PDA

View Full Version : Name the worst MLB franchise of the 2000's.



fearofpopvol1
08-25-2009, 09:39 PM
Who is worse than the Reds (if they're not the worst)? The Pirates? Royals? Expos/Nationals? Maybe the Orioles? Blue Jays? I think at least the Royals are headed in the right direction as are the O's.

I realize it's tough to fully categorize what you're basing "worst" on...yearly record, playoff appearances, drafts, trades, farm systems/player development etc.

No matter what, you'd have to say the Reds are at least top 5 worst franchises this decade, right?

Discuss.

11larkin11
08-25-2009, 09:42 PM
Over/Under how many people say Reds?

My vote definitely goes to the Pirates

Highlifeman21
08-25-2009, 09:45 PM
I voted Royals.

They're the suck we can only dream to be.

cincrazy
08-25-2009, 09:46 PM
My vote goes to the Pirates, fairly easily. That's how bad they've been. The Royals have also been terrible, on pace to lose 100 games for the fifth time this decade I think I read today, which is just amazing, when you consider the fact the Reds haven't lost 100 games once this decade, and only once in franchise history if I remember correctly. We've been bad... but not the worst.

westofyou
08-25-2009, 10:20 PM
The Royals are your Daddy's KC A's, your Grandaddy's Philadelphia Phillies, your Great Grand Daddy's Cleveland Spiders.

The Reds aren't even in their league.

REDREAD
08-25-2009, 10:21 PM
I voted for the Reds, although a strong argument can be made for other teams

Really, the only thing that has seperated the Reds from the Pirates is a few better reclamation project signings, and slightly better GMing over the decade. The Reds have clearly the worst ownership of the 2000's.

TheNext44
08-25-2009, 10:43 PM
The Royals hands down. Not even close.

Unlike the other teams, they actually have tried to win every year this decade. They have spent the money both in Free Agency and the draft every year, and they still are barely more talented than an average AAA team.

Their signing of Juan Cruz to a two year deal, which cost them a second round draft pick, and trading prospects for Betancourt sums it all up. They never learn.

Danny Serafini
08-25-2009, 10:44 PM
The Pirates have only finished ahead of the Reds once this entire decade. Anyone voting Reds is doing so out of such anger at the situation that they've become irrational. They're bad, but they're not Pirates bad.

westofyou
08-25-2009, 10:45 PM
http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/08/24/breaking-point/


Breaking Point

Posted: August 24th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 57 Comments

Lots more to say on this as the week goes on … but something crystalized for me while watching the Kansas City Royals lose to Cleveland tonight. And it is something a bit surprising for me. I have seen a lot of bad baseball since coming to Kansas City in 1996. I have seen a 19-game losing streak, and players head for the dugout while a fly ball were still in mid-air and a centerfielder climb the wall on a ground-rule double that bounced 5 feet in front of him. I have seen a team so bad they did not have a single starter with an ERA lower than 5.00. I have seen a team so bad they started someone no one ever heard of — including players on the team — at Yankee Stadium. I have seen a team so bad that the first baseman simply quit in the middle of the year.

So I say this while knowing precisely what the words mean …

This is the worst Kansas City Royals team I have ever seen

RedFanAlways1966
08-25-2009, 10:50 PM
Just looking at the National League I put together a point system. Can be argued of course, but best I could think of doing. Might put a different perspective for those voting for the REDS. Pirates fans want to speak with you. Total points based on:

(1) Record by each year. Best record gets 16 points, worse record gets only 1 point (15 points for 2nd best record, etc.).

(2) Playoffs each year. 10 points for making it and losing in round one. 15 points for loser of NLCS. 25 points if lost in Word Series and 50 points if World Champs.

NL RANK 2000-2008
(1) St. Louis 248
(2) Arizona 170
(3) Atlanta 167
(4) Philadelphia 156
(5) Houston 148
(6) San Francisco 133
(7) Los Angeles 128
(8) New York 127
(9) Florida 124
(10) Chicago 109
(11) San Diego 87
(12) Colorado 80
(13) Milwaukee 63
(14) REDS 54
(15) Mont./Wash. 42
(16) Pittsburgh 28

WMR
08-25-2009, 10:57 PM
Perhaps the Royals and/or Pirates are technically worse, but the Reds are the team I have to watch and read about every day, hence they get my vote.

fearofpopvol1
08-25-2009, 11:18 PM
The Royals hands down. Not even close.

