Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
November 6, 2023

TORCHC

unsettledToo soon to call — players still accruing.
TORTOR Ross Atkins net +$1.6M net +0.5
received +$1.6M+$1.6M ± $38M expected surplus · +$1.6M realized received 1.1 ± 5 expected · 0.5 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved TOR's 2024 odds 9% → 8% (-0.6 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Brendon LittleP·28y·L/L
+$1.6M+$1.6M± $38M exp surplusrealized +$1.6M 1.1± 5 exp WARrealized 0.5
Prior
#27 overall draft pick → 0.44/yr
Evidence
recent form -3.6/yr over 0.0 season
Talent
0.30/yr blended
Horizon
5.5 control yrs × 0.65 age decline
CHCCHC Jed Hoyer net −$1.6M net -0.5
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 CHC's 2024 odds 21% → 22% (+1.2 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 →