Step 1 — Package totals
Each side's package is summed with a soft bundling penalty: three 50-value players are worth less than one 90-value player, because roster spots and playing time are scarce. Formula is roughly total = max + 0.7 × secondary + 0.4 × rest.
Step 2 — Value gap
- ≤ 8%: Fair trade
- 9–18%: Slight edge to the higher side
- 19–35%: Clear edge (good/great for one team)
- > 35%: Lopsided
Step 3 — Fit adjustments
The gap is nudged by positional fit from the Team Needs Framework:
- Sending to a Need slot: fit bonus for the receiving team.
- Trading from a Need without replacement: penalty.
- Duplicating a Strength: mild penalty (rosterable but wasteful).
Step 4 — Control & risk modifiers
- Rental risk: A rental package sent for controllable talent gets a mild penalty on the rental side.
- Prospect variance: High-FV prospects get slight downward risk on their contribution to a package (bust rate is real).
- Age gap: Trading a 33-year-old for a 24-year-old of equal value flags as a rebuild-friendly trade.
Step 5 — Verdict & tone
The final gap + modifiers produce:
- A headline verdict: Amazing, Great, Good, Fair, Slight Edge, Lopsided.
- A tone: “Good for the Nationals,” “Good for the other team,” or “Balanced.”
- A pros/cons list per team from the fit and control signals above.
Feedback loop
The star rating and notes box under every verdict flow into an admin dashboard that summarizes accuracy trends and note themes. Consistent “too high on rentals” or “undervalues prospects” signals directly steer the next calibration pass on the constants above.