Least Productive Team - Post Strike Era

10 teams with the least average wins per season since the strike (1995's wins are multiplied by 162/144 to generate a full season).

My question is - and you may select more than one answer - Which teams are the most hopeless on this list? I mean, no hopers. Do they have poor ownership? Do they have a terrible GM? What is it? Did Cam Bonifay step foot within 100 miles of the city?

[KCBOOMER]

The Royals have been a disaster since the Saberhagen trade.

The real answer of the group you listed is the Cubs. They have absolutely no excuse with the kind of financial muscle they have to tolerate lummoxes in the front office.

[Skip]

The Royals are likely the biggest CF of the group, and certainly have gotten a more than adequate share of coverage to that extent courtesy of Messrs Neyer and Jayazerli, among others.

But I think the two teams with the least excuses for being on this list, from a money available, market size, etc. perspective are the Phillies and Cubs. It always astounds me how the Phillies can be so poor in a market that big (and so close to other big markets). But the Cubs take the cake. Even sharing with the White Sox, they have a much broader geographical region to draw from and their own pet TV network. There is no excuse for the Cubs to be in the bottom 10, even if they are barely there.

Cubs Win! Cubs Win! Cubs Win!

Actually, I cut it off at 10, because the 11th team (Toronto) and the 12th team (Baltimore) both average over 78 wins a year, almost a 3 win per year spread... Plus, both share a division with 2 top 5 teams.

Total Wins - 94-2002
(Baltimore is 19 despite having fewer wins because of the extrapolation of 1995's wins (Baltimore 71, Toronto 56)
#19 Baltimore - 618
#20 Toronto - 619
#21 Florida - 595
#22 ChiCubs - 594

FYI -
#1 - Atlanta 98.9/780
#2 - NYY - 96.7/764
#3 - Cleveland - 92.3/726
#4 - Seattle - 89.9/709
#5 - Boston - 88.2/695

The point is, the Cubs and Marlins are not "Barely" There. The Marlins are there despite a world title (ouch), even though they're most resembling a chicken with head cut off due to the presence of Herr Loria.

[SmedIndy]

I think the Brew Crew and Rays are the most helpless, and hapless.

I discount anyone who made the playoffs or at least threatened to be semi-decent since the strike. That's a sign that they got their act together for a little bit.

I abstained from voting for the Royals because I pity them.

[JamesI]

I'm amazed the Orioles and Jays are off this list. Although the the Orioles did have good years in 96, 97.

I voted for the Brewers, but really any team on this list could be the "winner"

[KCBOOMER]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
II abstained from voting for the Royals because I pity them.

Your pity is wasted on the oblivious.

[WiredTiger]

The Tigers have been pretty bad. The only year they have even sniffed the playoffs and a .500 record was when they had Juan Gonzalez and Nomo. That year was a disaster anyways because of the Juan Gonzalez mess. I do think the Tigers are finally on the right track with Dombrowski at the helm. So hopefully they won't appear on anymore lists like this in the future.

[pathogan]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
The Royals have been a disaster since the Saberhagen trade.

The real answer of the group you listed is the Cubs. They have absolutely no excuse with the kind of financial muscle they have to tolerate lummoxes in the front office.

I once heard , during a cubs game{not on WGN] the announcers musing on whether the owners, NOt the GM or manager were committed to winning, seeing their great televsion revenue and the fact that they draw tremendously.The status quo is sufficient as they are making money Those are great great fans out there. they deserve better than that...

[TimmyB]

The bottom five are truly hopeless. Bad management all the way around.

Montreal and Minnesota almost don't count because of their ownership. They want to count, but can't, with their owner's suicidal tendancies. Now that Loria is in Miami, you can add them to this list.

The Cubs and Phillies offer their fans no real reason for being so consistantly awful. I didn't vote for them because they've flirted with contention since '94, but, really, they're in good markets, with the Cubs maybe being the worst because ownership treats the team like a cash-cow, but makes little attempt to be competitive annually.

[tortured angel]

The Tigers got a new park and have an owner who is willing to spend but have gone completely backwards. I think the big park will require them to build similar to the Angels. They need to concentrate on playing a total game. Hopefully, Dombrowski and Trammel and co. will get them turned around because it's a shame to have such a bad team in such a good sports city with so many things in their favor.

[JamesI]

At least these teams have developed some players in this time. Find me one player of quality the Orioles have developed since Mussina.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by tortured angel
The Tigers got a new park and have an owner who is willing to spend but have gone completely backwards. I think the big park will require them to build similar to the Angels. They need to concentrate on playing a total game. Hopefully, Dombrowski and Trammel and co. will get them turned around because it's a shame to have such a bad team in such a good sports city with so many things in their favor.

This is my take on the Tigers, and the reasons I voted for them in this poll.

As a side topic, I wonder if Comerica Park is the new Astrodome? Does Comerica Park skew batting stats downward to the same extent or greater that the Astrodome did? I wonder if there is any data on this.