Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
August 14, 2013

TEXHOU

TEX won this trade +$1.6M surplus TEX won this trade +0.3 WAR
TEXTEX Jon Daniels net +$1.6M net +0.3
received +$4.0M+$4.0M ± $22M expected surplus · +$1.6M realized received 1.3 ± 3 expected · 0.3 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved TEX's 2013 odds 45% → 46% (+1.6 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Travis BlackleyP·31y·L/L
+$4.0M+$4.0M± $22M exp surplusrealized +$1.6M 1.3± 3 exp WARrealized 0.3
Prior
no pedigree — league baseline → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form 1.0/yr over 1.0 season
Talent
0.58/yr blended
Horizon
3.9 control yrs × 0.59 age decline
HOUHOU Jeff Luhnow net −$1.6M 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 HOU's 2013 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 →