PDA

View Full Version : Who's Next?


voodoochile
10-28-2004, 11:02 PM
Okay, so now that the Red Sox have won the Series, who has the next longest streak behind the Sox and Flubbies? I know Houston is pushing 40 years, but that's peanuts in comparison to where our town sits.

Anyone know? How bad is it to be a fan of Chicago baseball teams now that the BoSox have done the unthinkable and left us in the dust?

FarWestChicago
10-28-2004, 11:16 PM
Giants. 50 years. I "think".

CleeFan101
10-28-2004, 11:33 PM
i think the indians are next longest... their last WS was in like 1943 or something.... other teams that have tough times would be the rangers who never ever had a WS and the expos who are on the same page as the rangers

rmusacch
10-28-2004, 11:36 PM
i think the indians are next longest... their last WS was in like 1943 or something.... other teams that have tough times would be the rangers who never ever had a WS and the expos who are on the same page as the rangers
Yeah the Indians last won in 1948.

voodoochile
10-29-2004, 07:30 AM
Yeah the Indians last won in 1948.That was my guess actually. Giants are another good one. Still, Chicago as a whole just got smoked by 30 years in this on-going futility contest. Un-be-freak-ing-leave-able...

Some would even call it pathetic.

Now the pressure truly is on for one of these two teams to win it all. When Boston was right there beside us, we could all point and say, "Hey, we aren't the only ones who struggle."

Now what do we do?

I know... :gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :drunken:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-29-2004, 08:10 AM
The Indians last won in 1948.
The Giants last won when they were still playing in New York, 1954.
The Astros have never won a world championship since franchise inception, 1962.
The Padres have never won a championship since franchise inception, 1969, nor the Expos or whatever they're calling them these days.
The Brewers have never won a world championship since franchise inception, 1970.

There are several expansion and transferred franchises born since 1970 that haven't won a championship including Texas, Seattle, Colorado, and Tampa Bay.

ondafarm
10-29-2004, 11:11 AM
The Indians last won in 1948.
The Giants last won when they were still playing in New York, 1954.
The Astros have never won a world championship since franchise inception, 1962.
The Padres have never won a championship since franchise inception, 1969, nor the Expos or whatever they're calling them these days.
The Brewers have never won a world championship since franchise inception, 1970.

There are several expansion and transferred franchises born since 1970 that haven't won a championship including Texas, Seattle, Colorado, and Tampa Bay.
Then again, the Indians, Giants, Padres and Brewers have all been to the World Series in recent memory. No Chicago team has been there since the 1959 Sox lost to the Dodgers in 6. (And Reinsdorf has the gall to have had Don Drysdale as an announcer.):angry:

Baby Fisk
10-29-2004, 11:14 AM
Now that baseball is returning to Washington, an **asterisk-heavy** argument could be made to add them to the long-term futility list. The Washington Senators of any incarnation last won the World Series in 1924. The city has been without a team since 1971, but it's been 80 years since they had a championship.

Fenway
10-29-2004, 12:54 PM
Now that baseball is returning to Washington, an **asterisk-heavy** argument could be made to add them to the long-term futility list. The Washington Senators of any incarnation last won the World Series in 1924. The city has been without a team since 1971, but it's been 80 years since they had a championship.
The Expos with the exception of the Tampa Bay Fighting Seaweed have gone the longest without playing any playoff game. There only post season was 1981

PaleHoseGeorge
10-29-2004, 01:07 PM
Then again, the Indians, Giants, Padres and Brewers have all been to the World Series in recent memory. No Chicago team has been there since the 1959 Sox lost to the Dodgers in 6. This is an interesting point you've raised. Since the beginning of the modern era of baseball, it was the widely-accepted goal of every team to win the league PENNANT. Winning the World Series against the other league champion was simply the cherry on the cake. Proving yourself the best team in the league across 154 games (later 162) was the goal.

Times have changed.

Today we don't give a damn about league champions. Either you win the world championship or your season is left short of its objective. Blame the expanded playoffs and interleague games for the new focus on winning it all. Having the best record at the conclusion of the regular season doesn't mean jack anymore.

If you don't believe me, go back and read old sports books, sports magazines, and newspapers, pre-1970. They didn't write about the Sox and Cubs not winning since 1917 and 1908. THEY WROTE ABOUT THE SOX AND CUBS NOT WINNING SINCE 1959 AND 1945.

It's a new world we baseball fans are living in, and I'm not convinced it is necessarily a change for the better. Being the best team across 162 games ought to mean something. Thanks to Bud Selig, it has never meant less.
:mad:

PaulDrake
10-29-2004, 01:20 PM
It's a new world we baseball fans are living in, and I'm not convinced it is necesarily a change for the better. Being the best team across 162 games ought to mean something. Thanks to Bud Selig, it has never meant less.
:mad: The last time teams with the best records in their respective leagues met in the WS was 1999. Baseball used to be special in that you had to actually win a pennant and after 1969 a division to qualify for the post season. The old ways are gone forever. Most fans love the new format. If they're going to stick with it I wish they'd shorten the season. Playing baseball in the north after mid October can be barbaric. Especially at night when the temperature drops. Nobody is listening to me on this one though.

oneil78
10-29-2004, 01:28 PM
It's a new world we baseball fans are living in, and I'm not convinced it is necessarily a change for the better. Being the best team across 162 games ought to mean something. Thanks to Bud Selig, it has never meant less.
:mad:
Bud was Commish in 1969? Should we blame the DH on Selig also? Do you have Veeck also since he changed the way the game was presented?

