Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
July 31, 2012

BOSCLE

BOS won this trade +$8.0M surplus BOS won this trade +2.3 WAR
BOSBOS Ben Cherington net +$8.0M net +2.3
received −$0.8M−$0.8M ± $37M expected surplus · +$8.0M realized received 0.7 ± 5 expected · 2.3 realized WAR
receives — most valuable first
Steven WrightP·28y·R/R
−$0.8M−$0.8M± $37M exp surplusrealized +$8.0M 0.7± 5 exp WARrealized 2.3
Prior
#56 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 × 0.61 age decline
CLECLE Chris Antonetti net −$8.0M net -2.3
received +$1.6M+$1.6M ± $56M expected surplus · +$0.0M realized received 1.2 ± 7 expected · 0.0 realized WAR
receives — most valuable first
Lars Anderson1B·25y·L/L
+$1.6M+$1.6M± $56M exp surplusrealized +$0.0M 1.2± 7 exp WARrealized 0.0
Prior
BA #87 pedigree (2010) → 0.38/yr
Evidence
recent form -1.5/yr over 0.1 season
Talent
0.22/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 →