RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Sports and Wrestling Worst pro-sports franchise?

Currently, not all time. Which one is the worst right now in ANY sport?

I nominate the Marlins. Jeffrey Loria and David Samson have no clue what they're doing. They fail in Montreal then go to Florida and trade away all the young players they got when they traded away all the World Series players. Go figure.



Any other nominees?????

You'll have to clue me in on what you mean by worst "franchise". Like, the management?

I wouldn't say the Marlins guys are complete dumbasses. They made the Clement trade to the Cubs and got a little known lefty prospect named Dontrelle Willis in return. That's turned out pretty damn well so far.

Their main problem is that they don't have the money to keep any of the big contract players. They're a lot like Oakland, in that they've now taken the approach of signing their young pitching prospects very early to long contracts, so that they can keep them around.

Personally, I think the Marlins have one of the best scouting groups in baseball. They draft well, the prospects they get in trades usually contribute, and they've got a direct plug into the latin american talent pool. So it's no suprise that they've assembled an excellent young rotation, stacked from top to bottom.

A.J Burnett
Josh Beckett
Mark Redman
Dontrelle Willis
Brad Penny

That is a devastating 1-5. You have the perfect assemblage of guys(2 lefties, 3 righties) who can beat you different ways. Redman jams you, Dontrelle Willis comes from right field making his fastball nearly impossible to pick up, and Burnett, Beckett and Penny are your classic flamethrowing righties with overpowering stuff.

If you get a consistent closer in there(Vladimir Nunez had a disastrous start to the season, but I wouldn't give up on him yet), that pitching staff will get you 80 wins in the NL guaranteed with even the shittiest of offenses.

What I also really like about the Marlins is that even if they do trade or lose their two biggest contracts next year(other than Pudge, who's gone without a doubt, and Castillo, who I doubt they'll get rid of), Mike Lowell and Derrek Lee, they have two young studs pegged to replace them, in Miguel Cabrera and Adrian Gonzalez(1st overall pick in the 2000 draft), who both not only can hit, but play gold glove caliber defense at their respective positions, and give you long term stability(both are only 20).

Did I mention they have a guy in triple a(Rob Stratton) who's leading the entire minor league's in homers with 27?

Any teams with the word Boston in front of their nicknames.

L.A Clippers and Arizona Cardinals.

They never win, they draft poorly, and they never resign their good players.

I was thinking about the Bengals, but like you say, Marvin Lewis was a great sign, and afterall, they did have a Super Bowl team in the mid 80's. The Arizona Cardinals have had 1 playoff appearance, and the Los Angeles Clippers 3. Both teams have finished above .500 only once.

They also had a Super Bowl team in the 90's too. Like you said the Clips and Cards are the worst.

One team that nobody ever mentions but is as poorly run as it gets is the Minnesota Timberwolves. They've been able to hide behind the fact that Kevin Garnett can make any group of losers look good. But they lost so many draft picks for Joe freakin' Smith! KG deserves so much better.

Has anyone seen the Detroit Tigers play this year? Sheesh, I wonder if Trammel knew what he was getting into.....

I love how Detroit pushed in their fences AFTER losing their home run hitters.

The Bengals are my home team....the bengals have sucked since Mike Brown took over the team from his deceased father Paul. unlike other owners football is his only business. Other owners own companies or other businesses besides the team they own. brown only has his team. So to him it's his profit and income. as long as the owner lives off the team's bottom line...the bengals will only have good enough players to keep the team reasonably profitable. they may make the playoffs at some time, but unless the commissioner steps in they will never have a superbowl calibre team...

Currently, I'd have to say the Detroit Tigers. They're on pace to break the record for most losses in a season. The Cavs sucked ass last year too, buuut they did sign Lebron, and they have some players Silas can work with. So themonly winning 12 again isn't too likely.

I still nominate the Cincinnati Bengals. Marvin may be a great coach...but he may not be. Until the evidence to suggest otherwise is on the field, the Bengals are still the Bungles.

