My initial reaction is that this is seemingly a better haul than the Twins came away with in the Santana deal (under similar circumstances).  I would've preferred a fourth prospect, but I guess the Jays didn't have much in the way of leverage.  I would take Brown over Taylor, sure, but Taylor could seemingly hold down left field beginning next year.  Drabek is a future number two starter...D'Arnaud appears to wield more capability in terms of controlling the strike zone than Arencibia.  Saunders would've been nice; I'd prefer him over Aumont.  But, I guess the dust hasn't quite settled yet...

Who becomes the de facto number one?  Wouldn't that be something if either McGowan and/or Marcum came back with some semblance of their former selves?  That's too much to ask, I suspect.  I was sort of enamored with the idea of Doc mentoring the young guys during the summer, but that wasn't meant to be. 

Wallace was the #7 prospect in the PCL in 2009.  Here is some of what BA had to say:

"He's a big league hitter right now," New Orleans manager Edwin Rodriguez said. "His pitch recognition is fine. He stays inside the ball very well. That's why he hits lefthanded pitching very well. He drives the ball to left center. He shows power to all fields."

Defense remains his biggest question mark. His hands are fine and he has enough arm to play third base, but his lack of agility and range make it unlikely that he'll be able to stay there. Most PCL observers thought he'd have to move to first base.

Wallace?  Goodness, that would stink.  He's not a third baseman, long-term, and the Jays have enough options at the DH-first base position.  Although, they drafted the guy out of high school, and I assume they would've taken him if he'd been available in the '08 draft, so I guess it might make sense (in a roundabout way).

Still...I'd say we're more in need of viable outfield options at this point.

I hope ESPN's reporting of the Halladay trade is more accurate than their reporting on the Jays lineup.  From their latest Halladay report comes this gem:  "Both of their primary catchers last season, Rod Barajas and Gregg Zaun, have exited via free agency."

Well Keith Law likes the deal for the Jays: (It's from the subscriber only section of ESPN so I won't post the link)

"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."

My take is that the Jays never really wanted Taylor.  

I think an Aumont/Brown/D'Arnaud discussion got the Jays to the table.  When the Phillies tried to downgrade Brown to Taylor, the Jays would only do the deal if they could concurrently upgrade Aumont to Drabek, and the Phillies agreed. 

I don't think Anthopoulos targeted Taylor and there's word that he suffered elbow trouble in winter ball.  I assume that Anthopoulos (like, for example, Keith Law) likes Wallace's bat better than Taylor's.

My only problem with how this all plays out is that the Jays end up with a long-term vacancy in the OF still remaining.

If the Jays acquire Wallace, and if he's likely to be shifted to 1B, then presumably we're back to the Wells-Snider-Lind outfield, with Bautista and Gathright as the potential fourth outfielders.  Which seems to resolve the OF question, but creates lots of defensive issues.  Alternatively, if AA is still hunting for an outfielder, Lind could be shifted back to DH. 

Personally, I'd love to see Wallace at 3B, with Encarnacion dumped, if Wallace can handle it.

Keith Law was just on the Fan.  He thought this deal was the best AA could get.  He said the Yankees comment that they could have done better is sour grapes.

He likes Wallace and says Butterfield might be able to get him to play 3B but that Wallace has big thighs which makes him slow moving from side to side.  He also said Wallace is a lefty who hits LHP well, like Lind.  Law thinks Drabek is a #2 and he is a year away.  Law has always liked D'Arnaud but thinks the Phillies did not do a good job of developing him.  He thinks it is good he is moving to the Jays.

What greenfrog said.....  I don't think a young player's current ability to play a specific position matters a lot at this point.  Get whomever you feel will be the most valuable guys in two or three or seven years.

And from my entirely amateur understanding of all this, Mr. Anthopolous has done pretty well. (Well, I guess we should wait until the names are official.)

Boy, hasn't this been fun?

I'd be hoping for a Jim Thome/ Jeff Bagwell type case for Wallace.  Where they come up as a 3rd baseman, give you a year or two of decent production there, and then move to 1B which is better for them long term. 

That'd give us time to sort out the 1B/DH situation between Lind, Snider, Wallace, Cooper and anyone else in the mix.

There is a very comprehensive analysis of the trade from the Philies perspective here:

http://phuturephillies.com/2009/12/15/analysis-of-the-roy-halladay-trade/

There is no consensus, but more than a few Phillies fans seem to think that AA did very, very well, especially considering his lack of leverage.

Assuming all of the names are correct, I tend to agree that AA maximized his return given the circumstances.

Damn you MG for continually bringing up the trade Lind angle.

