This was a poll on ESPN.com, and in light of the Tigers' travails it's an interesting question.

Uh, what about the Chicago-St. Louis-Arizona football Cardinals? Up until a few years ago these losers had gone the longest of any NFL or AFL team in not even winning a PLAYOFF game. When they were in St. Louis they were total heartbreakers, then their cheap, obese owner carted them off to Phoenix where they've been equally awful. They'd be at the top of any list, no matter how good they are in a given year.

Edited to clear double post.

Actually the football Cardinals have sunk low many, many times. They're among the worst of all time.

[ July 11, 2003, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

All of that may be true, but they've never sunk really low in one season like the other teams did.

It's not a contest. You can't do worse than perfectly awful. The 1976 Tampa Bay Bucs weren't just a one-year fluke. They lost - what? - the first 12 of the next season.

The '62 Mets weren't even the worst team in baseball history. (They're celebrated as allegedly lovable losers only because the sports media in this country remains ridiculously New York-centric). Worst team in baseball history? The 1899 Cleveland Spiders: 20-134. They finished a mere 84 games out of first.

Read more: 1899 Cleveland Spiders

I'm sorry. But the winner of this award is not just one season's team. It is an entire franchise.

The Los Angeles Clippers and their cheap-ass owner get the award for the worst team ever.

What about the Seattle Seahags (Seahawks)?????

i agree the clippers win the award hands down. with their record over the years, how does elgin baylor maintain his job let alone self respect? the owner, donald sterling, has to qualify as one of the most inept in sports.

Psst! Stern! Put the "Montreal" on Don Sterling. Buy his team away from him, then Expo his ass right out of the NBA.

That franchise is so lifeless that only a change in ownership is going to offer an redemption (if there is any) for Clipper Nation.

Meanwhile, in the minor leagues...

As much as I hate to say it, but my Texas Rangers have sunk to worst teams list. While I still lust for Rafael Palmeiro, Laynce Nix, etc., the team just cannot pull it together, even after buying A-Rod. They are just awful.

Despite last year, and 3 other seasons in their 40+ year existence, the Angels have been ghastly most of the time. How Nolan Ryan won as many games as he did with the abysmal players he had around him is still a mystery (see also: Steve Carlton and the '72 Phillies).

But yeah, the Clippers are pretty consistently awful. They had a great buzz going to last year and just chucked it away.

Pittsburgh Pirates

Have they had a winning season since 79?

That's not true. Although the Angels have had some truly horrible chokes -- more than random chance would ever produce -- they've never had an out-an-out irredeemably awful 100+ losses season, have they? Even as a new expansion team in the 60s, they never out-and-out stunk.

Maybe frustrating, but never \"ghastly\".

Three straight appearances in the NLCS - thus winning seasons - from 1990 to 1992. Featured a young, skinny Barry Bonds. Lost to the A-Braves in '91 and '92. Losers ever since, but a shorter streak than the M'waukee Brewers, I believe.

[ July 30, 2003, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

Losers implies inability to win or build a good team. That hasn't
been the Pirate's story.

Pittsburgh has had talent, but like other small market teams can't
afford to keep players. Look at what Jim Leyland did with them
before going to Florida.

If you want to talk losers in baseball, let's talk about Atlanta.
*One* world series title with all that talent and money? The Angels
did as much with one fifth of the money.

And how about the White Sox? Have they ever been a real contender
for the world series, more than just an occasional playoff team?
The Expos have done more but were victimized by Black Monday and a
millionaire's strike.


Bob Dog

With all due respect, that's a crock. It's a fat stinking load of bull feces that small market management has been feeding fans in M'waukee and Pittsburgh.

Pittsburgh has been a victim of stupid management since the end of the Bonds/Bonilla/Leyland era (remember when Bobby Bonilla was thought to be as good of a player as Barry Bonds?) Cam Bonifay was the stupidest baseball executive of the last 30 years. It wasn't small market economics that forced him to lavish a huge contract on Derek "Operation Shutdown" Bell. Current GM Dave Littlefield may have a couple of additional IQ points on Cam Bonifay, but I don't think he's getting promoted off the short bus any time sooner either.

Oakland's just as small a market as Pittsburgh and it's doing quite well. Minnesota is even more limited economically than Pittsburgh, M'waukee or K.C., and they did quite well last year. K.C. is competitive this year. Anaheim was run as a small market team last year and they did fairly well.

Small market teams can't compete year after year, that's true. But they should be able to compete for a few years every decade ... unless the team is being run into the ground. Pittsburgh's not being run right. Fortunately, they're in the same division as the Brewers, so there's only so far they can fall.

[ July 31, 2003, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

Oh, don't be shy. Tell me what you really feel.


Well, and least Pittsburgh never had a GM as bad as Damned Duquette.
He may have ruined my Expos as much as money did
and it is no wonder the
Red Sox couldn't get it done with him in charge.


Bob Dog

Without a doubt, it's the Springfield Isotopes. I've never seen them win a game.

No--once the Isotopes went on a long winning streak inspired by their new mascot, Dancin' Homer!

[ August 03, 2003, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

How can you leave out this years Detroit Tigers?

They are every bit as bad as everybody on that list.

The poll was inspired by the Tigers. Besides, they're not finished the season yet. They might pick up the pace and win more than the '62 Mets.

Worst pro sports team ever? I'll vote for the Cleveland Spiders, 1898 or 1899. They won about 20 games and lost 130-140. I don't have a baseball reference book handy but you can look it up, they had a very dismal year and afterwards the team was disbanded. Great nickname though.

That's funny.

[ August 03, 2003, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: PCC ]