Worst Pro Sports team? [Archive]

CMQ

07-31-2006, 05:48 PM

Okay, fellow space travellers, we need a good old fashioned Sports Bar Argument, here.

Which is the worst professional team among the four major sports today? NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB. I don't mean just this year, but which sports team has the longest and most distinguished record of ineptitude/incompentence over the course of time?

For me, it's gotta be the Arizona Cardinals. They sucked in Chicago, they sucked in St. Louis, and they suck now. And it all comes back to ownership. Bill Bidwell is an idiot. Other bad teams have had their day or become challengers for success every once in a while. At the very least, like the Cubs, they've made themselves into a group of lovable losers. It's fun to suffer if you're a Cubbie, but the Cards can't even manage to make themselves lovable.

Fire at will, sports fans. Your thoughts?

kevin

07-31-2006, 05:52 PM

until this year, the clippers have always stood as the role model for sports futility. i'd say the royals have a good chance to do the same in the mlb.

Matt B.

07-31-2006, 05:55 PM

The New Orleans Saints are one of the worst teams ever.

:bang:

07-31-2006, 06:52 PM

cubs :-X

The mayor of Albuquerque

07-31-2006, 06:56 PM

NBA: Atlanta Hawks ( winning the honorary L.A. Clipper award)
MLB: K.C. Royals
NFL: Arizona Cardinals.
Honorable mention: Detroit Lions.

the 'house always wins

07-31-2006, 06:56 PM

although they don't have quite the longterm losing pedigree of others, my nomination is the tampa bay devil rays...is there a single devil rays fan in the world?

Rekart

07-31-2006, 07:00 PM

Right, and Tampa Bay has NEVER been any good, and most of these others team have had at least one or two good seasons. It's not like they're a third year team, they've been around long enough to have built something, and they haven't.

Spartan

07-31-2006, 07:27 PM

until this year, the clippers have always stood as the role model for sports futility. i'd say the royals have a good chance to do the same in the mlb.

dunno if you can have a two time pennant and a world championship franchise, and a winning record in 03 and call it a clipper esque mlb franchise.

mayo

07-31-2006, 07:31 PM

is there a single devil rays fan in the world?
i was at a mall in florida and saw a kid with a devil rays jersey on. i laughed, then kinda felt sorry for him.

royals have been pretty bad for a while now

kevin

07-31-2006, 07:33 PM

i was reffering more to the present and future royals. they're on their way. they basically have no foundation of young players or anything to build on. they are just castoffs from other teams. they could be a losing team for many years to come unless things change dramatically.

Spartan

07-31-2006, 07:35 PM

i can see that, i was just talking about this date in time.

gravymaster

07-31-2006, 08:37 PM

cubs :-X
Agreed.

Dead Nigga Storage

07-31-2006, 08:38 PM

the past, present, and future, long and distinguished record of futility and losing cannot belong to a team with a past tradition of winning like the kansas city royals. just because none of us (well, almost none of us) can remember the years when K.C. fielded teams with george brett, bret saberhagen, dan quissenberry and the like doesn't mean that they are the perennial examples of loserdom. if you want story book type history of year in, year out incompetence, befuddling collapses and loses, yearly fallings from contention, and the miserable, disenchanted fanbase to trump all fanbases, then there is absolutely no one here who can mention anyone other than the chicago cubs. how someone who can stack the kansas city royals, who won a world series in some of our lifetimes, against the chicago cubs, a team that has not won a world series in almost all of our GRANDMOTHER'S time, and then say the royals are the more pathetic team, is beyond me. i'm sorry andy, but the cubs are THE worst, THE most pathetic example of professional sports franchises run amuck.

Homer Jay

07-31-2006, 08:45 PM

Until a year ago, the White Sox would have been the answer, but with their World Series win, the title passed to the Arizona Cardinals. And DNS is 100% right about the Royals and their history.

pat

08-01-2006, 12:13 AM

cubs :-X
the only acceptable answer.

:bang:

08-01-2006, 05:20 AM

oh yeah, the royals were the shit when i was a kid. they even had bo

mike_donnelly

08-01-2006, 05:47 AM

toronto raptors have been pretty ordinary. they have had several big stars and haven't been able to hold onto them. They have only won 1 playoff series.

Dead Nigga Storage

08-01-2006, 06:01 AM

the toronto raptors are so AMAZINGLY far from being the worst team in all of sports. i can name at least 15 teams with extensively worse histories. you're supposed to be gunning for THE worst, not one that just happens to come across as being bad.

