Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Saturday, December 19, 2009

A’s - Acquired Taylor

Oakland A’s - Acquired OF Michael Taylor from the Toronto Blue Jays for 3B Brett Wallace

Can the A’s ever resist trying to get a finger in every big blockbuster?  It must have killed Billy Beane to not have wormed his way into the Granderson blockbuster.

The Blue Jays should be a little concerned about how quickly the A’s traded Wallace.  The A’s have third basemen on the roster with so many injury problems that they could have bankrupted a single-payer health system by themselves and the team is going to happily give up someone with experience at the hot corner that all his ligaments and bones?

The Jays do plan on using Wallace at first (bye bye Overbay), but Wallace is not a finished prospect at this point and I don’t think he’s ready for the offensive demands.  An .822 OPS in the minors for a more polished college hitter is, in fact, a bit worrisome.

Taylor, all in all, is a more polished player and more likely to have a career in the majors.  His long-term defensive potential is uncertain (Taylor is an impressive physical specimen), but he’s already shown he can terrorize minor league pitching while Wallace has not.  The A’s haven’t developed a thumper in a while and Taylor could be that long-term.

2010 ZiPS Projections
——————————————————————————————————————
Player     AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB   BA   OBP   SLG OPS+
——————————————————————————————————————
Wallace     525 75 129 23 1 16 63 38 135   1 .246 .314 .385   85
Taylor     489 47 131 26 3 14 56 40 93 14 .268 .328 .419 100
——————————————————————————————————————

 

Dan Szymborski Posted: December 19, 2009 at 03:35 PM | 20 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. rawagman Posted: December 19, 2009 at 04:21 PM (#3417561)
Dan - many other esteemed talking heads believe that Wallace is a superior pure hitter to Taylor (who does have a higher ceiling) and that Wallace cannot be an MLB 3B on more than a backup basis.
If anything, I think Wallace will exceed ZIP's predicted OBP.
Also, there must be some value in getting the guy with the better nickname.
   2. sportznut Posted: December 19, 2009 at 04:27 PM (#3417567)
Its rather disappointing to see Taylor's projection take a nose dive, considering he just left a situation where he was destined to be blocked all year outside of an injury. He now goes to a situation where he has a legit chance of being in the majors all year long with Oakland.
   3. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 19, 2009 at 04:41 PM (#3417573)
Its rather disappointing to see Taylor's projection take a nose dive, considering he just left a situation where he was destined to be blocked all year outside of an injury.

That's just park/league (the projected Philly OPS+ was 104).

Dan - many other esteemed talking heads believe that Wallace is a superior pure hitter to Taylor (who does have a higher ceiling) and that Wallace cannot be an MLB 3B on more than a backup basis.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Wallace was extremely disappointing at hitting minor league pitchers. I'm not saying he's a lousy prospect or anything, but the upside for him is speculative, especially as a 1B. Taylor, on the other hand has already terrorized those very same pitchers and given that he's the upside guy, I'll take him in a heartbeat.
   4. RollingWave Posted: December 19, 2009 at 04:53 PM (#3417579)
Of course, minor leaguer projections are a crap shoot in general, especially in regards to how fast they adapt to the show.

I must say that the overall scouting report and stats seem to all look brighter for Taylor , the only logic I can see in the Jays doing this trade seem to be Taylor's diabetic situation and that 6'6 250 OF on turf seems like a bad idea.
   5. Posada Posse Posted: December 19, 2009 at 05:27 PM (#3417612)
That's just park/league (the projected Philly OPS+ was 104).


It's interesting to see the big effect of park/league on Taylor's projection, especially going from a hitter's park to a pitcher's park. In Philly ZiPS had him at .284/.343/.456.
   6. base ball chick Posted: December 19, 2009 at 05:42 PM (#3417634)
??? what is the deal with taylor being 6-6 250? why would that make him a bad OF? wasn't that dave winfield's size?
   7. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: December 19, 2009 at 06:18 PM (#3417667)
I definitely pick the over on Taylor.
   8. Walt Davis Posted: December 19, 2009 at 07:48 PM (#3417727)
Yeah, 6'6" 250 is bigger than Dave Parker (presumably the younger Dave Parker). He might be as large as later career McCovey. Taylor will always be on the verge of becoming later Parker or early Ryan Howard or, god forbid, Cecil Fielder. Still this trade makes even more sense if Taylor can stick in the OF since the A's have Carter and Barton as 1B/DH hopefuls already.