Unlike the other teams, they actually have tried to win every year this decade. They have spent the money both in Free Agency and the draft every year, and they still are barely more talented than an average AAA team.

Their signing of Juan Cruz to a two year deal, which cost them a second round draft pick, and trading prospects for Betancourt sums it all up. They never learn.

you feel like the pirates have actually tried to win this whole decade?

KoryMac5
08-26-2009, 12:06 AM
Pirates got my vote by a mile. They don't put a very good product on the field and make horrible trades. Just look at the Aramis Ramirez, Jason Bay and Nate McLouth trades as evidence. Throw in Matt Morris as well for good measure while eating the rest of his horrible contract. If you add in some of their draft choices like Burlington, Moskos, and Lincoln you have the makings of the worst franchise in baseball.

I agree with Danny Serafini in that anyone voting for the Reds is voting out of frustration.

redsfandan
08-26-2009, 06:08 AM
Unfortunately, I shouldn't have voted first. I voted for the Bucs and they would be my choice for the NL but KC would be be my choice for worst team in all of the majors in the 90's.

The Baumer
08-26-2009, 06:44 AM
I voted Reds because no other team has caused me more pain.

mth123
08-26-2009, 06:46 AM
For the decade as a whole, I think it has to be the Pirates, but they seem to have passed the Reds now.

Ltlabner
08-26-2009, 08:29 AM
I voted Pirates simply based on their sheer wackiness and duration of the suckness. But anyone saying the Reds are somehow substantially different as an organization this decade is simply fooling themselves.

Tornon
08-26-2009, 09:01 AM
you feel like the pirates have actually tried to win this whole decade?

I think that was the point, the Reds/Pirates haven't really tried all that hard to win while the Royals have by spending resources & are still terrible

fearofpopvol1
08-26-2009, 12:42 PM
I think that was the point, the Reds/Pirates haven't really tried all that hard to win while the Royals have by spending resources & are still terrible

see, i disagree with that. even though the royals have failed, at least they have tried to improve their club. it's a lot better than standing pat and doing a lot of garbage diving, even if the royals' decisions are/were poor.

SunDeck
08-26-2009, 12:51 PM
Just like the entire South is happy for the existence of Mississippi, the Reds have the Pirates to thank for keeping them off the bottom of the barrel.

RedFanAlways1966
08-26-2009, 02:07 PM
(1) Record by each year. Best record gets 16 points, worse record gets only 1 point (15 points for 2nd best record, etc.).

(2) Playoffs each year. 10 points for making it and losing in round one. 15 points for loser of NLCS. 25 points if lost in Word Series and 50 points if World Champs.

NL RANK 2000-2008
(1) St. Louis 248
(2) Arizona 170
(3) Atlanta 167
(4) Philadelphia 156
(5) Houston 148
(6) San Francisco 133
(7) Los Angeles 128
(8) New York 127
(9) Florida 124
(10) Chicago 109
(11) San Diego 87
(12) Colorado 80
(13) Milwaukee 63
(14) REDS 54
(15) Mont./Wash. 42
(16) Pittsburgh 28

AL RANK 2000-2008
(1) NewYork 261
(2) Boston 231
(3) Anaheim 187
(4) Chicago 160
(5) Oakland 148
(6) Minnesota 123
(7) Cleveland 104
(8) Seattle 97
(9) Detroit 74
(10) Tampa Bay 60
(11) Toronto 60
(12) Texas 47
(13) Baltimore 35
(14) Kansas City 23


Bottom 5 Teams
(1) Kansas City 23
(2) Pittsburgh 28
(3) Baltimore 35
(4) Mont./Wash. 42
(5) Texas 47

REDREAD
08-26-2009, 02:48 PM
see, i disagree with that. even though the royals have failed, at least they have tried to improve their club. it's a lot better than standing pat and doing a lot of garbage diving, even if the royals' decisions are/were poor.


That's my thought too. Trying to win elevates a franchise above the teams that simply do not even try to win. At least ownership is willing to spend the money. That gives one hope that if the team ever got a competent GM, things could improve.

Seeing Cast willing to sign/get Arroyo, Harang, Phillips, Rolen, and Cordero gives me a glimmer of hope he actually wants to win. Allen and Lindner would've never approved any of those deals.

