Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
December 17, 2024

CHWCHC

unsettledToo soon to call — players still accruing.
CHWCHW Chris Getz net +$3.2M net +0.6
received −$1.6M−$1.6M ± $16M expected surplus · +$3.2M realized received 0.3 ± 2 expected · 0.6 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved CHW's 2025 odds 0% → 0% (+0.1 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Matt ThaissC·30y·L/R
−$1.6M−$1.6M± $16M exp surplusrealized +$3.2M 0.3± 2 exp WARrealized 0.6
Prior
league baseline (track record outweighs draft pedigree) → 0.33/yr
Evidence
recent form 0.0/yr over 1.0 season
Talent
0.18/yr blended
Horizon
4.0 control yrs × 0.36 age decline
CHCCHC Jed Hoyer net −$3.2M net -0.6
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 CHC's 2025 odds 70% → 67% (-3 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 →