Blue Jays Trade Michael Taylor to Athletics for Brett Wallace
by R.J. Anderson on Dec 15, 2009 2:43 PM EST
16 comments
Michael Taylor will turn 24 on Saturday. Yesterday, he was part of a package sent to the Toronto Blue Jays in exchange for starting pitcher Roy Halladay. Hopefully none of his family or friends went out and bought Blue Jays gear for his celebration, because Taylor is no longer with organization. Instead, he will wear the green and gold of Oakland next season as Toronto swapped him out with "third" baseman Brett Wallace.
Turnaround deals like this involving Billy Beane invoke memories of Moneyball scenes from the past with him edging on Omar Minaya to land some fat third baseman named Youkilis before flipping him to Oakland. Either this swap had been discussed before hand or Toronto worked at rapid pace while Halladay went suit-shopping for his introductory press conference.
As mentioned, Taylor is currently 23 and formerly a Stanford attendee who stands around 6'6" and weighs 250 pounds. Baseball America describes him as "A physical specimen", which is a kind way of saying he sticks out in a crowd of normal folk. The most endearing skill Taylor possesses is his power. In 128 Triple-A plate appearances - small sample, indeed - Taylor's ISO was .209; in 363 Double-A plate appearances it was .236 and even before then, in High-A it was .230. The man has the ability to crush baseballs. Defensively he has a good arm but, like his offensive game, the finer things need developing.
By comparison, the 6'1", 245 pound Wallace is small. Not many things human can make Wallace look small, but Taylor is one of them. Wallace's position is listed at third base, but that seems rather unlikely to be the case. Wallace is supposedly more polished at the plate than Taylor, but I'm not sure how much of that is true. Wallace spent most of last season in Triple-A and had a .203 ISO once joining the Cardinals. Scouts seem to like his plate approach more than Taylor's, but their walk and strikeout rates suggest Taylor does more of the former and less of the latter.
The Jays definitely need some positional players. The question is whether Wallace is a better fit than Taylor, and honestly I'm not sure. If they think Wallace can play an okay third, then fine, but otherwise their roster already holds a DH (Adam Lind) a center fielder who shouldn't play center (Vernon Wells), a corner outfielder (Travis Snider), and a first baseman (Lyle Overbay) and while Taylor would be restricted to the other corner, Wallace should probably only play first.
One thing you can throw out the window about the new Jays front office is any doubts about their willingness to pull the trigger.
0 recs |
16 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
As a Jays fan who has recently had to deal with the departure of Halladay
…this post sums up exactly how I am feeling.
A corner OF who seems to be an athletic specimen or yet another 1B/DH type?
I prefer Taylor.
Agreed
I don’t see why you’d want to move even farther down the defensive spectrum.
by Brendan Scolari on Dec 15, 2009 6:19 PM EST up reply actions
Keith Law said that he greatly prefers Wallce for his bat and offensive upside, in spite of the fact that Taylor is likely to offer more value in the other aspects of the game.
Obviously it’s to be taken with a grain of salt, but scouts still seem to believe that Wallace is capable or being a pretty special hitter.
If Wallace is capable of playing third everyday, then this deal obviously makes much more sense, but that’s obviously Wallace’s biggest question mark.
I think that it’s almost a sure thing that either Overbay or Encarnacion is dealt, because the Jays have to find playing time for Wells, Snider, Lind, Wallace, Encarnacion, Overbay, Ruiz and Bautista, with only six spots in the lineup: OF, 1B, 3B and DH. Not mention that they’ve basically ensured poor defense at third base for next season, even if the Hill/Gonzalez/McDonald trio is great in the middle infield.
by Satchel Price on Dec 15, 2009 4:20 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I just don't see the logic behind this trade.
Jays have probably 5 or 6 guys at 1B/DH position with Lind and Travis Snider in the mix. If baseball had 3 DH positions in the game, I understand… but this deal is just puzzling to me.
Considering the Jays have Alex Gonzalez and John Buck in the projected starting lineup...
