Wells, J-Mac place on waivers

Peteros · Post #1 » by **Peteros** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:37 pm

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/2008/0 ... d_waivers/

The Toronto Star is reporting that the Jays Jays asked trade waivers on both Vernon Wells and John McDonald on Tuesday, and it's unsure either would clear.

Wells, who just came off the disabled list after a hamstring injury, hit a grand slam in the third inning of Tuesday night's 4-3 win in Detroit. When asked by Sportsnet about the waiver move, Wells claimed to know nothing of the decision. The centre fielder does have a no-trade clause in his seven-year, $126 million contract.

Relentless88 · Post #2 » by **Relentless88** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:21 pm

That would be amazing if we could get rid of Wells' contract.

Post #3 » by **Schad** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:25 pm

That's common practice after the non-waiver deadline; heck, I would imagine that many players better than Wells went through the waiver process (among others, the Red Sox put Manny Ramirez out there every year for the past five seasons). You put them out there, see if there's a nibble...and if the offer isn't attractive, you pull them back.

TR50 · Post #4 » by **TR50** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:59 pm

interesting to say the least...

Post #5 » by **Geddy** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:22 am

Schadenfreude wrote:That's common practice after the non-waiver deadline; heck, I would imagine that many players better than Wells went through the waiver process (among others, the Red Sox put Manny Ramirez out there every year for the past five seasons). You put them out there, see if there's a nibble...and if the offer isn't attractive, you pull them back.

Hmmm so it's common then? Is it the type of thing a player would get offended over?

RapsFanInVA · Post #6 » by **RapsFanInVA** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:05 am

I've never understood the waiver period or what the heck "clearing waivers" means. Still i wouldnt mind Wells leaving, so long as every other high salary guy goes out with him. I'm sick of dwelling in mediocrity.

Post #7 » by **Geddy** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:20 am

Heard Dan Shulman talking about it and he said what Schad said - this happens to many top tier players just to see if there is anyone willing to take a contract. It doesn't mean that Wells will be going anywhere soon.

J-Roc · Post #8 » by **J-Roc** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:47 pm

Don't play this down at ALL. In pro sports, there are things you do that are just "business" and then there are things you do to show respect to your top stars. It's like a team talking to their star about trades for other players, to keep them in the loop. It's not business. It's done to keep the guy happy.

Putting Wells on waivers suggests he has a price. Even though he was made the face of the franchise and given a no-trade clause with that big contract. Let's put it this way. Even for "business", would the Raps seek to see what Chris Bosh could get them on the market? Absolutely NOT. Are the Yanks putting Jeter or A-Rod on waivers. Hell no. Are the Sox putting a guy like Josh Beckett on waivers? You know they're not.

Yes, business is business. But this is a slap in the face to Wells and it's a sign that the team is frustrated with his AVERAGE play since he signed the big contract.

Post #9 » by **Schad** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:30 pm

The Yankees have placed A-Rod on revocable waivers before. If I'm not mistaken, they did it last year. Again, common practice; there's no harm in doing so, and only the neediest of players would object.

J-Roc · Post #10 » by **J-Roc** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:52 pm

1. I'll believe the bit about A-Rod being on revocable waivers if you can find a source.
2. If it was last year, I could believe it because there was talk the Yanks might not want him anymore. My comment was to suggest the Yanks wouldn't put this year's version of A-Rod on waivers.

Manny was put many times because the Sox were always trying to get rid of him.

There's a difference with Wells. Wells was signed to be a longterm Jay. Putting Wells on waivers is the same as taking calls from teams interested in a trade. It's not something you do if you believe he's a part of the future. I'm not acting surprised. No one should be. We've all known Wells was overrated. This is just the first sign that the team sees it to. I'm glad they do.

Post #11 » by **Schad** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:09 am

J-Roc wrote: Putting Wells on waivers is the same as taking calls from teams interested in a trade.