15fan
08-26-2009, 05:13 PM
Lots of ways to define worst.

If you go by total wins (as of the start of play today 8/26/09), the bottom 5 are:

5. Washington - 697 wins
4. Baltimore - 685 wins
3. Tampa - 679 wins
2. Pittsburgh - 671 wins
1. Kansas City - 655 wins

Reds are 8th worst at 726 wins, behind (ahead of?) Detroit (710 wins) and Milwaukee (722 wins).

Another way is the lowest single season win total of any team in the decade. That distinction belongs to Detroit. They won...43 games in 2003. By comparison, Cincinnati's lowest win total this decade was 2001 with 66 wins.

Yet another way to look at it to see what team has the lowest single season win total in the year in which they won the most games in the decade. Here's the bottom 5:

1. Pittsburgh - 75 wins (2003)
2. Baltimore - 78 wins (2004)
3 (tie). Kansas City and Washington - 83 wins (2003 for KC and 2002/2003 for Washington).
5. Cincinnati - 85 wins (2000)

To give you some context, 7 franchises (NYY, STL, LAA, ATL, OAK, SF & SEA) have won 100+ games in a single season at least once this decade. 9 franchises (DET, TAM, CHC, AZ, NYM, CLE, MIN, CHW, and BOS) have won 95-99 games at least once in the decade. 5 franchises (MIL, COL, FLA, HOU & LAD) have won 90-94 games at least once this decade.

I'd have to give my vote to Pittsburgh. Even in their best year this decade, they were 6 games under .500.

fearofpopvol1
08-26-2009, 07:06 PM
Lots of ways to define worst.

If you go by total wins (as of the start of play today 8/26/09), the bottom 5 are:

5. Washington - 697 wins
4. Baltimore - 685 wins
3. Tampa - 679 wins
2. Pittsburgh - 671 wins
1. Kansas City - 655 wins

Reds are 8th worst at 726 wins, behind (ahead of?) Detroit (710 wins) and Milwaukee (722 wins).

Another way is the lowest single season win total of any team in the decade. That distinction belongs to Detroit. They won...43 games in 2003. By comparison, Cincinnati's lowest win total this decade was 2001 with 66 wins.

Yet another way to look at it to see what team has the lowest single season win total in the year in which they won the most games in the decade. Here's the bottom 5:

1. Pittsburgh - 75 wins (2003)
2. Baltimore - 78 wins (2004)
3 (tie). Kansas City and Washington - 83 wins (2003 for KC and 2002/2003 for Washington).
5. Cincinnati - 85 wins (2000)

To give you some context, 7 franchises (NYY, STL, LAA, ATL, OAK, SF & SEA) have won 100+ games in a single season at least once this decade. 9 franchises (DET, TAM, CHC, AZ, NYM, CLE, MIN, CHW, and BOS) have won 95-99 games at least once in the decade. 5 franchises (MIL, COL, FLA, HOU & LAD) have won 90-94 games at least once this decade.

I'd have to give my vote to Pittsburgh. Even in their best year this decade, they were 6 games under .500.

Interesting assessment, but I think any team that makes the playoffs (Milwaukee) or the World Series (Tampa Bay) once this decade automatically isn't the worst. Especially when it's been in recent memory.

15fan
08-26-2009, 08:39 PM
Interesting assessment, but I think any team that makes the playoffs (Milwaukee) or the World Series (Tampa Bay) once this decade automatically isn't the worst. Especially when it's been in recent memory.

Yep.

Add the Tigers to that list. Sure, they had the fewest wins in a single season of any team this decade. But they also went to the WS.

westofyou
08-26-2009, 09:39 PM
CAREER
2000-2008

WINNING PERCENTAGE displayed only--not a sorting criteria
NEUTRAL WINS displayed only--not a sorting criteria
NEUTRAL LOSSES displayed only--not a sorting criteria

LOSSES L PCT N_W N_L
1 Royals 851 .416 692 766
2 Rays 845 .419 683 772
3 Pirates 837 .425 681 775
4 Orioles 822 .435 689 767
5 Tigers 814 .441 704 753
6 Nationals 805 .447 741 716
7 Brewers 796 .454 722 735
8 Reds 785 .462 709 749
9 Rockies 782 .464 746 713
10 Rangers 769 .473 698 760