Cafardo responds to his Mailbag

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Cafardo responds to his Mailbag

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    Posters should be banned for a specific reason. I am waiting for a reason. Call up J-Bay.




    stop. using. multiple. aliases. pike. then. you. won't. get. banned. period.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Cafardo responds to his Mailbag

    In response to prknsdnld's comment:

    In response to carnie's comment:

    Nick Cafardo is a gasbag



    He said something you didn't agree with, huh?




    Not necessarily. I just think he's a gasbag in general. The OP of this thread got deleted when the poster was banned.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Cafardo responds to his Mailbag

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    In response to carnie's comment:

    In response to prknsdnld's comment:

    In response to carnie's comment:

    Nick Cafardo is a gasbag



    He said something you didn't agree with, huh?




    Not necessarily. I just think he's a gasbag in general. The OP of this thread got deleted when the poster was banned.



    Why did the author of the OP get banned? He has been here for four days and bothered nobody and violated no forum rules. You know that Carnie. Meanwhile you started a thread about ADG which was a personal attack and were not banned. Why is that?




    No idea. It must be some kind of conspiracy. Or maybe it's just that no one likes you.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Cafardo responds to his Mailbag

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    In response to carnie's comment:

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    In response to carnie's comment:

    In response to prknsdnld's comment:

    In response to carnie's comment:

    Nick Cafardo is a gasbag



    He said something you didn't agree with, huh?




    Not necessarily. I just think he's a gasbag in general. The OP of this thread got deleted when the poster was banned.



    Why did the author of the OP get banned? He has been here for four days and bothered nobody and violated no forum rules. You know that Carnie. Meanwhile you started a thread about ADG which was a personal attack and were not banned. Why is that?




    No idea. It must be some kind of conspiracy. Or maybe it's just that no one likes you.

    Why did the author of the OP get banned? He has been here for four days and bothered nobody and violated no forum rules. You know that Carnie. Meanwhile you started a thread about ADG which was a personal attack and were not banned. Why is that?





    Like I said. I couldn't tell you. I have no idea. It's probably a conspiracy against you. I'd recommend you get out your tin foil hat and go sit in your closet.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Cafardo responds to his Mailbag

    Nope. Can't explain it. You would have to ask a moderator. My working theory is that there's a huge conspiracy against you personally and the FBI and CIA may be involved as well. You haven't seen any black helicopters outside your house lately have you?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Cafardo responds to his Mailbag

     

    Cherington always looks like as if the sun is bothering him.  Kinda like former President Bush (the one who poorly ran the Texas Rangers).  LOL

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Cafardo responds to his Mailbag

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    Why did the author of the OP get banned? He has been here for four days and bothered nobody and violated no forum rules. You know that Carnie. Meanwhile you started a thread about ADG which was a personal attack and were not banned. Why is that?




    Why do you keep asking me like I would know? Do you think I'm secretly J-BAY or something? Seriously you need to learn how to read. It's enough to make me miss the ignore button, even if having it brought andrewmitch running back here. At least he talked about baseball once in a while.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Cafardo responds to his Mailbag

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    Nothing sugar-coated, that's for sure. I think the sentiment he has applies to 90% of the fans. The other 10% are on this forum.



    Um, maybe we read different mailbags.  Can you link me to the one you read?  The one I read basically said "lets reserve judgement until we see this team play".  Which is exactly what i think, though I know you would put me in the 10% of Georom's bootlickers.  

    Very true.  He didn't sugar-coat anything.  However, he falls well short of the sort of ludicrous one-dimensional trashing you have given Cherrington.   



    He trashes BC, just does it nicely and what he doesn't say, speaks just as loudly.

    I suppose I HAVE been too hard on Ben, since it's not really clear who is calling the shots. He may be just doing what he is told to do.
    I do however, find it disturbing that Farrell doesn't seem to have had any say-so in player acquisitions. Guess those days are long gone, at least for the Sox.

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Cafardo responds to his Mailbag

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    Why did the author of the OP get banned? He has been here for four days and bothered nobody and violated no forum rules. You know that Carnie. Meanwhile you started a thread about ADG which was a personal attack and were not banned. Why is that?



    Pike, you have never answered:

    1. Why have you historically used multiple aliases concurrently?
    2. How do defend trying to identify posters' personal details?

    Why not?

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Cafardo responds to his Mailbag

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    Nothing sugar-coated, that's for sure. I think the sentiment he has applies to 90% of the fans. The other 10% are on this forum.



    Um, maybe we read different mailbags.  Can you link me to the one you read?  The one I read basically said "lets reserve judgement until we see this team play".  Which is exactly what i think, though I know you would put me in the 10% of Georom's bootlickers.  

