Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
December 16, 2001

COLSEA

COL won this trade +$40.0M surplus COL won this trade +6.4 WAR
COLCOL Daniel O'Dowd net +$40.0M net +6.4
received −$6.4M−$10.4M ± $54M expected surplus · +$7.2M realized received 0.6 ± 7 expected · 6.5 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved COL's 2002 odds 0% → 0% (-0.1 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
José PaniaguaP·29y·R/R
+$1.6M−$2.4M± $15M exp surplusrealized +$0.0M 0.3± 2 exp WARrealized 0.0
Prior
no pedigree — league baseline → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form 0.2/yr over 2.4 seasons
Talent
0.19/yr blended
Horizon
1.5 control yr
Denny StarkP·28y·R/R
−$3.2M−$3.2M± $32M exp surplusrealized −$8.8M 0.3± 4 exp WARrealized -1.2
Prior
#117 overall draft pick — at the league baseline → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form -0.5/yr over 0.2 season
Talent
0.11/yr blended
Horizon
5.5 control yrs × 0.55 age decline
Brian FuentesP·27y·L/L
−$4.8M−$4.8M± $40M exp surplusrealized +$16.0M 0.0± 5 exp WARrealized 7.7
Prior
#678 overall draft pick — at the league baseline → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form -0.7/yr over 0.3 season
Talent
0.01/yr blended
Horizon
5.5 control yrs × 0.73 age decline
SEASEA Pat Gillick net −$40.0M net -6.4
received +$11.2M+$11.2M ± $15M expected surplus · −$32.8M realized received 4.4 ± 2 expected · 0.1 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved SEA's 2002 odds 85% → 89% (+3.4 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Jeff Cirillo3B·33y·R/R
+$11.2M+$11.2M± $15M exp surplusrealized −$32.8M 4.4± 2 exp WARrealized 0.1
Prior
league baseline (track record outweighs draft pedigree) → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form 4.2/yr over 2.6 seasons
Talent
2.98/yr blended
Horizon
1.5 control yr × 0.98 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 →