FWIW, Lind's value will be higher next year, when he's put up another .900+ OPS season and is still 3-4 years from FA.

According to BBRef, Lind's most similar players are guys like Josh Hamilton, Mark Quinn, Ron Blomberg, Wally Joyner, Brad Fullmer, Richard Hidalgo ... no guys on his lists aged particularly well or healthily.

I think always considering a Lind deal is the right track, given an adherence to "better a year early than a year late" (see also: Rios, Alexis).

I just listened to the Law interview, and I disagree with him about one thing: the Jays don't need anything in the way of starting pitching depth. Even without Halladay and without knowing for sure what's coming back for him, this is as deep a group of starting pitchers as ever I've seen. I'm not saying it's the best group, but there are a lot of them. Law raised the spectre of, "you don't want to have to call up Kyle Drabek in July just because you need the arm," but why would they call up an unready Drabek when they have Brett Cecil and Jesse Litsch and Shaun Marcum and Dustin McGowan and Brad Mills and David Purcey and Bobby Ray and Scott Richmond and Ricky Romero and Mark Rzepczynski and Zach Stewart and Brian Tallet?

I'd rather see them get some kind of decent outfielder.

There is no reason to trade Lind or Hill. They SHOULD trade Overbay, but even if they don't, he is one year away from being off the team. I wouldn't be surprised if Wallace stays in AAA for one more year if Overbay doesn't move.

I was thinking that Wallace sounds a lot like Hinske.

Wallace does seem to have a better bat:

Hinske:

Age 21 A .297/.385.515

Age 22 AA .259/ .373/.486

Wallace:

Age 21 A .327 /.418/.490

Age 22 AAA .297/.354/.460

Hinske had a bit more power but Wallace hit for a better averge at AAA at a level higher.

A lot has been made about Halladay's influence on his team-mates in years past......how do you think his absence will effect the young core of pitchers coming in now?

Is there a clear-cut 'leader' in the pitching corps, or will it have to come from some 1-2 year veteran 'rental' next year (if not this year)?

It seems the Jays brass have never liked Taylor much, Both JP & AA pushed for Brown but Phila. wouldn't budge so flipping Taylor for another bat that the Jays

have always liked was the compromised solution - though it creates a logjam at 1b/dh as I don't see Wallace staying at 3rd. - It will be interesting to follow the

development of Brown, Taylor & Wallace over the next few yrs. - someone may end up with egg all over their face. 

Mylegacy,

      You are not alone - I'm very excited about watching the youngsters grow - ala 1982/83.  I think AA did the best he could and am excited about his next

moves - I will be going to Jays games again (haven't attended any games since mid 206 when I officially gave up on JP) - want to see what AA will get for

other veterans Overbay,Downs etc. and next yrs. draft - One thing, I hope he doesn't rush the kids - those 6 yrs. to FA go by very quickly.

I'm very excited for the upcoming season!  Hopefully Drabek and Wallace are playing with the big club by mid-season.  Better yet, I'd love to see Drabek pitching against Halladay when the Phillies come to town.  I'm going to buy tickets for all three games praying that Roy gets to pitch in one of them.

I hope Drabek isn't. IMO, based on what I know now, that would likely be rushing him and the Jays have no need to rush a pitcher out of high school who recently had arm surgery and when they have no reason to start his service clock.

Mike Green, I totally agree with everything you said in your last post about the trade and the ownership.  The owners did not make an honest effort to contend in 2008 and 2009, when they had Halladay and enough potential talent to compete if a couple more pieces were acquired.  They should apologize, but of course they won't.

Since we haven't heard any adjustments to the Halladay trade in the past 18 hours, it's looking pretty certain that we know the main elements now, and I agree with Mike that AA did the best he could under the circumstances.  It's a pretty good haul, not as bad as the Santana or Cliff Lee trades. 

I don't know why anyone would complain about the $6-million.  That's pretty absurd.  By giving $6-million to the Phillies, the Jays save themselves a $16-million salary, so that's obviously a net savings of $10-million, which could potentially be used for further acquisitions.  (Unfortunately, knowing Rogers, they'll just pocket the $10-million as windfall profit.)

I think Anthopolous did a good job on this one, but incidentally we shouldn't assume this deal is superior to what Ricciardi could have gotten last July.  There were never any reliable reports on exactly what the Jays could have acquired for Halladay at the trading deadline last July.  There was speculation and rumor, but no confirmed details, nothing reliable.  So for anyone to compare this deal to the failed July deal is a little unfair.  We really don't know.

