Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3
You are missing the context of the discussion, Arles. The conversation was the A's were hated while they were winning - arguing that people hate McGwire for stuff that happened later and/or in different cities is irrelevant.
|
No, I was responding to ISiddiqui's comment that McGwire has never been hated near what Canseco has been. I said a lot of A's fans didn't like McGwire when he left because of his injury history and the money he was making and then he became hated later for Steroids. Here's ISiddiqui's comment:
Quote:
|
Um... what about the early 2000s? When they had back to back 100 win season? In the late 80s, people hated Jose Canseco. You'll note Mark McGwire was never hated in anywhere near the same way.
|
and my response:
Quote:
|
McGwire was hated a great deal in Oakland. When he went to St. Louis after having year after year of injury for the As, a lot of fans disliked him. Then you add in the success he had combined with the Steroid cloud and I'd be hardpressed to find two more hated guys in baseball by many fans than Canseco and McGwire. Yet, in the late 90s, people didn't hate the As. Even when moneyball came out in the early 2000s - they didn't hate them a great deal. Now, if the A's come out and do what the Cards have done (2 WS and 5 ALCS in the next 7 years), there will be a lot of hatred for them - if only because of the sheer volume of the term "moneyball" on ESPN
|
Maybe we are arguing different things, but I'm not even sure what the ISiddiqui was making? That because he thinks people hate Canseco and McGwire wasn't hated that somehow success doesn't play a factor in liking or hating the As. Your guess is as good as mine here.