moonslav59

http://www.talksox.com/forum/threads/13747-Official-NFL-thread See for yourself: I never used the word "cheatriots". I answered a question about why people hate the Patriots, and as a Packer fan, my reply upset the sensitivities of Patriots fans rather like Yankee fans get twisted up when we say they "bought championships" or call them "cheaters". I never said "cheatriots" but somebody here is still sticking to his delusion.

Good point, but the perception left was a bad one. I don't think his season was as bad it it appeared, but I'm hopeful he does better this year.

Lots of players are signing to avoid arbs. Tis the season. Will DD follow Theo and Ben's pattern of just about always avoiding arbs? Seems like numbers are coming in a little lower than MLBTR's estimates, so maybe Abad will be cheaper than the $2M they projected.

My bad. He doesn't really fit the Buch jello mold of disappointment. He did play parts of 5 seasons with us and 3 more after he left.

Great point, and top of it all, he started out super slowly and ended with a dud playoff game. For a good 20 games in between he was pretty close to what most of us expected. Now, give us that for 30 David!

I'm feeling more and more hopeful. I hate to get my expectations too high, but there's more hope than there was last fall.

Nice backpeddle.

>>>>

Show where I said "Cheatriots". I'm not denying I said they cheated, so stop implying I'm doing that now. I clearly said I never used that term. You still think I did, when it was actually you. You're a clown!

Here's the facts... (I can't believe you still actually can't comprehend basic English and logic.) Poster reads a poster saying that he caught grief for saying last fall that "Sandoval is in the mix at 3B" and translates to "Poster is now saying he wanted Sandoval to start last fall, and I'm patting myself on the back because I got it right." Poster reads, "It's amazing how so many people's opinions have changed on Pablo since last fall" and then translates it to poster is "patting himself on the back for calling the Pablo thing early and you clowns have all changed your opinion while I, the genius, have not" Fact: I listed Pablo/Shaw as our 3Bmen last fall and got crap for even mentioning him as an option or as "being in the mix" I also continuously suggested we trade for Frazier or others to try and get him out of the mix. Your logic is so twisted, you think suggesting a trade, so Pablo would not longer be "in the mix" means I believed he was not in the mix anymore, or that logically suggesting a trade magically takes that player out of any consideration for winning the job. It's clown logic twisted into so-called "FACTS". Recently, I make a blanket obvious statement that people's opinions have changed on Pablo. It wasn't meant to show anything other than obvious aspects of fans perception of Pablo. Here's the simple post- no bragging even remotely implied: What a turn around for Panda on fan opinions and expectations from last spring to now. I remember I caught a lot of flack last fall for just mentioning Pablo being "in the mix" at 3B or DH for 2017. Now, he's basically all we've got, and posters are beginning to believe he can be productive again. A "monster year" might be pushing it, but my expectations are certainly growing every time I see a new pic of him. \ Doji responded by saying people's opinions have not changed. I responded: Go back and read people's opinions last fall. When I just listed Pablo as a possible competitor at 3B for the 2017 season, hardly anyone agreed and many laughed or berated the idea. Some opinions have changed. Things have changed since last fall. We have no Travis Shaw. We've seen the photos of a much thinner Pablo. Approaching spring lends itself to optimism. Fan and media opinions have changed. I see no doubt in that fact. Maybe not everyone, but many. I'm sure even the strongest Pablo supporter (not me) has doubts. This does not imply or say that I ever wanted or thought of Pablo as the starter for 2017 last fall. I mentioned he was in the mix and people argued he wasn't. MVP claims, and still is, that I am now saying I wanted Pablo to be the starter last fall, which if it was true, would mean I am lying, but it's not true. I never said it then, and I never said I said it then recently. You relied with this: "Man, you just love patting yourself on the back over and over again even when you're incorrect about the facts." Fact: There's no patting my own back. I wasn't bragging about simply listing a $19M player as in the mix for 2017 3B (at least on opening day before Moncada is ready). I didn't even express an opinion, in my mind, at the time. I thought it was a fact. Pablo/Shaw with Hernandez, Holt and Rutledge as 3B depth. I was surprised when many argued Pablo's name shouldn't even be mentioned, or that he should be DFA'd with us paying all the cost. Fact: I never said that last fall I said I wanted Pablo to start. You said I did, but I never did or even came close to implying I did. Your facts are not facts. They are twisted distortions of some kind of warped interpretation of what I wrote last fall and recently. Now, out of left field, you claim I am claiming to be the "leading proponent of Sandoval getting playing time." What a joke! Pablo is the starter right now. If I had my way, we'd never had signed him. I'd have traded him for a sucky pitcher like Shields before we squeezed ourselves into having basically just him and no spending space or prospects I'd be willing to trade.

So, it was you who first used the term "Cheatriots" on this site. Too funny!

