After looking at the best and worst transaction in the Phillies' history, I noticed that the Phils even with all their many past failures on the field came out in the black in Win Shares traded. They were up almost 4000 Win Shares Above Baseline (WSAB). How could arguably the worst franchise in baseball history come out ahead in transactions?

Then it occurred to me that even a poor team over time will come out ahead in transactional Win Shares. They have to. If you draft a future superstar and trade him away before he makes it big, the worst the team can do is break even: the career Win Shares they picked up in drafting the player at least equal those traded away.

Take Sandberg, for instance. In drafting him, the Phils pick up 199 WSAB. In trading him they lost 196 WSAB. So even one of the worst trades in baseball history results in a net of 3 Win Shares for the Phils.

Besides somebody has to wear the uniform at the major-league level, sort of like Greg Brady and Johnny Bravo. Those players will produce some Win Shares. If they were drafted by the team, it's pure gravy.

Anyway, I think that first the transaction have to grouped by type, either trades, free agents, prospects, purchases, and waivers. Which category affects the team's bottom line the most, and does it change over time? And does each type of transaction affect the team more in the season in which occurs or further down the line? Obviously, draft picks rarely impact the team right away. But can trades for younger players have more of a delayed effect? Or do transactions have less impact on team performance than does the normal improvement by already established players?

I collected the data for all of the trade transactions per team in a given decade. Here were the top teams in trades per decade (by WSAB Post Career):

Now here are the worst:

It seems that positive trading leads to winning. Witness the Phils trade history:

Yeah, the Phils were pretty bad at trading for talent, but it seems like something else is contributing. Look at the career WSAB that they acquired in the 1970s, their golden period, as compared to the WSAB just for the team. The team WSAB far outdistanced the career totals for the players acquired. Clearly the Phils traded pretty well, but they also got the most out of the players they acquired. Compare that to the 1910s in which the Phils registered six winning seasons, perhaps their second best period. The Phils lost career WSAB in the 1910s but were able to turn in a positive number for team WSAB.

Next we will try to formulate some sort of correlation between winning percentage and Win Shares acquired in various types of transactions.

Other entries in the Trade Series:

Mike: I’ll Take Manhattan: Baseball’s Most Lopsided Trades: Parts I, I (revised), II

A Quick One (Happy Mike)

Lee Even Stevens: Parts I, II—The Sexy Version

Cain and A-Rod—A Bling-Bling Rivalry: Parts I, II

Kansas City Blues: Parts I, II

Baseball's Most Lopsided Trades—The Revenge of Glenn Davis

Awe-Phil?: Parts I, II

Studes: The Best and Worst Teams of the Trade

Smoltz for Alexander