DrDawkinstein Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 Im sure SOME of you will be surprised to find the Bills are NOT on the list... ha! I was able to guess #1, and i dont even follow that sport
bills_fan Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 Im sure SOME of you will be surprised to find the Bills are NOT on the list... ha! I was able to guess #1, and i dont even follow that sport No list is complete without the Knicks!
Steely Dan Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 Im sure SOME of you will be surprised to find the Bills are NOT on the list... ha! I was able to guess #1, and i dont even follow that sport Same here! I'm not a real BB fan but when I saw your post that you guessed it I tried to see if I could and I did. No list is complete without the Knicks! They must have come in at 11. It is curious why they aren't on that list though. I guess the question is who take off the list to replace them with. I'm a casual Red Wings fan and this piece from the article bodes well for the Wings! (They are the Twins AAA farm team.) 7. Minnesota Twins "Moneyball" is to baseball what frugal is to cheap; it's a creative way of saying, "we're not going to pay for our stars or reward our veterans who have earned their keep." Sabermetrics and scientific stats are used to evaluate players and give a better indication of their worth, but teams like the Minnesota Twins use this strategy to kiss their superstars goodbye at the trade deadline or the first day of free agency. The Twins constantly sell proven veterans for prospects and draft picks, but when those youngsters finally develop, they get shipped away to start the cycle again. The Twins incessantly look to the future and winning now is not a priority. Translation: the Twins care more about the dollars than about winning. Ahh, to be young and innocent enough to believe the Twins have a shot. (David Sherman / Getty Images) Puzzling personnel plays: Trading Johan Santana and failing to re-sign Torii Hunter.
SilverNRed Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 Same here! I'm not a real BB fan but when I saw your post that you guessed it I tried to see if I could and I did. They must have come in at 11. It is curious why they aren't on that list though. I guess the question is who take off the list to replace them with. I'm a casual Red Wings fan and this piece from the article bodes well for the Wings! (They are the Twins AAA farm team.) 7. Minnesota Twins "Moneyball" is to baseball what frugal is to cheap; it's a creative way of saying, "we're not going to pay for our stars or reward our veterans who have earned their keep." Sabermetrics and scientific stats are used to evaluate players and give a better indication of their worth, but teams like the Minnesota Twins use this strategy to kiss their superstars goodbye at the trade deadline or the first day of free agency. The Twins constantly sell proven veterans for prospects and draft picks, but when those youngsters finally develop, they get shipped away to start the cycle again. The Twins incessantly look to the future and winning now is not a priority. Translation: the Twins care more about the dollars than about winning. Ahh, to be young and innocent enough to believe the Twins have a shot. (David Sherman / Getty Images) Puzzling personnel plays: Trading Johan Santana and failing to re-sign Torii Hunter. The problem with whining about the Twins is that they are consistantly a winning team and are currently in first place in their division. It didn't make sense for them to give Torii Hunter $18M a year for the next five years and as good as Santana is, paying him that much for that long doesn't make sense for a mid-market team. They're also building a brand new stadium. Calling them the 7th worst franchise in sports is ridiculous.
/dev/null Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 Ahh, to be young and innocent enough to believe the Twins have a shot. (David Sherman / Getty Images) :lol: I'm not a baseball fan so I don't know which teams are good and which teams suck. But that quote right there was cold
Typical TBD Guy Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 A special thanks to Bill Polian for keeping our Bills off that list.
Albany,n.y. Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 How can any worst 10 not include the Cincinnati Bengals? Bad on the field, bad off the field.
shrader Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 The problem with whining about the Twins is that they are consistantly a winning team and are currently in first place in their division. It didn't make sense for them to give Torii Hunter $18M a year for the next five years and as good as Santana is, paying him that much for that long doesn't make sense for a mid-market team. They're also building a brand new stadium. Calling them the 7th worst franchise in sports is ridiculous. And how many teams can claim they've won 2 championships in the last 20 years? Sure, its been a while, but look at all the teams who have never even come close to that.
KD in CA Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 And how many teams can claim they've won 2 championships in the last 20 years? Sure, its been a while, but look at all the teams who have never even come close to that. Beat me to it...agree that it's absurd to put the Twins on that list.
Chef Jim Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 The Clips left Buffalo to go to San Deigo. That alone should move them way down the list..or even off of it.
bills_fan Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 The problem with whining about the Twins is that they are consistantly a winning team and are currently in first place in their division. It didn't make sense for them to give Torii Hunter $18M a year for the next five years and as good as Santana is, paying him that much for that long doesn't make sense for a mid-market team. They're also building a brand new stadium. Calling them the 7th worst franchise in sports is ridiculous. The real problem with the Twins is their multi-billionaire owner Carl Pohlad (who has more money than most, if not all, MLB owners and is in his 80s) won't spend any money on the team. Hey Carl...you can't take it with you!!
Buftex Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 No list is complete without the Knicks! I completely agree. They should be #1, as far as I am comcerned. They are profitable, because of their location, but that has to be one of the very worst run franchises of the last 10 years. Some of the other teams on the list have built in problems (ie: their location) that their ownership has to overcome. In some of these cases those financial considerations affect the product. The Knicks have no such excuses...it is simply one piss poor managment and personnel decision after another with the Knicks. I have a feeling Donnie Walsh will return them to respectability, but an NBA team in NYC can't be as awful as the Knicks have been....
