BD's 15 Worst Franchises in Sports - Page 6

bernie · #51 10-31-2006, 02:39 AM

Seattle Mariners.

[ QUOTE ]
The following is based on numerous categories, including ownership, talent, production, stadium, affordability, coaching, and hotness of the cheerleaders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership sucks. Basically throughout the history. Was a MLB farm team for a long time. Still is, in a way. No stars really stay. But the old, broken down ones seem to find a home here on their way out.

Production: Out of 30 years, how many winning seasons? Not alot.

Stadium: Don't get me started with that fiasco.

b

Spellmen · #52 10-31-2006, 03:11 AM

This makes no sense. You obviously have some teams you consider all time worst run, some that are worst run in the past few years, etc

Green Kool Aid · #53 10-31-2006, 03:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Portland Trail Blazers

[/ QUOTE ]

Portland's site is surprisingly upbeat so far. Many of the fans are expecting a rise to mediocrity this year.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

jarret jack - brandon roy- martell webbster- zach randolph- lamarcus aldridge looks like it could be a really nice starting 5 in a couple of years.

people love criticizing them, but they really haven't taken long to get a really good young nucleus following the rasheed crew that was so good every year.

if you want to talk about taking a while to rebuild following a dynasty, look at the chicago bulls. they still suck.

FlyWf · #54 10-31-2006, 02:54 PM

"if you want to talk about taking a while to rebuild following a dynasty, look at the chicago bulls. they still suck."

Buh? They are like the 4th best team in the East.

This is a terrible list, the Trail Blazers made the playoffs for like 15 straight years. They suck now because sportswriters with an axe to grind threw a fit every time a Blazer got caught with a joint and eventually racist/stupid/whiny fans forced the front office to get a new cast of less talented house [censored] in, though now they've got a decent young core.

I assume BobOjedaFan is trolling, because the point of Moneyball wasn't that scouts are useless but rather than scouts are wrong. And a healthy portion of baseball players are never drafted, finding good foriegn amateurs is pure scouting acumen.

Brian707 · #55 10-31-2006, 04:48 PM

Id take what the Marlins have done in their history 13 years over what the Cubs have done in the last 98.

My bottom 5 franchises(present day)

1. Blackhawks
2. Arizona Cards
3. Kansas City Royals
4. NY Knicks
5. Pittsburgh Pirates

CarlSpackler · #56 10-31-2006, 05:30 PM

As bad as the Arizona Cardinals have been run seemingly forever, they actually have a very good nucleus of young talent to build around. If they take care of their atrocious oline, they should have a very potent offense the next few years.

The Browns on the other hand, are the worst run franchise in the nfl easily. Look at their drafts since they got their team back. How many players from their first 5 drafts are still on their roster, lol? Obviously, the Lions, Raiders, 49ers, and Texans are right up there with Cleveland. The Saints would be right their too if they hadn't luckboxed into getting Bush and Brees.

The Royals, Devil Rays, and Pirates deserve to be on this list, but the Cubs are right up their with them as well. No mlb team does less with more resources.

Golden St., the Knicks, and Hawks, are all bunched together as the winner for worst run nba franchise imo.

Eagles · #57 10-31-2006, 05:36 PM

The Lions should be much higher
The Raptors are not that bad
The Vikings are not bad.
I may be speaking too soon but the Dodgers and Phillies seem to be turning it around.
I would add the Cubs to the list.
Also random observation, if this list was made last year the Mets would be right near the top.

MyTurn2Raise · #58 10-31-2006, 05:36 PM

yeah...the thing is this is the first time the Cards have shown any life in building a team.
I'm still skeptical that they made the beginning token moves to sell out the new stadium for awhile, but will revert to their normal self rather than build the oline in the future.

capone0 · #59 10-31-2006, 05:38 PM

9ers made the playoffs in 2002 with a 10-6 record. They then gutted their offensive unit. They have now gutted their team but I'm pretty sure their nowhere near as bad as some of the other teams in the league. Yes over the last 3 years they've been awful but before that they had multiple pro bowlers who of course are old now. This is what happens when during 1 off season, you not only decide to get rid of your All-Pro Receiver but your Pro Bowl Quarterback on top of your top running back being let go. They were very stupid to do that, but obviously they are rebuilding.

They are now just working on the offense. They let go of their best defensive player, Peterson, who is one of the best OLBs in the league. They let him go due to money issues. The team wants to get under the cap after being in cap hell for years. In the next coming years we can finally sign FAs and we are starting to draft well. Last year we drafted exceptionally I think with Gore and Smith. This year Davis has been hurt but really helps the O spread the field and Lawson is starting to learn the D (he played DE in college and is now an OLB). The team has a long way to go, but we are atleast moving somewhere. We have a Core of 3 soon to be "stars (I hope atleast)" in Smith, Gore and Davis on the O, and the team must work on D through the draft and FA. This is how the Cowboys built up a long time ago and how the Colts, Chargers, etc. built up. It just takes time. The 9ers are starting to have a core. Maybe not as good as the Cardinal one but they are moving in some sort of direction.

Smith is only 22 and Gore is 23. Smith is starting to actually look good this year and has gotten a ton better with Turner as the OC.

BigSoonerFan · #60 10-31-2006, 05:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This list is horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. No hyperbole at all...this list is horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you know any list that includes hotness of cheerleaders has to be pretty subjective!