There were only a few good choices, but for fun, here is a rundown of every possibility.
AL EAST
Toronto Blue Jays - True they are not contenders but they have had 3 straight winning seasons,
2 championships, and hope for the future.
Baltimore Orioles - They have been putrid for a decade. Bad... but they have had a history of winning, 3 championships and 7 pennants. Too good.
Tampa Bay Rays - Bandwagon's full.
AL CENTRAL
Chicago White Sox - Playoff contender, recent champ. Out.
Cleveland Indians - Another playoff contender, I would look like a jackass with Chief Wahoo hat.
Detroit Tigers - Have been awful until recently but now have a huge payroll. Bummer, I really like the D.
Minnesota Twins - Competitive, storied history, horrible stadium.
Kansas City Royals - A finalist which delivers. Great logo, pleasing colors, nice ballpark. Have existed for 40 years. Some history and heartbreak (3 straight losses to the Yankees in the 1970s playoffs) and success punctuated with a 1985 Championship. A once viable team on a 23 year playoff drought, 2nd only to the Expos/Nationals. Four 100 loss seasons in the last seven years. Low payroll, lower hope levels. (.486 All-time winning %)
AL WEST
LA Angels - Huge payroll, best record in baseball this year. Keep looking.
Oakland A's - Low payroll, but a consistent contender due to the genius of Billy Beane. Out.
Seattle Mariners - Haven't been very good of late with a 7 year playoff drought. No World Series wins, that's a plus. But they are not too far removed from their 116 win season. Horrible mascot.
Texas Rangers - I hate Texas. Juan Gonzalez is a jerk.
NL EAST
New York Mets - True, they have a storied history of losing, but were in the World Series not too long ago, and have become perennial playoff contenders.
Washington Nationals - Another strong finalist, but also a sticky wicket. If you discount their time as the Expos then they are a four year old team. But if you allow in the full weight of the Montreal years they become very attractive. An astounding and horrifying 27 year playoff drought. The high point of their existence is the 1981 East division title. Ouch.
Philadelphia Phillies - Quite possibly the most futile franchise in baseball history. But they are in the World Series, that's a disqualifier.
Florida Marlins - Two evil championships. Florida sucks.
Atlanta Braves - Made the playoffs 73 consecutive times. Out.
NL CENTRAL
Milwaukee Brewers - The Brewers have had a seriously lackluster existence, no championships, and they have giant sausages who run around. But they made the playoffs this year and have good young talent, no good.
Chicago Cubs - The Cubs have tons of fans who love them no matter how bad they suck. Which is a lot.
Pittsburgh Pirates - A very strong competitor to become my team. The Pirates are riding a 16-year streak of losing seasons. Brutal. They have one of the lowest payrolls in the league with little hope for the future. But they have been around a LONG time, since the late 1800s. While they are on a bad run now, they have 5 championships in their history, 9 pennants, and a ballpark widely regarded as the best in the league.
Cincinnati Reds - Here is a another team that has seen better days. Haven't made the playoffs since 1996. 18th in payroll. Ugly uniforms. But they have had great success in the past with 5 championships and the great run of the Big Red Machine in the 1970s.
St. Louis Cardinals - The Cards are baseball's 2nd most successful franchise behind the Yankees, no good.
NL WEST
Los Angeles Dodgers - Have a zillion dollar payroll. Walter O'Malley is evil.
San Diego Padres - San Diego has a baseball team?
San Francisco Giants - Too many people love the Giants and Barry Bonds is the anti-Christ.
Arizona Diamondbacks - Expansion team, won a championship. Stupid logo.
The Finalists
Kansas City Royals
Pittsburgh Pirates
Washington Nationals
The Winner
Of course, my team, the Royals. Any of these teams could have been a good choice but I had to make a decision. The Pirates were out because I didn't think I could ever be a legit fan of a team so old and so linked to a place I have no connection to. I have a feeling you can't know the Pirates unless you know Pittsburgh. However, if I ever pick a futile NL team to root for I might have to go for it. As for the Nationals, well, I just don't think you can count the Expos years when they made such a blatant effort to make a break from their horrendous past.
-Elliott
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Way too harsh on the Mariners. The Mariners are completely incompetent, nearly invisible and are the whipping boy of the west. Historically they have already had some of the best players pass through the organization - A-rod, Griffey Jr, Randy Johnson - and currently they are letting Ichiro rot on the vine. Their home stadium is great too, it has a fantastic roof and delicious garlic fries. Also they enshrine humanity's connection to the sea rather than suggest that Monarchy and hereditary rule are good things. Shame on the royals
Detroit managed to finish last in 2008 spite of having the 2nd largest payroll in baseball. (Boston is 4th, btw, behind the Yanks, Tigers, and Mets). The Tigers managed to finish a game behind Kansas City. The Royals are 25th (of 30) in payroll (the Marlins at the bottom).
The A's have a sordid history and fans who constantly feel stabbed in the back.
I'm pretty sure you didn't pick the Mariners because they're boring. Now with such a dedication to losing that their players want to attack the best player, Ichiro Suzuki. Now that's a team.
And sorry, Todd, real teams have no roofs.
The Nationals should be considered Expos in my opinion. Complete with the dubious history of the Expos owner stripping all management, coaches and computer equipment from the team to take with him when he sold the Expos and bought the Marlins. And the tragedy of both of their possible championship seasons being killed by strikes.
Marlins: um, that's two Rays-style championships that you love so much right there. Young plucky teams ready to be sold once they earned their weight.
Padres: I feel like they're contenders, but they have two pennants, if no WS championships.
As for Todd's comments on the name Royals: "Pharmaceutical executive Ewing Kauffman won the bidding for the new Kansas City team, which he named the Royals after the American Royal, a livestock show, horse show, and rodeo held annually in Kansas City since 1899. (Some sources say it was in honor of the Kansas City Monarchs, a Negro League team.) The team's logo, a crown atop a shield with the letters "KC" inside the shield, was created by Shannon Manning, an artist at Hallmark Cards, based in Kansas City."
Wow, a corporate executive named them after a rodeo. That changes everything. I just heard that the Washington Redskins were actually named after the drums that natives used to play - animal skins would be dyed red and stretched to be used as drum heads. So you see, the name is used to honor them, not be horribly racist.
Even if that were the case (it isn't) it doesn't matter to me because the connotation no longer exists. "Royals" is a monarchist name and as such lends legitimacy to hereditary rule. I'm from Massachusetts, and where I'm from we get people from the south to kill monarchists. Elliott can keep his royalist team and George Brett's hemorrhoids
Post a Comment