Why are they worse than the Arizona Cardinals? Because the Cardinals made the playoffs back in 98, while the Bengals are currently on the board with the longest current playoff drought.

Oh, the Bengals fielded TWO Super Bowl teams in the 80s, 1981 and 88. But that was when Paul Brown was alive and Free Agency was simply a player's wet dream.

--Jim

But unlike the Cards, the Bengals have kept around some of their star players(like Corey Dillon), and the Bengals actually had a good draft this past year(while the Cards continued to baffle fans, players, and draft gurus everywhere).

Somebody mentioned that the Bengals had the worst overall record for the nineties, which I believe was true, but does anybody know who the beat (and I think it was only by one loss) for that distinction? The LA/St Louis Rams, which goes to prove that just about fucking anything can happen these days...

Animalman said:"But unlike the Cards, the Bengals have kept around some of their star players(like Corey Dillon), and the Bengals actually had a good draft this past year(while the Cards continued to baffle fans, players, and draft gurus everywhere)."

Drafts cannot be evaluated in any meaningful way until the players actually play in a real game.

Yes, the Cards have lost some players, and the Bengals have kept some of theirs...but what good did it do? Nada.

I have a buddy who's a Bengals fan--I am a Browns' fan--and he kept going on about how the Bengals would be in the playoffs before the Browns (nope) and how the Bengals would get a Monday Night Football game before the Browns (nope, Browns host Rams this coming season, on my birthday no less). He was nice enough to invite me down last year to watch the Browns beat the Bengals in the Nati.

I still say Bengals worse than Cardinals, but it is close.

Jim

between sosa and baker id have to say the cubs!

I'm an Ohioan who grew up a Bengals fan, living near Cincinnati. However, by the mid90s, I was through with them. I turned my sights to the new Browns in 1999, feeling a fresh start with better ownership with a team in Ohio was a good way to stay involved in the NFL.

I have also heard the story that Mike ultimately got rid of anyone associated with the Victoria C. case, including Wyche (since it happened under his watch).

But I have also heard that Mike let the Bengals fall into competitive poverty during the early 90s in order for him to put $ toward buying out all of the original partners that were in place when Paul Brown was awarded the team in 1967. The goal and understanding had been from Day One that Paul and/or Mike would buy out these partners so that eventually only a Brown would own the Bengals. Paul came up with this idea because he never wanted to see him or his sons displaced by someone else; he never wanted a repeat of someone firing a Brown, as had happened under Art Modell in 1962 in Cleveland, when Modell bought the team and fired Paul.

So Mike Brown focused the Bengals' capital on ownership and control of the team, not only players in the early 90s. Once Mike owned the team outright, Mike told Cincinnati: I want a new stadium for the Bengals or we'll leave. The city voted and paid for what has been a football White Elephant (but it's a nice place to watch a game).

Mike's not an evil man. He just does not realize that his knowledge of football is insufficient to put together a quality team. Hiring Marvin Lewis has been outright radical for the Bengals (Mike even admitted they'd NEVER interviewed a black man for head coach).

While it looks like the dawn of a new day Bengal fans, it remains to be seen. Mike's still there, and Marvin's a novice.

Go Browns!

--Jim

Marvin's a novice as the head coach, maybe, but his record as a defensive coordinator speaks for itself.

Yes, his rep speaks for itself as a coodinator. Lots of "hot" coordinators end up failing as head coaches. Marvin may end up there. Who knows? Proof will be in the pudding.

--Jim

Just about every coach in the NFL had to start somewhere, though, usually as a coordinator.

That's true, and I'm not saying that Marvin will fail. But I think Bengal fans need to temper their enthusiasm (which should be natural and easy by now).

But as a Browns fan, I'm still hoping the Bengals keep to their unwinning ways...

And I'd much rather have a head coach be a guy who's been a head coach somewhere else first (like Jim Tressel or Butch Davis, both of whom had success here in Ohio in 2002...).

--Jim

When you've been watching the Bengals for the past decade, I think even the slightest thing can make you enthusiastic.

How sad for you...

--Jim

I'm not from Cincy. I was speaking generally.