Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
December 31, 2008

CLECHC

CLE won this trade +$2.4M surplus CLE won this trade +2.0 WAR
CLECLE Mark Shapiro net +$2.4M net +2.0
received +$10.4M−$0.8M ± $14M expected surplus · −$4.0M realized received 2.8 ± 2 expected · 1.3 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved CLE's 2009 odds 1% → 2% (+0.6 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Mark DeRosa2B/3B·34y·R/R
+$10.4M−$0.8M± $14M exp surplusrealized −$4.0M 2.8± 2 exp WARrealized 1.3
Prior
league baseline (track record outweighs draft pedigree) → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form 2.9/yr over 2.4 seasons
Talent
1.97/yr blended
Horizon
1.5 control yr × 0.96 age decline
CHCCHC Jim Hendry net −$2.4M net -2.0
received +$4.8M+$4.8M ± $98M expected surplus · −$6.4M realized received 3.5 ± 12 expected · -0.7 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved CHC's 2009 odds 16% → 12% (-3.9 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Jeff StevensP·26y·R/R
+$1.6M+$1.6M± $54M exp surplusrealized −$5.6M 1.1± 7 exp WARrealized -0.7
Prior
#182 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 × 0.94 age decline
Chris ArcherP·21y·R/R
+$1.6M+$1.6M± $58M exp surplusrealized +$0.0M 1.2± 7 exp WARrealized 0.0
Prior
#161 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
John GaubP·24y·R/L
+$1.6M+$1.6M± $58M exp surplusrealized −$0.8M 1.2± 7 exp WARrealized 0.0
Prior
#641 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

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 →