Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
July 9, 2025

MILLAD

unsettledToo soon to call — players still accruing.
MILMIL Matt Arnold net +$0.8M net +0.1
received +$8.8M+$8.8M ± $54M expected surplus · +$0.8M realized received 2.5 ± 7 expected · 0.1 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved MIL's 2025 odds 78% → 78% (+0.2 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Steward BerroaOF·26y·S/R
+$8.8M+$8.8M± $54M exp surplusrealized +$0.8M 2.5± 7 exp WARrealized 0.1
Prior
no pedigree — league baseline → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form 2.1/yr over 0.2 season
Talent
0.46/yr blended
Horizon
5.5 control yrs × 0.98 age decline
LADLAD Andrew Friedman net −$0.8M net -0.1
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 LAD's 2025 odds 87% → 87% (-0.1 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 →