Baby Fisk
10-29-2004, 01:34 PM
If they're going to stick with it I wish they'd shorten the season. Playing baseball in the north after mid October can be barbaric. Especially at night when the temperature drops. Nobody is listening to me on this one though.
It's the same brilliant mindset that presents the Stanley Cup finals in June.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-29-2004, 01:34 PM
Bud was Commish in 1969? Should we blame the DH on Selig also? Do you have Veeck also since he changed the way the game was presented?
I wrote, "Thanks to Bud Selig, it has never meant less [to have the league's best record]."

Perhaps you're familiar with an era when it meant less than right now?

Jeezus... learn to ****ing read.

I blame the public schools.
:cool:

Lip Man 1
10-29-2004, 07:35 PM
Actually the original Washington Senators franchise was moved to Minnesota before the start of the 1961 season. They HAVE won the World Series twice and played in three.

They were replaced with the 'new' incarnation of the Senators who lasted from 1961 through 1971 then moved to Texas. That version didn't and hasn't won anything although the Rangers have been to the playoffs (I think more then the Sox in the same time span...)

This is now the 3rd incarnation of the Washington franchise and I have no doubt based on history, that they'll get to a World Series before the Sox do!

Lip

Ol' No. 2
10-29-2004, 08:32 PM
IIRC, the rights to the Senators name are still owned by the Texas Rangers. So a new team in Washington can't be called the Senators unless they pony up some dough to buy back the name.

marlins03
10-29-2004, 08:47 PM
Yeah the Indians last won in 1948. Good thing it wasnt in 1997 :smile:

1951Campbell
10-29-2004, 09:37 PM
This is now the 3rd incarnation of the Washington ... franchise and I have no doubt based on history, that they'll get to a World Series before the Sox do!

Lip
Well, based on history, we know they'll at least move before the Sox win again.

RKMeibalane
10-29-2004, 09:40 PM
Well, based on history, we know they'll at least move before the Sox win again.
I agree. I think they'll end up in Portland or New Mexico by the time I reach the age of forty.

Daver
10-29-2004, 09:41 PM
IIRC, the rights to the Senators name are still owned by the Texas Rangers. So a new team in Washington can't be called the Senators unless they pony up some dough to buy back the name.
The rights to the name are owned by MLB, all team names are owned by MLB, a franchise is allowed the rights to their team name only.

1951Campbell
10-29-2004, 09:43 PM
This is an interesting point you've raised. Since the beginning of the modern era of baseball, it was the widely-accepted goal of every team to win the league PENNANT. Winning the World Series against the other league champion was simply the cherry on the cake. Proving yourself the best team in the league across 154 game (http://begin2search.com/cgi-bin//ezlclk.fcgi?id=24)s (later 162) was the goal.

Times have changed.

Today we don't give a damn about league champions. Either you win the world championship or your season is left short of its objective. Blame the expanded playoffs and interleague game (http://begin2search.com/cgi-bin//ezlclk.fcgi?id=24)s for the new focus on winning it all. Having the best record at the conclusion of the regular season doesn't mean jack anymore.

If you don't believe me, go back and read old sports books, sports magazines, and newspapers, pre-1970. They didn't write about the Sox and Cubs not winning since 1917 and 1908. THEY WROTE ABOUT THE SOX AND CUBS NOT WINNING SINCE 1959 AND 1945.

It's a new world we baseball fans are living in, and I'm not convinced it is necessarily a change for the better. Being the best team across 162 game (http://begin2search.com/cgi-bin//ezlclk.fcgi?id=24)s ought to mean something. Thanks to Bud Selig, it has never meant less.
:mad:
I don't know, PaleHose. I agree that the best record means little these days. But I'm not sure merely winning a pennant ought to be hailed as such a great accomplishment. That sounds like an argument an AFC team would have made from, oh, about the early 80's until the Broncos in '98. :cool:

Daver
10-29-2004, 09:57 PM
I don't know, PaleHose. I agree that the best record means little these days. But I'm not sure merely winning a pennant ought to be hailed as such a great accomplishment. That sounds like an argument an AFC team would have made from, oh, about the early 80's until the Broncos in '98. :cool:I agree with PHG, Bud has watered down MLB to point that the regular season record is next to meaningless.I thought the wildcard addition was stupid, but when the Spineless Wonder saw fit to give homefield advantage to the winner of an exhibition game I realized that there are new levels of stupidity that have yet to be explored.

cornball
10-29-2004, 10:24 PM
Don't even talk about playoff wins, we would probably be in last. Any kind of playoff win.

Lip Man 1
10-30-2004, 12:06 PM
The Sox, Texas, Colorado and Tampa Bay are the only current MLB franchises to have never won a playoff series of any kind since 1917.

We're in great company eh?

Lip

Brian26
10-30-2004, 06:54 PM
The Sox, Texas, Colorado and Tampa Bay are the only current MLB franchises to have never won a playoff series of any kind since 1917.

We're in great company eh?

Lip
Blame it on Dybzinski.

mealfred13
10-30-2004, 07:15 PM
Here's the answer to all your questions. Ironically I found this first by accident just before I read this thread:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=cursed/041029

1951Campbell
10-30-2004, 10:49 PM
I agree. I think they'll end up in Portland or New Mexico by the time I reach the age of forty.
New Mexico? What leads you to believe that? I only ask because I lived in Santa Fe for 4 years. I assume you think an MLB team would move to 'Buque, but, sorry, that is just laughable. There's barely 1.3 million folks in NM, a state twice the size of New England. I doubt they can support an MLB team.

Lip Man 1
10-31-2004, 11:42 AM
Brian:

I always thought that was somewhat unfair. Even if the Sox won #4 they still would have had to win #5.

Anything can happen in a one game playoff series. I think they would have had the momentum, Lamarr Hoyt and playing at home in their favor but there were no guarantees.

Lip