:bang:

08-01-2006, 06:08 AM

i tip them

mike_donnelly

08-01-2006, 06:08 AM

nobody said there were rules, that is the team that I would offer, and I gave my reasons. Clippers have never had Vince Carter or Tracy McGrady available to them like Raptors so I don't see them as being worse.

Dead Nigga Storage

08-01-2006, 06:22 AM

yes, and seeing as one of the 'rules' is that it would be a "sports bar argument" type thread, i'm challenging your crappy assertion. the fact is that, with or without reason, the toronto raptors CANNOT be considered the worst pro sports team (and i can only assume CMQ meant of american pro sports, and the canadian franchises associated with that...so european soccer leagues should probably steer clear...different tangent entirely) in all of the sports world here. if you're making that claim, it's not something you can just state with one piece of flimsy reasoning and say "i justified it, that's that". it's just ignorant. the chicago cubs, who i won't push as THE right answer, haven't won a championship in ONE HUNDRED years. in that time, they have seen some of the best players ever to grace a baseball field come and go...they have seen legends pitch, hit, catch, and field for them. far more than just a tracy mcgrady or vince carter type player. and they have NOTHING to show for it in 100 years other than a few scapegoats and a second rate "curse" for an excuse. their management is inept, their farm system is second rate, and every year is a rebuilding year. they are a joke...not just to chicago, not just to the national league central, not just to the national league, or even just baseball, but to the entire professional sports world.

the toronto raptors are bad, yes, we all know that to be true. they've had chances come and go and they've rarely ever been competitive, and, like the cubs, have seen massive failure come with injuries to stars. but 100 YEARS of futility while fielding the teams and the talent they have, and STILL having no hopes for the future is just unquestionably awful. it's almost beyond comprehension.

and, since this thread refers to teams as a whole...which would include management and ownership, one could just as easily argue that the fact that the clippers have never been given the talent to compete with (a mcgrady or a carter) is just as much a sign of their futility as a franchise. the completely inept nature of a front office of a sports team has led the clippers into the place they are, and the fact that had gone so long without having a marquee player to lead their franchise or a major face to promote makes them every bit as pathetic a franchise...that not only have they never competed until this year, but they never even came close...that they never even had a brush with mediocrity...that makes them a seemingly more fit team than the raptors.

:bang:

08-01-2006, 06:32 AM

OH the raptors didnt win with two horribly overrated, selfish superstars that havent won shit since they left

how could i have been so wrong

The mayor of Albuquerque

08-01-2006, 07:51 AM

The Raptors: Canada's worst team currently playing in an American sports league. (NHL not included)

vinceq

08-01-2006, 09:42 AM

Current Champions:
MLB - Kansas City Royals
NFL - Arizona Cardinals
NHL - Toronto Maple Leafs
NBA - Atlanta Hawks

Future Contenders:
MLB - Washington Nationals
NFL - Cleveland Browns
NHL - New York Islanders
NBA - New York Knicks

thecapecoddah

08-01-2006, 09:51 AM

chicago blackhawks and atlanta hawks

I would've also said the arizona cardinals, but their future looks pretty bright

:bang:

08-01-2006, 09:55 AM

blackhawks were the shit when i was a kid. agree on the hawks, they even underachieved when they had nique.

MLB - Washington Nationals

hunh? they only got an owner like yesterday and still dont have a stadium. pretty hard to make that call if ya ask me

Red Right

08-01-2006, 10:04 AM

Cleveland ______

Outside of the Cavs, though.

DAntae

08-01-2006, 10:19 AM

its still the clippers for me. one season of some success does not make up for a shitty owner, a horrible gm (sorry baylor but its true), and constantly being one of the worst teams in the league. they need several seasons of success to wash that funk of being a loser off of them.

mike_donnelly

08-01-2006, 03:26 PM

Carter is overrated? have you seen what he has turned the Nets into? they have basicly no frontcourt and it took the champions to beat them.

Dead Nigga Storage

08-01-2006, 03:28 PM

now explain how that makes them even CLOSE to comparable to the cubs in futility.

mike_donnelly

08-01-2006, 03:28 PM

chicago blackhawks and atlanta hawks

I would've also said the arizona cardinals, but their future looks pretty bright

but that could be what makes them even more shittier. teams that at least have some hope and then blow it, so I wouldn't speak too soon. That's how I judge a bad team. No matter how many top picks, trades etc. that they do and they still can't perform.