Exactly! And why wouldn't the Jays explore trade options for Wells, or any other player, especially with two-thirds of a young outfield (including one who can play center when he hasn't left his good sense in the dugout) and a #10 prospect who projects at a corner spot? It doesn't mean that the team is looking to give him away...

J-Roc · Post #12 » by **J-Roc** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:48 pm

Schadenfreude wrote:
J-Roc wrote: Putting Wells on waivers is the same as taking calls from teams interested in a trade.

Exactly! And why wouldn't the Jays explore trade options for Wells, or any other player, especially with two-thirds of a young outfield (including one who can play center when he hasn't left his good sense in the dugout) and a #10 prospect who projects at a corner spot? It doesn't mean that the team is looking to give him away...

You sound like Mike Wilner defending the Jays. When the Jays signed Vernon Wells to the big contract, it wasn't so a couple of years later they could look to gauge interest in him. They thought he'd be an elite CF for years to come.

This is important news for Jays fans. Fans now know the Jays would be happy to part ways with Vernon Wells. That is a story. It's not business as usual for contending teams, as you would have people believe.

TR50 · Post #13 » by **TR50** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 4:07 pm

J-Roc wrote:
Schadenfreude wrote:
J-Roc wrote: Putting Wells on waivers is the same as taking calls from teams interested in a trade.

Exactly! And why wouldn't the Jays explore trade options for Wells, or any other player, especially with two-thirds of a young outfield (including one who can play center when he hasn't left his good sense in the dugout) and a #10 prospect who projects at a corner spot? It doesn't mean that the team is looking to give him away...

You sound like Mike Wilner defending the Jays. When the Jays signed Vernon Wells to the big contract, it wasn't so a couple of years later they could look to gauge interest in him. They thought he'd be an elite CF for years to come.

This is important news for Jays fans. Fans now know the Jays would be happy to part ways with Vernon Wells. That is a story. It's not business as usual for contending teams, as you would have people believe.

But it just is business, why wouldn't you want to gauge the value for a player like wells especially with that contract, why wouldn't you look to move him for the betterment of the team by seeing if theirs any nibbles and if their aren't, you simply keep him....

J-Roc · Post #14 » by **J-Roc** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:29 pm

You guys are unbelievable. You're saying it would NOT be a story if the Toronto Raptors put Chris Bosh on revocable waivers (if there was such a thing in the NBA). You're saying it would NOT be a story if it came out BC was shopping CB around. Just business. In fact, BC is probably shopping CB as we speak.

TR50 · Post #15 » by **TR50** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:01 pm

J-Roc wrote:You guys are unbelievable. You're saying it would NOT be a story if the Toronto Raptors put Chris Bosh on revocable waivers (if there was such a thing in the NBA). You're saying it would NOT be a story if it came out BC was shopping CB around. Just business. In fact, BC is probably shopping CB as we speak.

well if the Raptors sucked that much and needed a big change i wouln't be too surprised, wouldn't it make sense to deal Bosh to a contender for some peices to build with unless he specifically said he'd want to be around for the rebuild...which by the way he was.

Using hypotheticals isn't going to convince anyone. Wells has played average at best and not worthy of that contract. We need a move, we need changes, Wells has a name and a contract so it would make sense to see what he can get in return because we NEED a change.

Unbelievable.

Post #16 » by **Geddy** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 3:05 am

This form of waivers is unlike those in basketball or hockey so the situations are not comparable. As stated by others before many star players are put out there just to see what sort of interest there is in them, but it usually isn't made public.

Peteros · Post #17 » by **Peteros** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 7:57 pm

Why would they make it public, and why put Wells out there?? Even though it means that nothing will happen.

J-Roc · Post #18 » by **J-Roc** » Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:58 am

Peteros wrote:Why would they make it public, and why put Wells out there?? Even though it means that nothing will happen.

Well, from this thread, we have learned that they do it because......that's it. Just because.

Dr Octagon · Post #19 » by **Dr Octagon** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:47 pm

I don't see the big deal. Most players go on waivers this time of the year.