Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
February 10, 2026

NYMCHW

unsettledToo soon to call — players still accruing.
NYMNYM David Stearns net +$0.0M net +0.0
received −$0.8M−$0.8M ± $22M expected surplus · +$0.0M realized received 0.5 ± 3 expected · 0.0 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved NYM's 2026 odds 18.4% → 19.5% (+1.1 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Bryan HudsonP·29y·L/L
−$0.8M−$0.8M± $22M exp surplusrealized +$0.0M 0.5± 3 exp WARrealized 0.0
Prior
league baseline (track record outweighs draft pedigree) → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form 0.2/yr over 1.8 season
Talent
0.21/yr blended
Horizon
5.0 control yrs × 0.47 age decline
CHWCHW Chris Getz net +$0.0M net +0.0
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 CHW's 2026 odds 18.6% → 17.6% (-1 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 →