Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
July 30, 2024

ARIMIA

unsettledToo soon to call — players still accruing.
ARIARI Mike Hazen net −$15.2M net +0.3
received −$9.6M−$9.6M ± $14M expected surplus · −$15.2M realized received 1.4 ± 2 expected · 0.3 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved ARI's 2024 odds 76% → 77% (+1.3 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Josh Bell1B/DH·32y·B/R
−$9.6M−$9.6M± $14M exp surplusrealized −$15.2M 1.4± 2 exp WARrealized 0.3
Prior
league baseline (track record outweighs draft pedigree) → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form 1.3/yr over 2.5 seasons
Talent
0.97/yr blended
Horizon
1.5 control yr × 0.94 age decline
MIAMIA Peter Bendix net +$15.2M 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 MIA's 2024 odds 0% → 0% (-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

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 →