Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
July 30, 2009

PITCHC

PIT won this trade +$39.2M surplus PIT won this trade +10.6 WAR
PITPIT Neal Huntington net +$39.2M net +10.6
received −$0.8M−$0.8M ± $75M expected surplus · +$26.4M realized received 1.8 ± 9 expected · 12.1 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved PIT's 2009 odds 2% → 1% (-0.1 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Josh Harrison2B/3B·22y·R/R
+$1.6M+$1.6M± $58M exp surplusrealized +$28.0M 1.2± 7 exp WARrealized 11.9
Prior
#191 overall draft pick — at the league baseline → 0.21/yr
Evidence
no MLB track record — leans on pedigree
Talent
0.21/yr blended
Horizon
5.5 control yrs
Kevin HartP·27y·R/R
+$0.0M+$0.0M± $34M exp surplusrealized +$0.8M 0.5± 4 exp WARrealized 0.3
Prior
#319 overall draft pick — at the league baseline → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form 0.0/yr over 1.3 season
Talent
0.12/yr blended
Horizon
4.0 control yrs
José AscanioP·24y·R/R
−$2.4M−$2.4M± $35M exp surplusrealized −$2.4M 0.1± 4 exp WARrealized -0.1
Prior
no pedigree — league baseline → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form -0.2/yr over 1.0 season
Talent
0.03/yr blended
Horizon
4.0 control yrs
CHCCHC Jim Hendry net −$39.2M net -10.6
received +$0.8M+$0.8M ± $28M expected surplus · −$12.8M realized received 1.8 ± 4 expected · 1.5 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved CHC's 2009 odds 11% → 12% (+0.9 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Tom GorzelannyP·27y·R/L
+$4.8M+$4.8M± $25M exp surplusrealized +$8.8M 1.5± 3 exp WARrealized 2.2
Prior
league baseline (track record outweighs draft pedigree) → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form 0.7/yr over 2.0 seasons
Talent
0.49/yr blended
Horizon
3.0 control yrs
John GrabowP·31y·L/L
−$4.0M−$4.0M± $14M exp surplusrealized −$21.6M 0.3± 2 exp WARrealized -0.7
Prior
league baseline (track record outweighs draft pedigree) → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form 0.3/yr over 2.6 seasons
Talent
0.28/yr blended
Horizon
1.5 control yr × 0.82 age decline

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 →