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.
Last edited by fearofpopvol1; 08-25-2009 at 08:42 PM.
Over/Under how many people say Reds?
My vote definitely goes to the Pirates
Domo Arigato, Here Comes Joey Votto
---TRF
"I do what I want to do and say what I want to say."
--Bronson Arroyo
I voted Royals.
They're the suck we can only dream to be.
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.
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.
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.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
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.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein
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.
http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009...reaking-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
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
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.
you feel like the pirates have actually tried to win this whole decade?Originally Posted by TheNext44
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.
If you have a losing record at Reds games, please stop going.
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.
Last edited by redsfandan; 08-26-2009 at 06:15 AM. Reason: cuz apparently i can't spell when i'm buzzed
I voted Reds because no other team has caused me more pain.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote