Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
February 12, 2025

TBRDET

unsettledToo soon to call — players still accruing.
TBRTBR Erik Neander net +$2.4M net +0.5
received −$4.0M−$4.0M ± $40M expected surplus · +$2.4M realized received 0.0 ± 5 expected · 0.5 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved TBR's 2025 odds 7% → 8% (+0.9 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Mason EnglertP·26y·S/R
−$4.0M−$4.0M± $40M exp surplusrealized +$2.4M 0.0± 5 exp WARrealized 0.5
Prior
#119 overall draft pick — at the league baseline → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form -0.3/yr over 1.5 season
Talent
-0.09/yr blended
Horizon
5.0 control yrs
DETDET Scott Harris net −$2.4M 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 30% → 27% (-2.6 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 →