5% (+0.2 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Cole SulserP·34y·R/R
+$0.0M+$0.0M± $13M exp surplusrealized +$2.4M 0.3± 2 exp WARrealized 0.8
Prior
league baseline (track record outweighs draft pedigree) → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form 0.3/yr over 1.7 season
Talent
0.24/yr blended
Horizon
2.2 control yrs × 0.51 age decline
NYMNYM David Stearns net −$2.4M net -0.8
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 NYM's 2024 odds 39% → 38% (-0.8 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

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 →