Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
August 28, 2014

NYYCLE

NYY won this trade +$0.0M surplus NYY won this trade +0.1 WAR
NYYNYY Brian Cashman net +$0.0M net +0.1
received +$2.4M+$2.4M ± $17M expected surplus · +$0.0M realized received 0.7 ± 2 expected · 0.1 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved NYY's 2014 odds 19% → 19% (+0.3 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Josh OutmanP·30y·L/L
+$2.4M+$2.4M± $17M exp surplusrealized +$0.0M 0.7± 2 exp WARrealized 0.1
Prior
league baseline (track record outweighs draft pedigree) → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form 0.5/yr over 2.2 seasons
Talent
0.41/yr blended
Horizon
2.0 control yrs × 0.83 age decline
CLECLE Chris Antonetti net +$0.0M net -0.1
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 CLE's 2014 odds 16% → 15% (-0.2 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 →