Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
April 27, 2015

TEXANA

ANA won this trade +$0.8M surplus TEX won this trade +0.4 WAR
TEXTEX Jon Daniels net −$0.8M net +0.4
received +$13.6M+$13.6M ± $12M expected surplus · −$0.8M realized received 2.2 ± 2 expected · 0.4 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved TEX's 2015 odds 11% → 12% (+0.9 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Josh HamiltonOF·34y·L/L
+$13.6M+$13.6M± $12M exp surplusrealized −$0.8M 2.2± 2 exp WARrealized 0.4
Prior
league baseline (track record outweighs draft pedigree) → 0.39/yr
Evidence
recent form 3.2/yr over 2.2 seasons
Talent
2.24/yr blended
Horizon
1.0 control yr
ANAANA Bill Stoneman net +$0.8M net -0.4
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 ANA's 2015 odds 6% → 6% (-0.5 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 →