Dead Nigga Storage

08-01-2006, 03:30 PM

so the cardinals are shittier for having a VERY bright future, and not doing anything to change that one way or the other for right now? that makes ABSOLUTELY no sense.

mike_donnelly

08-01-2006, 03:45 PM

i used the word "could" to mean possibly we could look back at a future time and remember when we thought the Cardinals were going to turn it around but instead they produced the same old shit.

Dead Nigga Storage

08-01-2006, 03:56 PM

you're still wasting your time...why bother telling him that his statement may be wrong when everyone knows that. it's like making a post that says "well, the patriots will win their game tonight, or the might lose the game". he made a point...you made a moot counterpoint.

and until your knowledge manages to encompass all of professional sports, and not just a spotty knowledge of football and basketball, don't bother trying to claim that the raptors are the worst sports team, because it's not even fuckin' close.

mike_donnelly

08-01-2006, 04:04 PM

can I ask a question which is not to do with this thread....

Is Arizona football team and St. Louis baseball team the only teams to share a logo? I couldn't think of any others.

kuumuus

08-01-2006, 04:10 PM

fight back, kid!

http://images.nfl.com/photos/img9141785.jpg

i say the saints.

Dead Nigga Storage

08-01-2006, 04:12 PM

the giants and giants share a name, but there's no real 'logo' to it. hockey and baseball also both have a rangers team. the cardinals and cardinals both have a bird for a logo, but they aren't the same design if that's what you meant.

mike_donnelly

08-01-2006, 04:15 PM

oh, thanks for that. i didn't really mean logo, basicly name, so you gave me the right answer. the reason i wondered was because of so many pro sports teams, I thought surely there would be a few double-ups, and it turns out there is.

Was there any dramas over that? Did the team who 1st had the name try to take legal action over another team wanting it?

Spartan

08-01-2006, 05:31 PM

can I ask a question which is not to do with this thread....

Is Arizona football team and St. Louis baseball team the only teams to share a logo? I couldn't think of any others.

they don't share a logo.

err yeah, answered.

I can't decide between arizona/new orleans/detroit. tampa would certianly be in that group, pre-dungy.

Rekart

08-01-2006, 05:35 PM

Was there any dramas over that? Did the team who 1st had the name try to take legal action over another team wanting it?

Baseball Cardinals and football Cardinals both used to be in St. Louis. They played in the same stadium, for that matter.

I don't think there's ever been legal action over sports names, no.

Dead Nigga Storage

08-01-2006, 06:27 PM

rekart:

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

Rekart

08-01-2006, 06:33 PM

But it wasn't one team suing another because of the name.

Dead Nigga Storage

08-01-2006, 06:39 PM

ah, i thought you meant legal action in general

but yeah, the dodgers, if nothing else, have not been thrilled about it...i guess forgetting that when the franchise STARTED they were the los angeles angels.

Rekart

08-01-2006, 06:44 PM

Weren't they just the California Angels for awhile?

EDIT: Yeah, for quite awhile. Wikipedia is great.

kevin

08-01-2006, 09:10 PM

i still refer to them as "anaheim" it's less confusing for me.

Dead Nigga Storage

08-01-2006, 10:33 PM

in the extent of a 45 year history, they were the anaheim angels for 7 years. i don't get the whole uproar over people being upset that it was changed. los angeles is a perfectly legitimate name for the franchise, and they are FAR from the only team that does that. the new york giants don't even play in that STATE. in fact, it really pisses me off when media outlets or other franchises just refuse to call them by their name...there is NO team called the anaheim angels, so stop referring to them as such. in a couple years, the "of anaheim" part will be dropped, and no one should even think about dwelling on the matter.

kuumuus

08-01-2006, 10:48 PM

it took me a couple years to stop calling them the california angels. figure the same will be true of the anaheim-to-la deal. i also am not ashamed to admit i liked those disney-esque angels caps with winged A's.

:bang:

08-02-2006, 04:27 AM

yeah yeah, the 'washington' redskins play in maryland, but dont call them selves "the dc redskins of maryland also representing virginia and parts of west virginia". totally gay

Dead Nigga Storage

08-02-2006, 04:49 AM

the redskins previous owner didn't agree to some crappy stipulation in their contract that the word 'maryland' had to be in the name. it may be lame, but as a business decision it has completely paid off. since the name change, the angels have seen a notable increase in revenue and have used it as a marketing chip in renegotiating market contracts for substantial amounts more money. so from a business standpoint, i certainly appreciate what it has and will do. it'll only be a couple more years, like i said...and in the mean time, the only people who refer to it by its full name are people who want to make fun of it, so it's pretty much a complete non-issue unless someone wants to recycle the year and a half old hacky joke of making some incessantly long parody of a name regarding it. it was hardly funny to begin with, but who the fuck cares...like i said, no major outlet really ever refers to them as anything other than the "los angeles angels", anyway.

