From: YukYukYo69@aol.com
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 10:00:03 -0800 (PST)
To: Multiple recipients of list <oak-athletics@plaidworks.com>
Subject: Re: Remember Canseco.....
Message-ID: <961226125240_1788821896@emout16.mail.aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In a message dated 96-12-26 02:38:52 EST, you write:

<< >Raffik:
 >
 >Obviously you don't remember the days of the immaturity of Canseco.  The
only
 >reason why they traded him was becuase he was the only cancer to a
clubhouse
 >that was overachieving and headed for the playoffs, not to mention they
could
 >get a sutible replacment for him in the field as well as a couple more arms
 >for the stretch run.  
 
 This is, of course, laughable.
 
 Canseco was dealt for 1.2 years of Witt, .2 years of Russell, and .2 years
 of Sierra.  Sierra's collapse was completely predictable, and if you
 care to call me on that, check your local news archive. >>

.2 years is called a stretch run!  That's what the whole deal was done for.
 Yeah, maybe the trade wasn't the best ever, considering only a World Series
title was going to be the mark on whether or not it was a good deal, but the
bottom line is that he made the chance on the trade.  Alderson regrets making
the deal?  Maybe so, but I was glad to see him take that chance on a team
that for sure wasn't going to beat the Jays with Canseco.

I'll admit, resigning Sierra was wrong.  The only reason it happened is
becuase it did come on the eve of the Bonds signing and Alderson felt the
heat to be competitive in the Bay Area.

And it doesn't sound like anything's gonna bring you back.  I'm not here
saying Canseco's presence is going to be an asset to the team.

And I'm still trying to figure out, are you pro or anti Canseco?

Gary
YukYukYo69@aol.com