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