You accuse us of reading into what you say what is not there- something you do all the time, I might add.
If you don't see any negativity to this statement, then we both have very different views on the English language:
Playoff hero he was, and if he gets hot like that again that’s great, but I just see him for what he has been, which was a utility player 4th OF/ 5th IF with the Dodgers, which is what I believe brought to Boston to be, but turned into a excellent full time CF.
When you use the word "but" followed by I "just" see him for what he has been, which is a utility player, I'm sorry, but that is not taken as a compliment or even a neutral statement. You also added the "4th OF/5th IF" followed by he "he turned into an excellent full time CF", like he wasn't an excellent CF, before 2021.
I'm fine with you not agreeing he had a fantastic defensive year in CF for the Sox in 2021 or disagreeing with me thinking it was the best defensive CF season, I've seen in a long time by a Sox CF'er, with props given the JBJ, as I've always given him.
Here is what doesn't ring true, to me: I find it interesting you called Kike an excellent FT CF for the Sox, yet he only started 81 games in CF for us. He started 49 games at 2B & SS- kinda like a utility man, needed more in CF than anywhere else, in 2021.
Newflash, the guy has been an excellent defensive CF for years, and could have been a FT one for years, too. He happens to be a plus 2B man and SS, too, and likely could have been an excellent FT middle infielder had some manager chose to use him that way.
Saying, "If he gets hot again that would be great, but I see him for what he has been..." has meaning, unintended or not. Don't get upset when we take your words to have commonly understood meanings.
Thanks for clarifying, though. I know how much you have disdain for being asked to do that.