…perhaps they are planning on a petition to allow for 3 DH positions (so that the SS and C don’t have to hit either).
Then, I would understand the Taylor/Wallace move.
I love scouts
Every fat white guy has a “great plate approach”. Every tall black guy is an “athletic specimen” who usually needs to work on “finer points”.
That being said, I like both players and expect great careers from both.
Except that
2009:
Wallace: 600 PA 293 /.367 /.455 116/47 K/BB
Taylor : 491 PA 320 /.395 /.549 70/48 K/BB
So Taylor not only whiffed about 5% less of the time, he also walked more times in 100+ less PA.
From a stats point of view, Taylor clearly owned Wallace this year, Wallace’s season is actually pretty disaapointing given his predigree and performance last year.. I can see why some scouts think Taylor.
Taylor seem to be something of a Hunter Pence / Jermaine Dye level hitter (or a bit better). with a better speed game and maybe glove .
If he’s really that, then Wallace better be hitting like not too far from a Howard / Teixiera at 1B to be comparable.
Maybe the FOs know something we don’t, but from what we do know about Taylor. the only real negative you can say about his line is that he’s not a young prospect. he is obviously a massive tools guys, and all indication is that the skills are catching up to the tools, and the background suggest that he’s an intellegent guy with good intagibles. I’m not sure how you can ask for more than that
Scouts don’t talk about Heyward needing to work on the “finer points”, but he’s certainly considered a “tall black guy”, and realistically, the only fat white guys that are legitimate prospects are the ones with good approaches at the plate, which is why nobody ever talks about the fat white guy that can’t even get on base.
I'm not saying these cliches aren't true sometimes
But I can scout that way from my living room. Brett Wallace, white, 6’1", 250, did well in AA/AAA last year? He must have a great plate approach because he’s not beating any tappers to short with that big ass of his!
Your living room?
Don’t you mean mom’s basement?
by Tommy Bennett on Dec 15, 2009 5:22 PM EST up reply actions
Positions
I saw the Halladay trade in another light, where the Jays were adding a 4th outfielder and would be forced to put Lind at DH – not a bad idea, but an interesting move for such a young hitter.
That being said, Wallace could conceivably play three positions with an outside show of playing a forth – LF. The Jays will be saying goodbye to Overbay sooner rather then later and Wallace is a player that could slide in and the club wouldn’t lose a beat.
At worst it is a parallel move. It’s just interesting that the Jays did such a move so quick. Possibly this could signal an Encarnacion/Overbay move that will make this one look proactive rather then reactive.
Are you
referring to Taylor as that 4th OF?
I dont know a ton about the Jays’ situation, but Taylor is pretty close to a 5 tool player. I like to think of him as Jason Heyward Lite.
If the Jays are planning on sticking Wallace at 3B long term its not such a bad deal, but there is no way I would have dealt a guy like Taylor, even if I’m the Phillies to get a 32 year old pitcher.
If given the choice I actually like Taylor over Brown.
No no...
I’m saying that he would be a 4th outfielder. Obviously the actual term “4th outfielder” would belong to V-W.
As far as Taylor long term, I’m not enamored with what he has done. Small sample sizes are the problem in my opinion. But to be fair, I’m not in love with what Wallace has done either. That said, calling him Jason Heyward Lite is probably an unfair comp. Not a knock against him, but Heyward is being talked about as a generational talent, with the Upton and Strasberg’s of the world, not the not-to-be-taken-lightly Vernon Wells’ of the world.
how are two outstanding seasons a small sample size?
he hasn’t hit under .300 and slugged under .500 since rookie ball. where are the small sample sizes? with your logic you hate every single prospect.
he only had one bad season, and that was rookie ball. going over from aluminum bats to wood bats and completely REWORKING HIS STANFORD SWING.
his next 248 games he’s posted these wOBA’s: .447 .411 .438 .375(limited time in AAA)
wallace hasn’t hit as well in AA or AAA as michael taylor or fielded as well as taylor.
i have no idea what the jays are doing.
by jamiethekiller on Dec 16, 2009 4:01 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
BtB on Facebook
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
