(12-19-2017, 03:21 PM)Senor Fantastico Wrote:

(12-19-2017, 11:01 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: 1. I'm not sure why Caldwell stuck with Gus so long, since it was obvious that Gus was a big part of the problem. The only two explanations that make sense are that either Khan overruled him or that Caldwell felt obligated (maybe even contractually) to Gus after promising him a full four years to turn the team around. I tend to think the second theory is the right one. The Jags roster going into 2013 was in such disarray that any good coaching prospect would demand such an assurance before taking the job. As bad as he turned out, Gus was a hot head coaching prospect after the 2012 season.

I’m fairly sure there was a point that Caldwell actually stated this or possibly heavily implied it.

---

I think a lot of people look at Caldwell’s FA acquisitions much to black and white. 

I’ve always been of the opinion that in the first few years many players were signed as short term placeholders and absolutely not meant to be long term pieces of the team.

Yes. Everytime one of these Caldwell threads comes around the anti-Caldwell portion of the board has collective amnesia about those articles that were published after Bradley was fired. 
Caldwell, without actually throwing his owner under the bus, implied that the decisions to both hire and to retain Bradley were made collectively between he, Shad, and Tony Khan.
Whether he'd do the same if it were solely up to him is open for speculation, but why make the distinction otherwise? 

Obligated, influenced, or fully on board regarding Bradley -   I still think he's acquired enough talent to deserve some praise.

---