Bmwolf21 Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 The real problem with the Twins is their multi-billionaire owner Carl Pohlad (who has more money than most, if not all, MLB owners and is in his 80s) won't spend any money on the team. Hey Carl...you can't take it with you!! Exactly. Their last WS title and pennant came in 1991. This multi-billionaire was practically begging MLB to contract the Twins back in 2002. Combine that with a refusal/inability to lock up any of their big-ticket players and not trying to make a team better that has been at the top of the Central for much of the 2000s (four division titles since 2002 and they let guys like Santana and Hunter go) and it's easy to understand why they're on that list.
HopsGuy Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 And how many teams can claim they've won 2 championships in the last 20 years? Sure, its been a while, but look at all the teams who have never even come close to that. If I go back to 1987 it's 21, right? NHL Edmonton ('87 '88 '90) Pittsburgh ('91 '92) New Jersey ('95 '00) Detroit ('97 '98 '02) Colorado ('96 '01) NBA Los Angeles Lakers ('87 '88 '00 '01 '02) Detroit ('89 '90 '04) Chicago ('91 '92 '93 '96 '97 '98) Houston ('94 '95) San Antonio ('99 '03 '05 '07) MLB Minnesota ('87 '91) Toronto ('92 '93) New York Yankees ('96 '98 '99 '00) Florida ('97 '03) Boston ('04 '07) NFL Washington ('87 '91) San Francisco ('88 '89 '94) New York Giants ('90 '07) Dallas ('92 '93 '95) Denver ('97 '98) New England ('01 '03 '04) The sticking point for me is that the Montreal Expos / Washington Nationals get a pass. They were supposed to be contracted with the Twins. MLB bought the team, stuck HOFer Frank Robinson in there, and then moved them to DC. They have Zimmerman, but let the Mets take some of their young talent (Ryan Church & Brian Schneider) for Lastings Milledge. It's like everyone says it's okay they're losing as if they're a new expansion team. Now they've got a brand new, publicly funded home to stink up? WTF? Q: From whom did MLB buy the team? A: Art collector, Jeffrey Loria current owner of the Florida Marlins (payroll = $14M). Q: Who sold the Marlins to Loria? A: Hedge Fund manager, John Henry current owner of the Boston Red Sox (payroll = >$150M). I have no idea what any of that means, but it's interesting.
bartshan-83 Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 If I go back to 1987 it's 21, right? NHL Edmonton ('87 '88 '90) Pittsburgh ('91 '92) New Jersey ('95 '00) Detroit ('97 '98 '02) Colorado ('96 '01) NBA Los Angeles Lakers ('87 '88 '00 '01 '02) Detroit ('89 '90 '04) Chicago ('91 '92 '93 '96 '97 '98) Houston ('94 '95) San Antonio ('99 '03 '05 '07) MLB Minnesota ('87 '91) Toronto ('92 '93) New York Yankees ('96 '98 '99 '00) Florida ('97 '03) Boston ('04 '07) NFL Washington ('87 '91) San Francisco ('88 '89 '94) New York Giants ('90 '07) Dallas ('92 '93 '95) Denver ('97 '98) New England ('01 '03 '04) Nice job compiling that list. I've discussed this with friends before, but that NBA list is just NUTS. Besides the Heat winning in '06, those 5 teams are the only teams to win NBA championships in the last 20 years. 5 teams won 20 of 21 championships. Back it up a little further and only 8 teams have won since 1980. And it's very likely (if not probable) that one of those 8 teams will win again this year. Truly the league of Dynasties...
Mark Long Beach Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 Nice job compiling that list. I've discussed this with friends before, but that NBA list is just NUTS. Besides the Heat winning in '06, those 5 teams are the only teams to win NBA championships in the last 20 years. 5 teams won 20 of 21 championships. Back it up a little further and only 8 teams have won since 1980. And it's very likely (if not probable) that one of those 8 teams will win again this year. Truly the league of Dynasties... Yup. Basketball is a much smaller team sport. Only about 8 players have any impact for the whole game. Getting one transcendent player makes a huge difference. There's a few of them in the NBA. But they need a couple good support people and a good coach. That doesn't always happens. But once it does, that group often succeeds very well for a few years. Tim Duncan and the Spurs are unusual in that they've won a lot of championships (4) but never back to back. So he's done it with different players alongside of him. Albeit with the same, very good coach. To further add to the streaky nature of the NBA. Even if you extend further back in history, You'll end up including the Celtics with 16 total titles. Three in the '80s and of course the streak of 11 in 13 years through the late 50's and 60s.
stuckincincy Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 How can any worst 10 not include the Cincinnati Bengals? Bad on the field, bad off the field. Not enough room at the inn... The difference between Paul Brown, and his son Mike, is breathtaking...
/dev/null Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 How can any worst 10 not include the Cincinnati Bengals? Or the Brussels Cows
Recommended Posts