This is the only Top 10 trade by WAR the Sox are involved in.

Quote

10. Three-team doozy: 181.9 WAR (Jan. 20, 1965)
Indians got: Camilo Carreon (2.8), Rocky Colavito (44.9)
White Sox got: Tommy John (61.6), Tommie Agee (25.4), John Romano (20.9)
Athletics got: Mike Hershberger (2.4), Jim Landis (20.6), Fred Talbot (3.3)

https://www.mlb.com/news/most-combined-wins-above-replacement-mlb-trades

I’m not sure the way it is quantified indicates winners. It’s basically the biggest star trades in history I guess. Kind of a weird way to think about the trades since it just puts career WAR, not WAR while on team traded to.

4 hours ago, bmags said:

I’m not sure the way it is quantified indicates winners. It’s basically the biggest star trades in history I guess. Kind of a weird way to think about the trades since it just puts career WAR, not WAR while on team traded to.

They don't state that, but if there's 182 WAR in a 3 team trade, and one team comes away with 98 of the 182 WAR, I think it's safe to say that team won the trade.

1 hour ago, Dam8610 said:

They don't state that, but if there's 182 WAR in a 3 team trade, and one team comes away with 98 of the 182 WAR, I think it's safe to say that team won the trade.

Not exactly. Tommy John was worth 61 WAR in that count, but only 23 of those were accrued for the White Sox.

This is an idiotic and lazy way of calculating top trades by WAR.  In a related note, Boston Braves have the greatest free agent signing by WAR of all time. Braves signed free agent Babe Ruth in 1935 and he put up a career 162.1 WAR (note...0.1 while playing with Braves).   

2 hours ago, michelangelosmonkey said:

This is an idiotic and lazy way of calculating top trades by WAR.  In a related note, Boston Braves have the greatest free agent signing by WAR of all time. Braves signed free agent Babe Ruth in 1935 and he put up a career 162.1 WAR (note...0.1 while playing with Braves).   

Yeah, I dropped the ball hard on misreading this and will take the L.

I like Sarah Lang’s tweets, I’d give her a break. You guys may have noticed there is no baseball currently.

1 hour ago, bmags said:

I like Sarah Lang’s tweets, I’d give her a break. You guys may have noticed there is no baseball currently.

She had a nice idea but she didn't follow through.  Maybe it was too hard to follow through...I mean easy enough to find Lou Brock's 45 WAR after Cubs traded him or Bagwell's 80 WAR after Boston traded him.  But what do you do when Tommy John who started with Cleveland, went to Sox for seven years and then other teams...If he had 24 WAR in those years but then was included in another trade...do you count the players the Sox got back in the second trade (residual John value)...and if there were multiple players in the trade you how much value is counted for John versus others.  OK...it's impossible.  Easy is best... at least it's baseball talk.       

Further complicating any calculation like this is not every WAR is equal on a team. I'm wording this weird, but if I have a surplus of WAR at one position , for example I'm trading a 6 WAR guy which makes room for a 4 WAR guy while receiving someone who fills a hole, that's a win. 

28 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Further complicating any calculation like this is not every WAR is equal on a team. I'm wording this weird, but if I have a surplus of WAR at one position , for example I'm trading a 6 WAR guy which makes room for a 4 WAR guy while receiving someone who fills a hole, that's a win. 

Interesting...so you are saying you trade your 6 WAR SS because you have a kid a AAA who will be a 3 WAR and in return you get a 4 WAR outfielder to replace your 0 WAR outfielder?  The net result being 7 WAR for your team?  Still it seems you could trade your 3 WAR AAA player and get a 3 WAR outfielder and your team is much better.  I'm not sure how trading 6 WAR for 4 WAR is ever a good idea even in your scenario because it ignores opportunity costs. 

I'm saying it's better to trade surplus than digging a bigger hole. 

Sox did great in that trade. Indians and A's, not so much.