Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
July 31, 2025

BALDET

unsettledToo soon to call — players still accruing.
BALBAL Mike Elias net +$0.0M net +0.5
received +$0.8M+$0.8M ± $17M expected surplus · +$0.0M realized received 0.4 ± 2 expected · 0.5 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved BAL's 2025 odds 2% → 2% (+0.1 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Dietrich EnnsP·34y·L/L
+$0.8M+$0.8M± $17M exp surplusrealized +$0.0M 0.4± 2 exp WARrealized 0.5
Prior
#607 overall draft pick — at the league baseline → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form 0.9/yr over 0.2 season
Talent
0.30/yr blended
Horizon
2.2 control yrs × 0.59 age decline
DETDET Scott Harris net +$0.0M net -0.5
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 DET's 2025 odds 29% → 27% (-1.7 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 →