Why is it writers keep ignoring the FACT that Wells has a "no-trade?"

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/08/los-angeles-notes-ellis-lackey-wells-greinke.html

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

NO NO and NO!

< 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.

I'd rather keep Wells than get Lackey back.

trading one bad contract for another bad contract is numbing.

So the "no trade" was irrelevant because Wells didn't mind being traded, right? But it seems according to you that it will never happen again. Personally, I think Wells would accept a trade to a team that he thought he would play with every day or nearly every day. Its obvious to everyone, including Wells, that isn't going to happen with the Angels. He can ride the pine and be a cheerleader, or he can accept a trade to a team where he might just get to play. His choice.

Getting Lackey back would be numbing. I'd probably have to take up drinking again.

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.

Why would anybody want an almost 34 year old pitcher, who just had Tommy John surgery, even if Wells would agree, what is the upside for the Angels?

For Lackey's famously excellent clubhouse and field leadership skills. Really, if you need someone who will stay calm and rally the troops when things are going wrong, Lackey's your man.

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.

Didn't think of that. ;)

That is an upside? I thought the reason for trades is to help the team win more.

Wells is untradeable. Not because of his no trade clause, but because nobody is going to give ANYTHING for the guy.
At this point I would be happy with a bad for bad exchange no matter who it was for, as long as Wells was shipped out of Scioscia's field of vision.
Not hard to argue that the elimination of Wells would add wins, just look at how many were added in his absence!

Boston is not an easy town to play especially if a player goes into a slump. The fans are fierce.

You have never played in Boston, so you don't know if it is easy or hard... this is your presumption and has zero credibility.