Some one asked on the NFL thread: Today a question came to my mind? Why do so many people hate the Pats when it is so much more fun enjoying their repeated excellence and domination. I answered light-heartedly (during the whole random argumnet thing going on)... possible answers: 1) Their wins are just random occurrences. 2) They continually cheat. I'm a Packer fan back from my childhood days living in the shadow or County Stadium in Milwaukee. It was all meant in fun, but there are examples or accusations of cheating that non Patriot fans have clung to or used in jest. Someone later provided evidence that my Pack has "cheated" more than the Pats since like 1920. I'm fine with the ribbing, but at least get the facts straight. The funny part is, he accused me of ignoring the facts while continuously getting them wrong himself. Go back and read the thread. I never used the term he attributes to me.' http://www.talksox.com/forum/threads/13747-Official-NFL-thread/page2

Plus, he got it all wrong. I never used the term. Never heard of it before MVP used it today.

You have a poor memory. You continuously misrepresent what I said or implied. I called them cheaters, but never used that term. I doubt I'll get an apology for this lie also.

They all disappointed us (or the teams we traded them to), but they do belong in a separate class from Buch..

I thought Mr. Cheatriots was referring to Bill B and Tom B not me...

I remember something about him falling into a catatonic trance in the locker room one day. What amazes me most about his stellar record with the Sox from 1970-1975 (41-18 3.43) was how he was able to maintain an 87 ERA- with a WHIP of 1.363. His 14-3 record in 1975 led the league in winning %... all with a 1.43 WHIP! (His FIP_ was 102.) He pitched three more years after leaving the Sox, but never started more than 12 games in a season.

Fact is, I admitted I was wrong about Pablo. You claimed I said that I recently said "wanted him at 3B back then". Are you sticking with that falsehood? Be a man. Admit you at least made a typo.

I had forgotten about him! Others who might compete for the label but with different circumstances.... Roger Moret Abe Alvarez Michael Bowden Casey Kelly

In Price's defense, it's only been one year. It took a year for Beckett to adjust, so maybe we'll see an uptick with Price too. I was disappointed by his performance as well, not even counting the one playoff game. I was against the signing due to the enormous amount of money, but I did think he represented the "safest bet" of any SP'er to come along in free agency for quite some time. Buch was drafted by us. He never really made huge money, but his countless injuries and "recovery periods" or "pre-injury periods" where he sucked were just too much for any Sox fan to accept. At least Price gave us 35 starts and 230 IP-- something Buch could never even dream of doing. I will give him credit though, and here's where the similarity to Buch's "half seasons of doing well" argument comes into play, he battled back from a horrendous start. He had a 6.00 ERA after 8 starts! He was still over 5.10 after 11 starts. He barely made it under 4.00, but his 3.58 second half ERA, if adjusted for park and strength of opponent came pretty close to his career norm. Even his final ERA- of 90 was not too out of sinc with his recent numbers: 09 104 10 69 11 90 12 66 13 86 14 87 15 60 16 90 There's no evidence that he will become only a half season star going forward.

Pablo is entering through a fairly decent window where he could be really productive. 5,6, 7 + years depending on injury of course. I'd guess his true window is more likely 2-4 years before his decline crosses the plus-minus line. Much has been made of his long and steady decline before even signing with us, but I agree, his age still leaves the window open for some good years.

Clay is hurt or pitching poorly more than half the time.

I listed him as a possible 3Bman many times to start this thread. Most of the time I listed our 3B slot as Pablo/Shaw or Shaw/Pqablo with Hernandez, Holt and Rutledge listed as depth at times. Sure I wanted him replaced. Everyone knew trading him was not really an option, except for maybe a Jamie Shields-like near equal salary dump type trade. I never suggested we could trade him when his stock was near zero with that contract looming. In theory, he was going to be in the mix until we traded or signed a better 3Bman, but I never pretended that was the Sox plan. I never expected a Frazier trade or a Turner signing. I didn't even expect us to go after Plouffe, like recent rumors hinted at. The fact was, to me, that Pablo was in the mix at 3B, so I listed him as a close to equal chance as Shaw at 3B. I never tried to imply I was some sort of genius for just listing a $19M guy as an option. I never claimed I said I wanted him at 3B in the fall. I disliked both Shaw and Pablo, but money constraints wouldn't allow us to get everything I wanted. I knew that and said so many times. I've never believed we can just buy anything we want. I suggested an option might be to "Castillo" him, so we could free up $19M. That's not "taking him out of the mix". He's in the mix until it happens for real. It turns out I (and others) were wrong about being able to "Castillo him" because he had 5+ years of ML service and could refuse a demotion. Just because I suggested many possible replacements for Pablo at 3B from last fall to the point where our budget and lack of prospects no longer allowed for acquiring a 3Bman, doesn't mean I never considered him "in the mix". I certainly never said anything resembling this: "...so don't pat yourself on the back because "you wanted him at 3B back then..." Just because I observed people's opinions changing, I have not said or implied that at some point "I wanted him at 3B". That's just false, and you know it. Of course, you'll never admit to the falsehood.

Where specifically did I "pat myself on the back" or contradict myself?

Read the underlined part. I never said I wanted him to be our 3Bman. Not now. Not then. I never said that I said I wanted him. You are trying to make it sound like I'm bragging about Pablo starting and that I have said he would or wanted him to all along. Nothing is further from the truth. The post above was just a reflection on how all or our (or most of us) opinions have changed on Pablo since last fall. MYSELF INCLUDED!