It's interesting that there have been few tall players in MLB. P-I gives 20 guys 6'5" or taller with at least 3000 PAs. Although we are generally talking about very good hitters who teams would surely keep giving playing time, only 3 have made it past 10,000 PA (Thomas, Winfield, Parker). John Olerud, not your typical big-guy slugger, made it past 9000 as did Dale Murphy. While there are several exceptions, it's mainly a long list of defensively limited, oft-injured players. Oh, here it is, in OPS+ order:

McGwire, Thomas, F Howard, Strawberry, Dunn, Winfield, Olerud, D Lee, Glaus (I had no idea he was 6'5"), Murphy, Parker, Sexson, Kingman, Marshall, Hayes, T Clark, Rios, Dropo, Cabell, Alomar jr (he was huge for a C).
   9. Walt Davis Posted: December 19, 2009 at 07:55 PM (#3417733)
Oh Dan, unless he's an HBP machine, there seems to something wacky with Wallace's BA/OBP/walk combination. Using the posted numbers, I get a sub-300 OBP. Giving him 48 walks still doesn't get him to 314 (309 I think it was which is maybe close enough).

Maybe it's all rounding ... I only noticed because I was intrigued that Taylor had the better K and BB rates plus the better BA ... but noticed that his OBP-BA was lower which didn't make sense.

Anyway, if correct, Taylor has the better projected BA, K-rate, BB-rate, ISO and baserunning ... you've got to have a lot of faith in your scouting to prefer Wallace. And Wallace is almost a full year younger.

Hey, happy birthday Michael Taylor.

And thanks for the analysis Dan -- I only had to insult you once to make it happen. :-)
   10. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 19, 2009 at 07:59 PM (#3417736)
Oh Dan, unless he's an HBP machine, there seems to something wacky with Wallace's BA/OBP/walk combination. Using the posted numbers, I get a sub-300 OBP. Giving him 48 walks still doesn't get him to 314 (309 I think it was which is maybe close enough).

Walt, I'm disappointed in you! You answered your own question and didn't even realize it.
   11. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: December 19, 2009 at 08:10 PM (#3417747)
i'm pretty sure that michael taylor isn't 250 lbs. this is a picture i got of him when i went to a reading phils game this past july, and he looked a lot closer to 235 than i was expecting. he's a pretty tremendous athlete and his forearms are absolutely massive.

oakland got a hell of a player.
   12. base ball chick Posted: December 19, 2009 at 08:33 PM (#3417762)
i understand why if a player is FAT he would have trouble.

but unless he lets himself get fat, why should he have a problem because he is TALL?

and not ALL men get fat afterr age 24. taylor really should be full grown and shouldn't have to/need to "fill out." looks like he got PLENTY muscle already
   13. Walt Davis Posted: December 19, 2009 at 08:42 PM (#3417767)
Walt, I'm disappointed in you! You answered your own question and didn't even realize it.

Hey, is it my fault you didn't list HBP projections? :-) But yeah, 30 in 834 minor-league PAs is impressive.
   14. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 19, 2009 at 08:47 PM (#3417770)
Not all men get fat after age 24, but it requires a lot of work, especially for someone who has a lot of weight in muscle.
   15. base ball chick Posted: December 19, 2009 at 10:15 PM (#3417810)
dan

seems to me that 235-250 is a normal weight for a man who is 6-6, especially a professional athlete. my brother is 6-3 and 230 and a LOT oldern taylor and he is not even a little bit fat (yeh, he has a job that requires him to do a lot of physical work)

and yeh, i know plenty of men, professional athletes and regular guys who jus cain't seem to lay offn them christmas cookies
   16. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 20, 2009 at 12:43 AM (#3417869)

seems to me that 235-250 is a normal weight for a man who is 6-6, especially a professional athlete. my brother is 6-3 and 230 and a LOT oldern taylor and he is not even a little bit fat (yeh, he has a job that requires him to do a lot of physical work)


It is normal, but it doesn't really scale like that. There's a very good reason why you'll never find any 6'6, 250 pound marathon runners, no matter how great in shape they are.
   17. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: December 20, 2009 at 01:59 AM (#3417907)
also, still waiting on polanco to the phils.
   18. base ball chick Posted: December 20, 2009 at 04:41 AM (#3417992)
dan

marathon runners, yeah, they have to be skinny for some reason i don't know, but there are plenty of football players who are even larger than taylor who run very fast.

but that still doesn't xplain why so few tall men make it past 3000 PA

how many men made to to 500 or even 1000 PA who are 6-5 or taller? could it just be sample size? that very few men at that tall?
   19. The District Attorney Posted: December 20, 2009 at 04:52 AM (#3417998)
For one thing, you have a bigger strike zone, which can't help :-)

And presumably, if you are exceptionally tall and a gifted athlete, it benefits you to go into a sport like basketball or football where being exceptionally tall is a major advantage...

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BarrysLazyBoy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.2642 seconds
60 querie(s) executed