Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
April 13, 2017

MILBAL

MIL won this trade +$3.2M surplus MIL won this trade +0.7 WAR
MILMIL David Stearns net +$3.2M net +0.7
received −$1.6M−$1.6M ± $14M expected surplus · +$3.2M realized received 0.3 ± 2 expected · 0.7 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved MIL's 2017 odds 36% → 39% (+2.9 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Oliver DrakeP·30y·R/R
−$1.6M−$1.6M± $14M exp surplusrealized +$3.2M 0.3± 2 exp WARrealized 0.7
Prior
#1286 overall draft pick — at the league baseline → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form 0.2/yr over 1.5 season
Talent
0.20/yr blended
Horizon
4.4 control yrs × 0.30 age decline
BALBAL Dan Duquette net −$3.2M net -0.7
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 BAL's 2017 odds 1% → 1% (-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 →