Why is it writers keep ignoring the FACT that Wells has a "no-trade?"
WHY?????? Would we want john lackey back?
Someone said (in the comments) that they thought lackey would do well in San Diego, and he probably would since he'd be back with Bud Black - unless new Padres ownership decides to let him go.
Its more about geting rid of Wells than getting Lackey
If Wells is being moved its either
1. Not going to happen... because no one else is as silly as Reagins or had players the manager hated more than Scioscia
2. If it does happen...Is a carp for carp deal
What won't happen is a Wells for something of any value deal
< Why is it writers keep ignoring the FACT that Wells has a "no-trade?" >
Obviously just to tick you off. How did Wells get traded to the Angels since he has a "no-trade" which makes it impossible to trade him according to you?
Wells accepted a trade to the Angels and afterwards said that the Angels and the Rangers were the only teams he would waive his no-trade.
I take it that means Boston is not where he wants to be. Wells STILL has his no-trade INTACT.
you are taking liberties with how Wells thinks...this is your presumption and has zero credibility.
Wells said that the Angels and Rangers are the ONLY teams he would waive his no-trade. Those are HIS words but you put thoughts that he NEVER said.
I bet you read ONLY FICTION. Get real!
BUT - can't a person change his mind? I'm not trying to presume anything about Vernon Wells, but, don't YOU think that IF the chance came for him to go to a team where he could play everyday, that he'd "maybe" change his mind????
It is a possibility, you have to admit that at least.
even if Wells would agree, what is the upside for the Angels? >>>
Taking Wells away from Scioscia, who will play him no matter what, as long as he is here.At least with Lackey it would be do or die, it will never be do or die for Wells.