Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
June 1, 2014

MIAPIT

PIT won this trade +$1.6M surplus MIA won this trade +0.3 WAR
MIAMIA Dan Jennings net −$1.6M net +0.3
received −$4.0M−$4.0M ± $41M expected surplus · −$1.6M realized received 0.0 ± 5 expected · 0.3 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved MIA's 2014 odds 12% → 13% (+1.2 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Bryan MorrisP·27y·L/R
−$4.0M−$4.0M± $41M exp surplusrealized −$1.6M 0.0± 5 exp WARrealized 0.3
Prior
league baseline (track record outweighs draft pedigree) → 0.33/yr
Evidence
recent form -0.8/yr over 1.2 season
Talent
-0.25/yr blended
Horizon
5.0 control yrs
PITPIT Neal Huntington net +$1.6M net -0.3
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 PIT's 2014 odds 42% → 39% (-2.7 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 →