Following a comment from Thomas in the Dave Miley thread: Which MLB team is the worst managed (front office and field combined) in the big leagues? (Feel free to explain your vote in "Comments.")
| Cincinnati |  16 (16.00%) |
| Colorado | 15 (15.00%) |
| Kansas City | 11 (11.00%) |
| New York (NL) | 6 (6.00%) |
| Oakland | 3 (3.00%) |
| Tampa Bay | 46 (46.00%) |
| Other (Please specify) | 3 (3.00%) |
100 votes | 14 featured comments
For those wondering about methodology, the six candidates listed are the six current last place teams, ranked alphabetically by place name. The "Other" option is offered for those who don't see a favourite -- er, unfavourite, but right now the choice was purely meritocratic based on 2005 results.
Of course, "worst managed" doesn't necessarily equate with "worst results," so comment away!
Of course, "worst managed" doesn't necessarily equate with "worst results," so comment away!
I think Tampa is a pretty poorly managed team. Clearly the organization is not on the same page, and their rush to bring their young talent up too soon may hinder their careers.
They have some good young talent, and they haven't destroyed it, but they have mismanaged it at times.
They have some good young talent, and they haven't destroyed it, but they have mismanaged it at times.
My vote goes to the Cubs.
The team has way too much talent to be a .500 club.
We all know about Baker's blunders in handling the pitching staff.
Losing Alou, Sosa, and Clement hasn't helped the club.
I expect much more with the financial resources they have.
The team has way too much talent to be a .500 club.
We all know about Baker's blunders in handling the pitching staff.
Losing Alou, Sosa, and Clement hasn't helped the club.
I expect much more with the financial resources they have.
I'm not sure I can really come down hard on the Rockies. I just don't know that there's any way to build a winning team at that altitude, in that ballpark. Branch Rickey would be stretched to succeed there.
For me, it's a tossup between the Reds and the Devil Rays. In each case, you just get the feeling that neither organization has either an interest in being competitive or any idea of how to be competitive if they were interested.
There are always two or three teams like this in baseball at any given time; heck, the Interbrew-owned Blue Jays would have been in this poll five or so years ago.
For me, it's a tossup between the Reds and the Devil Rays. In each case, you just get the feeling that neither organization has either an interest in being competitive or any idea of how to be competitive if they were interested.
There are always two or three teams like this in baseball at any given time; heck, the Interbrew-owned Blue Jays would have been in this poll five or so years ago.
My vote is for Arizona. Although they are at .500 they have given up 391 runs to 333 scored. They have been lucky so far with a vetran laden club that is sure to break down any minute.
They mortgaged the future to win the world series, which worked out. But instead of taking their lumps, developing their farm system and getting rid of big salaries they have just continued to spend too much on worn out "star" players. Spending that kind of money on a last place team this offseason is crazy and is likely to cripple them for years to come.
They mortgaged the future to win the world series, which worked out. But instead of taking their lumps, developing their farm system and getting rid of big salaries they have just continued to spend too much on worn out "star" players. Spending that kind of money on a last place team this offseason is crazy and is likely to cripple them for years to come.
I just don't know that there's any way to build a winning team at that altitude, in that ballpark.
There might be a way, but no one has yet figured it out. I'm not inclined to judge them too harshly. They've tried a number of different things - you could say that they get discouraged a little too quickly, but it's a discouraging set of circumstances.
Arizona gives up way more runs than they score, but they're still in contention. I don't think that's a mark against them, even if it's mostly luck.
The other strange thing about Arizona is that run diffrential. It's heavily skewed by about five games that they lost by 10 runs. They're actually not particularly lucky in close games - it's just that every couple of weeks, they toss up a 16-3 loss. This is normally a reliable characteristic of bad teams, of course. But the D'Backs might actually be the exception.
The other thing about the DevilRays is that there's no market to push for better commitment to the team. There's a very small fan base, so much that only 25,000 come to their opening day. There's not enough fans to push the owners and not enough media to put pressure on the management.
Ye know, every organization needs a Richard Griffin. There has to be the care and passion by the media and the fans which will make the management feel like the can't get away with anything.
Ye know, every organization needs a Richard Griffin. There has to be the care and passion by the media and the fans which will make the management feel like the can't get away with anything.
I thought Griffen and the quacks at the Star were doing everything in their power to make people stay away from games. I doubt JP is doing anything to please media guys like him.
I think most franchises could do quite well without the likes of him.
I think most franchises could do quite well without the likes of him.
The other five candidates are all worthy, that's for sure, but they all deal with onerous restrictions on their freedom of action, for one reason or another. Cincinnati and Tampa have been afflicted with terrible owners, Kansas City with a poor market, Colorado with the Coors Curse and expansion blues, Oakland with a bad civic image and a divided market.