:bang:

08-02-2006, 05:29 AM

ok, dead nigga storage sometimes posting as president logan and used to be dead negro storage

so the owner's gay in addition to the name of the team. double gayness

Dead Nigga Storage

08-02-2006, 05:42 AM

um...what? previous owner's decision, not his. current owner just knows how to make money.

feel free to call disney gay all that you want.

:bang:

08-02-2006, 05:51 AM

oh yeah, disney is gay too

sorry i didnt read your absurdly long post about your team's gay name very well

Dead Nigga Storage

08-02-2006, 06:00 AM

while we're on the topic of gay, let's not forget how gay kuumuus is for admitting to liking this:
http://www.vectorportal.com/sportlogo/img/anah96.gif

the gist though:
- the name is making them millions in marketing
- NO ONE in any outlet refers to them by that full name
- it'll be gone in 3 years or whatever
- the only reason anyone cares is for the purpose of making the ridiculously overused, old jokes parodying it
- disney is uber gay for allowing that stipulation in the contract
- kuumuus is gay for liking disney's shitty logo
- at least they got rid of the corporate name of the stadium
- trade us jason bay for prospects

vinceq

08-02-2006, 06:15 AM

re. Nats hunh? they only got an owner like yesterday and still dont have a stadium. pretty hard to make that call if ya ask me

I see your point but I'm going back to the days of the Expos. Good drafting/player develop. and not much more. Couldn't hold onto any players of quality. Worst stadium in baseball and never successful.

:bang:

08-02-2006, 06:42 AM

so, you think the spos were the worst team. nats are different, they'll have tons of money and a nice downtown stadium in a huge market...which renders your argument kinda moot

dns, you can have bay once the name of your team ceases being gay

DAntae

08-02-2006, 11:06 AM

yeah but then they are still the angels which for a sports team is pretty gay, regardless of city.

Rekart

08-02-2006, 11:14 AM

http://www.teachwithmovies.org/guides/angels-in-the-outfield-DVDcover.jpg

box elder

08-02-2006, 11:15 AM

- NO ONE in any outlet refers to them by that full name

actually, i heard golic call them by their full name the other day, and he wasn't making fun of it.

kuumuus

08-02-2006, 12:56 PM

gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay

mike_donnelly

08-02-2006, 01:47 PM

TONY DANZA! if the real Angels recruited him then I would definetly be an Angels fan

Dead Nigga Storage

08-02-2006, 06:06 PM

yeah but then they are still the angels which for a sports team is pretty gay, regardless of city.you...um...realize where the name comes from, right?

and i don't want anyone to try to argue to the effect that the name is any gayer than the "athletics" which happens to be pretty much the dumbest name in professional sports.

kuumuus, shut up. you like the disney logo. you're gay.
actually, i heard golic call them by their full name the other day, and he wasn't making fun of it.golic is also fat. and yes, of course the occassional person is going to refer to them as such. however, golic works for espn. espn.com's website has the angels team page as "los angeles angels"

kuumuus

08-02-2006, 10:28 PM

more like los gayngeles gayngels of fagaheim

Gabbo

08-02-2006, 11:00 PM

and i don't want anyone to try to argue to the effect that the name is any gayer than the "athletics" which happens to be pretty much the dumbest name in professional sports.

the houston texans come in a very close second. houston fags would actually be a more acceptable name.

mike_donnelly

08-03-2006, 12:06 AM

the entire northwest of NBA is pretty crazy. i don't know what a Supersonic or a Trailblazer is, I wouldn't want to be called a Nugget, and there is no music in Utah. Which leaves Minnesota, and why not just be plain old wolves, without the timber part?

kevin

08-03-2006, 12:13 AM

nuggets is refering to the gold/mining industry of the rocky mountains, where denver is located. jazz were originally in new orleans which is where the name comes from. what's wrong with the "timber" part. makes it unique. i have no idea where sonics or blazers come from but there's nothing really wrong with them because they sound cool. so you lose.

