Buster Olney: Jays trading Michael Taylor for Brett Wallace

Post #1 » by **Schad** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:11 pm

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/m ... llace.html

Holy ****. Wallace is a better prospect than Taylor, IMO, and this makes sense positionally. Wow, what a 24 hour period.

trellaine201 · Post #2 » by **trellaine201** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:19 pm

Yeah i see that too. I have never heard of Wallace. Could be a very crazy week for player movement.

Brinbe · Post #3 » by **Brinbe** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:19 pm

Not bad, was looking forward to Taylor, but we have options in the OF already. At least Wallace gives us that long-term fixture @ the hot corner.

satyr9 · Post #4 » by **satyr9** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:19 pm

They better be confident Wallace can stick at 3rd. Still since I'm going solely on what the prospect folk say, I'm fine with the flip.

-MetA4- · Post #5 » by **-MetA4-** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:19 pm

Eh, not sure how I feel about this. Taylor to Wallace is pretty close, this pretty much hinges on whether or not Wallace can stay at 3B. I think I like Taylor more.

Post #6 » by **Schad** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:23 pm

-MetA4- wrote:Eh, not sure how I feel about this. Taylor to Wallace is pretty close, this pretty much hinges on whether or not Wallace can stay at 3B. I think I like Taylor more.

Yeah, it's a close-run thing. Wallace will be 23 for the entirety of next year, and has more experience at a higher level (15 HRs and ~450 PAs in AAA), but Taylor has more tools. BA ranked Wallace slightly ahead of Taylor midyear, FWIW, but you can really make a case for either.

Funny thing is that Taylor and Wallace were probably the two prospects that I lusted after the most during last season (Wallace, in part, because he was our target in the '08 draft), and we've just swapped them.

turner10 · Post #7 » by **turner10** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:23 pm

woo decent...i duno tho isnt wallace fat ahah dunno how mobile he is at third base...i'm hearin he has a good bat tho

Hoopstarr · Post #8 » by **Hoopstarr** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:24 pm

Damn it! I like Taylor more too. Corner OF is just as much of a need as 3B. I don't get this.

turner10 · Post #9 » by **turner10** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:25 pm

Upside potential: An All-Star-caliber bat at third base, he'll never win a Gold Glove, but he can stay at the hot corner and his bat will play in the big leagues soon.

They said it: "He's just a very polished hitter. He came to us that way and he's done everything we expected and he's brought more defensive aptitude than we thought. He's not the prototypical third baseman as far as his body type, but he's got more athleticism than you would initially think." -- John Vuch, Cardinals Director of Minor League Operations

Michael Bradley · Post #10 » by **Michael Bradley** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:29 pm

Hmmmm, interesting move. Will Wallace stick at 3B long-term? If he can then his value skyrockets, but if he is more projected at 1B then I'm not sure I like this.

I'll need some time to digest this (and actually get some things done at work.......)

-MetA4- · Post #11 » by **-MetA4-** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:33 pm

Wait, now Olney says the PHILLIES are trading Taylor for Wallace. I'm assuming they're doing this to then send Wallace to us, but thats not exactly the same as saying the Jays are sending Taylor for Wallace.

LBJSeizedMyID · Post #12 » by **LBJSeizedMyID** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:41 pm

Wonder what kind of difference that makes?

Post #13 » by **Schad** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:41 pm

Dr. KLAW:

"Another good move for new Jays GM"

"Wallace is a better prospect -- much better bat potential, in my opinion. Oakland has a logjam at 1B/DH, so trading him for Taylor makes sense, since Taylor can play the outfield. But in the abstract I'd rather have Wallace's higher offensive potential."

I'm expecting Wallace to end up at 1B, but even still it looks as if this one will be impossible to evaluate for at least a couple years.

Dr Positivity · Post #14 » by **Dr Positivity** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:43 pm

Like the rest, my feeling on this trade depends on whether he's a 3B. BA said he was expected to come in at 3B last year for the Cards but never did, so I'm somewhat skeptical.

Our young hitting core is Lind, Snider, Wallace... lol, we're going Moneyball on the league

Michael Bradley · Post #15 » by **Michael Bradley** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:46 pm

It is all about offense at this point. Taylor is likely set in stone in LF, while Wallace might be tried at 3B for a little bit longer before they realize he isn't one and stick him at 1B. So if this happens, then AA is likely banking on Wallace being the better offensive player moving forward, as neither one presents a huge defensive presence or play a premium defensive position (again, unless Wallace sticks at 3B and plays at least average defense there).

Tough call.

Hoopstarr · Post #16 » by **Hoopstarr** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:05 pm

They're pretty even prospects overall. It's just a matter of which one you want more on your team. I'm a sucker for tools guys and Taylor seemed like the more exciting one to have around.

Post #17 » by **Geddy** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:09 pm

They're pretty evenly matched in terms of potential but for some reason I would have held on to Taylor.

Post #18 » by **Schad** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:09 pm

Hoopstarr wrote:They're pretty even prospects overall. It's just a matter of which one you want more on your team. I'm a sucker for tools guys and Taylor seemed like the more exciting one to have around.

You might be a sucker for tools, but are you a fan of Wang?

(Sorry, that Wiretap made me do it)

-MetA4- · Post #19 » by **-MetA4-** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:13 pm

Dont like it.

I think we've been talking about Wallace for so long that we are either overvaluing it or are completely looking past the fact that Taylor could easily be a better player.

Wallace has yet to show legit HR power, which was a knock on him going all the way backl to college where he didn't hit as many HRs as he "should" have been able to hit. Taylor has shown more present power, he's shown better plate disciplne, and he's simply a much better athlete and defender. While Taylor may only be a LF he has the ability to be an easy upgrade to both Lind and Snider there defensively.

Wallace clearly doesn't do anyting better, so realistically this is a sideways deal at best. There is value in the fact that our people seem to be high on him, but at the same time Oakland has to like something about Taylor to trade Wallace for him.

Just seems like a pointless trade. Even if both end up as very good hitters, would it not make more sense to add a good athlete like Taylor with guys like Lind and Snider who are mashers but average to both below average athletically? With Wallace you are just adding another below average athlete, and since it doesn't appear he will be anything more than a bad 3B, you're not really benefitting by filling a huge need either.

Hoopstarr · Post #20 » by **Hoopstarr** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:14 pm

Schadenfreude wrote:
Hoopstarr wrote:They're pretty even prospects overall. It's just a matter of which one you want more on your team. I'm a sucker for tools guys and Taylor seemed like the more exciting one to have around.

You might be a sucker for tools, but are you a fan of Wang?

(Sorry, that Wiretap made me do it)

Lol, you got me