The key question that remains outstanding is whether Anthopolous believes that Wallace can play at 3B in the future.   If the Jays have upgraded at 3B, solving a hole at a position where nobody was available in the farm system (save the dubious Ahrens), while also acquiring a good young pitcher in Drabek and a possible future catcher in d'Arnaud, this deal looks very good.  If Wallace is adding to the clutter at 1B/DH/LF, the deal is less than ideal, but still pretty good.

On the Wallace-Taylor trade - The Jays have loved Wallace for yrs. - drafted him in HS, wanted to draft him in 2008 - but Taylor  was a mediocre college player

and has emerged only the last 2 seasons after rebuilding his swing - Maybe the Jays haven't seen much of the new Taylor and remembering the college prospect

Anyways, AA deserves to do what he thinks is best, because if Taylor emerges as a star & wallace doesn't - everyone is going to remind him.

Also, with Rosenthal (fox sports) saying the Jays see Wallace as a likely future 1lb, ( assuming LInd likely as DH) - Tells us what this front office thinks about

Ruiz, Dopriak and David Cooper.

Anyways, AA deserves to do what he thinks is best, because if Taylor emerges as a star & wallace doesn't - everyone is going to remind him.

Tru dat. And if the reverse does happen, virtually nobody will give credit. I'll bet triple my Box salary that the only "See, AA knew what he was doing" feature to appear anywhere would be here or elsewhere on the non-mainstream-media Internettishness.

From Buster Olney's insider column today:

The Blue Jays are getting criticized for the haul that they are receiving in this deal, but it should be noted that in recent years, the trade value of star players a year before they become free agents has plummeted. This is why Toronto ownership should have made this trade happen in July; his value was higher then, because Halladay had a chance to impact two pennant races. Blue Jays GM Alex Anthopoulos was never going to be able to make a trade like the Mark Teixeira deal that the Rangers made a couple of years back; those days are long gone. Anthopoulos did the best that he could in a bad situation

This is interesting:

According to the Toronto Sun's Bob Elliott, someone involved in Monday's three-team blockbuster "flunked" their physical.

Jeff Blair on the Fan.

The Jays were convinced Boston and New York would bid against each other for Halladay.  Boston backed out quickly and once the Red Sox backed out the Yankees had no interest. 

Blair is convinded Overbey will be gone by spring training.  Blair thinks the Jays will try and add a 200 inning pitcher.  Blair wouldn't be surprised if Snider was traded to get a prospect back in return.

Elvis Andrus qualifies - 267/329/373 33 SB just 21 years old but I cannot imagine Texas is insane enough to trade him right now.

Yeah, not happening. I literally can't imagine any combination of players the Jays have, big league or not, who would even tempt the Rangers into dealing Elvis. If a couple of days ago they'd offered Snider AND Halladay and four or five prospects, they might have paused to consider it, but I think would still have said "no." A 21-year-old shortstop who looks like he could anchor your lineup for 15 years (knock wood)? I can only imagine maybe five or six players in all of baseball that if offered might make the Rangers say "deal." Note, I am NOT saying he is one of the top five players in baseball -- that's different. But given age, position and potential (plus already proven big league value), you can make an argument that he's one of the game's top five or six most valuable assets.

Mick, I ask this in all seriousness. Is there something endemic to the standard issue Texan personality? When they loves somebody, they really loves somebody good. Michael Young was (still is?) beloved beyond reason. Now, apparently, Elvis is never going to leave the building. In the QB annals, you've got water walkers Staubach and Aikman.

Does this til-death-do-us-part loyalty somehow tie in to their heavily nationalistic ethos? (And by nation, I mean Texas, not the US.)

Is there something endemic to the standard issue Texan personality?

Chuck, I would say "yes" with little hesitation, but only with the up-front qualifier -- my wife would outright insist on this -- that I am not a Texan myself. I grew up in Ohio and moved here from New York, which makes me practically a furriner in these here parts.

In all seriousness, Texas is far from a monolith.  Any state that gives you Austin, Dallas, and San Antonio, Michelle Shocked, Molly Ivins and W, Mick Doherty and Scott Lucas cannot be passed off with easy generalities.

Well, I was wondering about that. If Mick says he's still considered a "foreigner", or whatever, then how is it that George W. Bush can be considered a Texan? Guy's from New England. Has an MBA from an Ivy League school.

In all seriousness, Texas is far from a monolith. 

Ain't that the truth! It's as local as here in the Dallas/Fort Worth (or as we like to say here on the west side, Fort Worth/Dallas) Metroplex. It'd be hard to find two huge cities with less in common outside of geography. Then you can start comparing Houston to Lubbock, Austin to El Paso, San Antonio to practically anywhere ... Texas really is a "whole other country" as the adverts used to say ...