Quote:1. The front office is saying 2 things.  1.  they want to build this into a successful team and 2. They want to change the culture of this team.  You can't preach that with the product they are putting on the field. I never heard the team say they won't spend in "FA.    The jags have very few fans and can use every one they can get trust me on that one.

 

2. I never said it was pathetic to give Caldwell a chance.  I don't have to wait it out like we did with Gene Smith to see if a train wreck is coming or not.  It's too early to tell either way. There is such a thing as being to patient and this team should know that by now

 

3.  My track record and so called "whining" has been right much more then your "wait X amount of years" and see what happens crap.  This team needs a quick turn around.  Your almost always wrong so I know you are use to it by now. 

 

Once again, those words are confusing you.  The front office isn't saying 2 different things.  You're just opting to ignore what they're actually saying, and trying to interpret it in a way that allows you to do what you usually do.  You fully expose your ignorance because you use the word they've used repeatedly.  They're BUILDING something.  Maybe in your little fantasy world, when someone BUILDS something, it's instantly done the minute they start the foundation.  In the real world where people with functional IQs reside, building something, especially something of quality, takes time and patience.  It's not rocket science they're preaching here, yet you seem to struggle to grasp the concept. 

 

Part of changing the culture of the team includes not overspending on overhyped free agents with names you recognize.  Eventually you'll figure that out, but it may take a while.

 

No, you said it's pathetic to preach patience.  So, when someone says you've got to give Caldwell time to allow his philosophy to take hold, that's preaching patience, which according to you is pathetic.  I know, confusing, but you're not terribly bright. 

 

Let's see if I've got this straight.  Your premature judgment of any situation has been more right than my position of not judging something until we've seen the end results?  So, if in the end after watching the process unfold, I come to the conclusion this isn't a good path we're headed down, I'm wrong because I agreed with you after allowing the evidence to mount?  Being first doesn't make you more right.  It just makes you look foolish if you turn out to be wrong. You get that, right?  Probably not.

---