    Very true.  He didn't sugar-coat anything.  However, he falls well short of the sort of ludicrous one-dimensional trashing you have given Cherrington.   



    He trashes BC, just does it nicely and what he doesn't say, speaks just as loudly.

    I suppose I HAVE been too hard on Ben, since it's not really clear who is calling the shots. He may be just doing what he is told to do.
    I do however, find it disturbing that Farrell doesn't seem to have had any say-so in player acquisitions. Guess those days are long gone, at least for the Sox.

     




    we don't know how much involvment JF has had with BC on the roster. i would imagine he had some input. maybe he was the one who pushed for dempster? we will never know. but to assume he has no input just because you haven't heard anything is just silly. BV probably had some input and it appears BC and BV hated each other. why would BC give BV input but not the guy he picked??

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Cafardo responds to his Mailbag

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    Nothing sugar-coated, that's for sure. I think the sentiment he has applies to 90% of the fans. The other 10% are on this forum.



    Um, maybe we read different mailbags.  Can you link me to the one you read?  The one I read basically said "lets reserve judgement until we see this team play".  Which is exactly what i think, though I know you would put me in the 10% of Georom's bootlickers.  

    Very true.  He didn't sugar-coat anything.  However, he falls well short of the sort of ludicrous one-dimensional trashing you have given Cherrington.   



    He trashes BC, just does it nicely and what he doesn't say, speaks just as loudly.

    I suppose I HAVE been too hard on Ben, since it's not really clear who is calling the shots. He may be just doing what he is told to do.
    I do however, find it disturbing that Farrell doesn't seem to have had any say-so in player acquisitions. Guess those days are long gone, at least for the Sox.

     



    Why do you make such wild assumptions?  We have no idea how much input Farrell has or hasn't had.  You find something you have zero knowledge of disturbing?  I mean, if anything, taking a wild but educated stab, I would say Farrell influenced the decision to not go for broke on a Grienke or a Sanchez.  Maybe with knowledge of Lester and Buchholz, his input was to stick with those guys as projected top of the rotation, thinking he knew how to return them to form.  I don't know.  This is just a wild speculation.  But I think it is funny to be disturbed by something you know nothing about.  

    And show me where Cafardo "trashes" BC.  He really doesn't.  

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Helloitsmeagain. Show Helloitsmeagain's posts

    Re: Cafardo responds to his Mailbag

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    Ike:

    He trashes BC, just does it nicely and what he doesn't say, speaks just as loudly.

    Your interpretation on trashing. How can what isn't said be debated?

    I suppose I HAVE been too hard on Ben, since it's not really clear who is calling the shots. He may be just doing what he is told to do.

    Speculation once more - not debateable, it is guesswork.


    I do however, find it disturbing that Farrell doesn't seem to have had any say-so in player acquisitions. Guess those days are long gone, at least for the Sox.

    How do you know that - speculation once again. What input is normal  for managers. Do you know that?

     



    pike, serious question.

    How do you keep track of which moniker you are posting under?

    Do you have multiple computers with sticky notes on top that tells you which name is linked with which computer?

    Just curious.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Cafardo responds to his Mailbag

    Actually, the Red Sox are a billion dollar corporation.  As many as 40 or 50 people will have a say in any given transaction, including Ben, his staff, statistical analysts, coaches, the manager, team doctors, people who do thorough background checks on players, people in baseball who have spent time with a given player, Lucchino, Henry, etc.  It amazes me how many people think Ben sits in a cubicle by himself with a laptop making trades like it's some Fantasy Baseball League.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Cafardo responds to his Mailbag

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    In response to Helloitsmeagain's comment:

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    Ike:

    He trashes BC, just does it nicely and what he doesn't say, speaks just as loudly.

    Your interpretation on trashing. How can what isn't said be debated?

    I suppose I HAVE been too hard on Ben, since it's not really clear who is calling the shots. He may be just doing what he is told to do.

    Speculation once more - not debateable, it is guesswork.


    I do however, find it disturbing that Farrell doesn't seem to have had any say-so in player acquisitions. Guess those days are long gone, at least for the Sox.

    How do you know that - speculation once again. What input is normal  for managers. Do you know that?

     



    pike, serious question.

    How do you keep track of which moniker you are posting under?

    Do you have multiple computers with sticky notes on top that tells you which name is linked with which computer?

    Just curious.




    Here I was hoping that you would respond to what was said instead of witch hunting. Did you bother to read it and comprehend it or was it too deep. You can always Google what speculation means.




    you could always google the link to the cafardo mailbag... and yet your still crying its not posted.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share