But what’s not included is the marginal value of the playoff appearance that the team trading for Oswalt would get. Prospectus did (at least one) piece on this, but I forget both what it was called and what the marginal value (at the time) worked out to.

The assumption the receiving team makes is that Oswalt will either

- put them into the playoffs when they would miss the postseason w/o him
- Get them deeper into the playoffs than they would otherwise go

In either case, if the receiving team is right, that additional marginal value isn’t reflected in the table. So a team that strongly believes Oswalt puts them “over the top” should be willing to give up more than the table indicates. How much more gets subjective, but it’s still something to consider.

The example I always think of is the Tigers giving up Smoltz to get Alexander in ‘87. The way it’s usually spun in retrospect (often when talking about Smoltz or the Braves) is “Man, can you believe the Tigers traded this guy!?” True, but Alexander went 9-0 over 11 starts and they made the playoffs. They were favored in the ALCS but lost to the Twins 3-2.

Did the Tigers give up more than they got back? Almost certainly. It’s probably not as bad as it might have looked just having a table of data like above, though. I’d bet that if you asked the fans in Detroit (of which I am/was one) back then “Would you trade Smoltz for Alexander?” knowing what Smoltz would become but ALSO knowing the Tigers would make the ALCS and be favored, having a good chance to make (and possibly win) the World Series that a majority of fans would have said “YES.” I’d also bet that the players would have said the same thing. They say flags fly forever for a reason.

That seems a little low to me.