I was torn between the top 2 choices, but I deferred to the authority of ZiPS projection system, which is based on mountains of data rather than my own projection system which is based on watchin' games and readin' stuff. So I went with big win.

ZIPS projections for the prospects, hypobole?  I don't think Dan Szymborski would want you to put too much weight on projections at least a year out for a player like Hoffman or Castro.  It's hard enough to project at the end of one season what a player is likely to do in the following season.

The take I read from Szymborski is that the remainder of Tulowitzki's contract has +$40M in surplus value while Reyes' contract is at -$20M. So if you're going by that the question is whether Hoffman-Castro-Tinoco are worth $60M.

Sounds like Big Win to me. And I agree with that take. It's high-risk in that Tulo's value hinges on his questionable ability to stay healthy, but if you never take risks you never put a great team together.

OK, I get it.  ZIPS projects that Tulowitzki is going to be a 3+ WAR player on average over the next 5 years.  I think that's high.  Projecting one year out is hard, but the error bar for projections over a 5 year period is, as I said, extremely large.  For that, you are better to take what you know and run with it.  If you believe that there is a chance that he turns into Paul Molitor and becomes more durable in his 30s than he was in 20s, I guess the ZIPS projection makes sense.  I just don't see it, though. Usually the guys who are durable in their early 30s were durable earlier, and the ones who were injured a lot in their 20s get injured more in their 30s, and with longer recovery periods. 

Taken in isolation, I like the move. But I am concerned about the team's overall strategy (doubling down with another blockbuster move), Tulo's health/decline in the coming seasons, and the lack of starting pitching.

So far the splashy moves have added up to roughly .500 baseball in Toronto. We'll see if this move changes anything.

Of the three prospects that the Jays traded in this deal, it's likely that at least one of them will be a good MLB pitcher within the next two or three years -- maybe an excellent MLB pitcher.  One or two of those three prospects, in fact, could turn out to be as good as Syndergaard. It's a definite possibility.  And if that happens, I hope we don't see the same moaning and complaining from the same critics who now complain about the Dickey trade and the Marlins trade. Any time you make a big trade, there's a chance that you'll give up a player who becomes very good.  That doesn't mean that the trade was a mistake (or a "disaster" as the critics say).  I fully agree with Jonny German: "if you never take risks, you never put a great team together."  The Jays have to take risks, even if it means that they give up a prospect who turns into an excellent MLB player. 

I voted for the second option:  the trade is a win for the Jays.  I'm not sure if it's a "big win" but I think it's a win.

I voted win, as well.  In three years time, if Tulowitzki is a decent but not great shortstop and Hoffman (say) is a somewhat better pitcher, the redistribution of talent from a place of surplus (young pitching) to a place of need (shortstop) has some value to the organization.

seems okay on both sides, but i would not have made the deal.

the jays' risk is heavily weighted on one player's ability to stay on the field (a skill he's always lacked fwiw).

trading for carrasco and keeping alford would have been my preferred tack, but since this appears to be plan b - seems moot. it's a big move, and they're a better team today because of it.

i don't love the move, i don't hate the move, so i won't complain down the line about it. it's a risk - and sometimes they pay off, sometimes they don't. i hope this one works out.

I voted that I don't like it.

This trade should be easy to judge. If one of Tulo or Reyes is significantly healthier than the other over the next 2 years, then the team with the healthier player wins the trade. Other wise just judge who had the better year.

The money is close over the next 2 years.

The 3 prospects given up make this trade bad for the Jays.

Getting Hawkins should help.