But the Mets came out of the 1980s with the very best fanbase in sports - they were the Kings of New York. And they have been poorly managed ever since. Yes, they've had terrible ownership problems, but since their owners have been heavily involved in decision-making, that's gotta count as management too. So I reluctantly vote for the Mets, on a continuity basis alone - I think Minaya's decent and will help pull the franchise out of its doldrums eventually. Right at this moment, the Reds would take the cake, they are floundering - no slight on Dave Miley, who did a fine job with a lousy situation during his tenure.
But the Mets came out of the 1980s with the very best fanbase in sports - they were the Kings of New York. And they have been poorly managed ever since. Yes, they've had terrible ownership problems, but since their owners have been heavily involved in decision-making, that's gotta count as management too. So I reluctantly vote for the Mets, on a continuity basis alone - I think Minaya's decent and will help pull the franchise out of its doldrums eventually. Right at this moment, the Reds would take the cake, they are floundering - no slight on Dave Miley, who did a fine job with a lousy situation during his tenure.
I thought Griffen and the quacks at the Star were doing everything in their power to make people stay away from games. I doubt JP is doing anything to please media guys like him.
I think most franchises could do quite well without the likes of him.
Since, I'm studying for a Political Science exam for tomorrow, in an organization, like in a democracy, the people have the right to question the people in power. In Tampa Bay's case, it's not that they're not allowed to question management, but it's that there's nobody doing it. So, unless, they analyze themselves, the ownership and management of the DevilRays will stay the same.
Hands down, Oakland.
(I'm kidding.)
It's hard to argue with the ineptitude of the Devil Rays. It's not as comical as that of the L.A. Clippers or Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who year-after-year had high draft picks (and it's much, much easier to improve right away thru those drafts) and yet year-after-year absolutely reeked.
(I'm kidding.)
It's hard to argue with the ineptitude of the Devil Rays. It's not as comical as that of the L.A. Clippers or Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who year-after-year had high draft picks (and it's much, much easier to improve right away thru those drafts) and yet year-after-year absolutely reeked.
My vote went to Tampa Bay, although it may not have until Pinella's meltdown recently. That the manager can say, basically, that his team sucks and can't possibly win, is just to far. And who did management meet with to discuss this? Pinella's agent. http://www.covers.com/articles/articles.aspx?theArt=49127&tid=24&t=1
How do you not call the guy in person? Does the manager call a players agent to discuss problems? bad management at both ends.
Cincinnati : they at least have a few top-end hitters, although they don't let them have comfy chairs. New manager is 2-0, though.
Colorado: Winning in Coors, from analyses I have read, would be best accomplished in having a high scoring team. Not just mediocre/bad players putting up pretty good/good numbers like they have done, but they need to draw good players there somehow, and put up freakin' good numbers. Like Helton had been doing until this year. The main problem, I think, could be that really good hitters who may be thinking cooperstown in the future don't want the Coors stigma attached. And pitchers...not much chance of a good one intentionally choosing to go there again.
KC : They stink, but do have the small market excuse. The problem lately seems to be that they are trying to be an average team, rather than genuinely get a lot better. Sort of like Tampa Bay when they started out. Aim so low that no one will notice(or care) when you fail. My second choice.
Oakland : ehhh...been better lately, no real problem here.
NEw York (NL) : they did make the WS a few years back, and made what look like pretty good signings this year. Should be better with the payroll though.
Other : Marlins ownership earns them an honourable mention. Even if the manager and GM seem to be fine, Loria earns them a mention in my book.
How do you not call the guy in person? Does the manager call a players agent to discuss problems? bad management at both ends.
Cincinnati : they at least have a few top-end hitters, although they don't let them have comfy chairs. New manager is 2-0, though.
Colorado: Winning in Coors, from analyses I have read, would be best accomplished in having a high scoring team. Not just mediocre/bad players putting up pretty good/good numbers like they have done, but they need to draw good players there somehow, and put up freakin' good numbers. Like Helton had been doing until this year. The main problem, I think, could be that really good hitters who may be thinking cooperstown in the future don't want the Coors stigma attached. And pitchers...not much chance of a good one intentionally choosing to go there again.
KC : They stink, but do have the small market excuse. The problem lately seems to be that they are trying to be an average team, rather than genuinely get a lot better. Sort of like Tampa Bay when they started out. Aim so low that no one will notice(or care) when you fail. My second choice.
Oakland : ehhh...been better lately, no real problem here.
NEw York (NL) : they did make the WS a few years back, and made what look like pretty good signings this year. Should be better with the payroll though.
Other : Marlins ownership earns them an honourable mention. Even if the manager and GM seem to be fine, Loria earns them a mention in my book.