Dead Nigga Storage

08-03-2006, 12:22 AM

portland, oregon was a destination for some of the early american west settlers who took the "oregon trail" to oregon in order to begin new lives and settle down on the west coast, thus they were "trailblazers" (late 19th century). denver nuggets refers to a nugget of gold...there was a gold rush in colorado in the mid 19th century. boeing (the aircraft manufacturer) is based in seattle, washington. in addition to other things, they produce engines and aircraft capable of achieving supersonic speeds. utah jazz used to be from new orleans, famous for its jazz...they just never changed their name (same issue with the los angeles lakers: formerly from minnesota, home to some of america's great lakes. also, the los angeles dodgers: formerly from brooklyn, where the word 'dodger' referred to people who would have to 'dodge'/avoid new york's cable cars; teams would move cities, but keep names to maintain a tie to their roots or something to that effect). minnesota has a huge logging and timber industry and is covered in large areas by forest, i would assume that's why they chose to add the word timber to the otherwise non-location-specific name of 'wolves'.

mike_donnelly

08-03-2006, 12:22 AM

kevin

08-03-2006, 12:29 AM

you are a douchebag. I know what nuggets refers to, I said I wouldn't want to be called a Nugget. I know the story of the Jazz, and what I said about them is from the movie "baseketball". I suppose they don't even recognize the music part anymore, their jersey has a mountain on it, instead of the music note. oh, and I didn't realise that being "unique" was the criteria for a good team name. so there could be a team called the las vegas prostitues and that would be a good idea because it is unique? Maybe you can come up with a better argument.

you brought it up. if you really hate the timber part then don't say it. it's just that there are so many teams nicknamed wolves, so why not make it a little different? so what if the jazz don't have a music note on their jersey. i guess that means the lakers should have a big lake on theirs. they could change the name, but there really is no need to. they have a lot of history with that nickname and they're not about to change it just because it doesn't fit with the location that well anymore. and yes, i am a douchebag. get used to it.

edit: clipper is a type of ship (like a sailboat?) that are common in the teams original city of san diego (and maybe la too). knicks is shortened from "knickerbocker" which were the original settlers of manhattan if i'm not mistaken.

Dead Nigga Storage

08-03-2006, 12:36 AM

knicks is short for knickerbockers...a nickname given to dutch settlers in the new york area that was given to them based on the type of pants that they wore. clippers refers to their previous location (san diego, ca) which was famous as being an old harbor for clipper ships (an early/colonial era type of boat)

edit: no clipper ships in los angeles, kevin. just another team that moved to l.a. that didn't feel in necessary to have a location-relevant name.

kevin

08-03-2006, 12:46 AM

last time i checked, we don't have any bears (full grown or cubs), bulls, or blackhawk indians in chicago. we do have white socks, though! moral: nicknames don't have to make sense

Dead Nigga Storage

08-03-2006, 12:55 AM

black hawk was the name of an indian chief originally from illinois. he started wars against settlers in the area before eventually being defeated, ending the violence against those settlers.

mike_donnelly

08-03-2006, 01:42 AM

it's ashame the name Jazz (don't get me wrong - I am NOT referring to the franchise, just the name) isn't still in New Orleans as I think it would be perfect for that town, although they may have some Hornets there too.

Thanks for clearing up the Knicks and Clippers thing.

I don't really hate the timber part, I only really thought denver, seattle, portland and utah's logo's were strange, but I did make the statement that the entire Northwest was strange, so I just added that for the sake of it. I often see minnesota fans just refer to it as wolves anyway, so it doesnt matter.

More questions - What's a Cleveland BROWN? and a Buffalo BILL?

and speaking of logo's, did anything come of the report I heard about Notre Dame's logo? Apparently it was a bit racist.

Gabbo

08-03-2006, 01:50 AM

the browns held a fan contest to determine the name of the new team and the most popular choice was brown, for the browns' first head coach, paul brown. brown didn't like the idea of the team being named after him, but went through with the decision stating the team would be named after the boxer joe louis, also known as the brown bomber.

mike_donnelly

08-03-2006, 01:55 AM

just imagine if andy dick was their 1st coach.

Dead Nigga Storage

08-03-2006, 02:00 AM

yeah, nothing about andy dick is in any way funny.

in regards to notre dame: it's no more racist than the washington redskins, atlanta braves, cleveland indians, or boston celtics, all of whom retain their logos...no one really cares enough to force one of those franchise's hand entirely...i'm not sure what became of notre dame though, because i'm not big on college sports at all.

the buffalo (buffalo, ny) bills got their name, i assume, from the famous cowboy/soldier/showman from the old west, william "buffalo bill" cody. they just used the city name of buffalo to play off of the american icon's name.