Of the four sports leagues, name one team from each you would get rid of

In My Humble Opinion
1

I had this debate with this drunk last night who swears up and down that Major League baseball is considering getting rid of the Arizona Diamondbacks, the Tampa Bay Rays and the Montreal Expos. I told him admittedly there are too many sports teams, but Arizona just had a new stadium built, and it’s too early to get rid of the Rays, and the Expos are getting a new stadium from what I understand. I told him he was talking shit.

BUT: Just for kicks, if you were Lord High Commissioner of All Sports, and could get rid of one team each from the NBA, NHL, NFL and Baseball, which would it be?

But here’s some criteria to eliminate all the Phildelphia sports fans who would get rid of the Devils, Knicks, Giants and Mets (and we will use the hallowed Montreal Canadiens as an example):

  1. Has to be a city that doesn’t support it’s team (While the Montreal Canadians haven’t made the playoffs in a while, they are still a religion in that city).

  2. Can’t be a team with a brand new facility or one on the way-that wouldn’t be fair to the taxpayers(The Canadians just had the Molson Centre built a few years ago).

  3. Has to be a team with a general history of mediocrity (The Montreal Canadians suck right now, but how can you have an NHL without the team that has won more Stanley Cups than any other??).

The only exception I would make to the above is that the team’s ownership is in such chaos that it is an embarrassment to the league.

Here’s MY four. And if you are a fan of one of these teams, please keep in mind this is for fun only, don’t take this as an attack on your team or city. Come up with your own instead!

Anaheim Angels- Old though renovated stadium, never made a world series. While the Angels do draw fans, frankly they will always be a poor substitute for L.A.'s one REAL team. Besides, L.A. already has a team! My first choice was the Expos, but they are getting a new stadium. I’d also consider the Rays, but didn’t St. Pete build the Sundome specifically to attract a team?

New Orleans Saints- Tough choice since their fans do come out- well when they are winning. Last year they won their first playoff game in franchise history. That tells you all you need to know. The Cards would have been the easy choice, but they knocked themselves from elimination by getting stadium deal!

Los Angeles Clippers- I don’t think this needs to be explained. The Staples Center is new, but the Lakers already play there.

As for the NHL . . . hmmmm . . this is violating one of the three rules, but I would invoke the chaos rule and axe the Phoenix Coyotes. That team is a mess!!! No legacy, ownership turmoil, and hockey should never be played in a desert! I was thinking Buffalo or St. Louis, but Buffalo has great fans and the Savvis Center in St. Louis is 7 years old. The New York Islanders would be another candidate, but they did win 4 straight Cups in the 1980s!

2

You also couldn’t elminate St. Louis from the NHL since they’ve been one of the consistently good teams in the NHL. They’ve made the playoffs for 22 consecutive years.

Anyway:

Baseball: I wouldn’t get rid of any team in Baseball…I like 'em all.

Football: I agree with your assessment of the Saints.

Basketball: Golden State Warriors. I hold out hope that the Clippers will win an NBA title within the next 50 years. I REALLY WANT the Clippers to win! I know they have no support, no winning history, nothing…but I just don’t want them gone. Golden State, on the other hand, I almost don’t even HEAR about. Of course…I hate basketball, so I guess it really doesn’t matter too much.

Hockey: Probably the Tampa Bay Lightning. Just seems like a dead franchise.

Jman

3

The Expos aren’t getting a new stadium, but he wasn’t exactly talking shit. MLB has floated the idea of getting rid of teams.

Of course, it’s a huge lie. They aren’t getting rid of teams at all. They just want to float the idea because they’re trying to get rich by lying about the financial state of the game. Pretending that they might “contract” teams enables them to

A) Get concessions from governments on offering up money from the helpless taxpayer to build shiny new stadia for millionaires, and

B) Throw the whole threat away as a bargaining chip at the next union negotiation.

IF you were going to get rid of baseball teams, the two obvious choices would be Tampa Bay and Montreal. It’s not that those cities won’t support baseball; they will. It’s that both teams are simply organizations in disarray with owners who have run them into the ground.

Imagine a corner store with an owner who refuses to stock any items that anyone would want to buy, hires surly jerks to work the cash, keeps the store in disarray and filth and allows the building to be condemned, and insults anyone who walks by. Eventually the sign breaks but he won’t replace it because he would prefer to spend the money on something else, so the store isn’t even signed or doing any advertising. Naturally, the customers stay away. You know what you’ve got? The corner store version of the Montreal Expos.

Now, would you conclude from this that the store owner was a jerk who deserved to go belly up, or that the local populace just won’t support convenience stores? I’d guess the former. Obviously a well-run convenience store might do much better. Well, that’s the situation the Expos are in. Their owners simly don’t want to succeed; they want an ecuse to sell the team to a Washington or Portland interest, which was their plan all along, and explains why they refuse to allow their games to be televised. If the Expos leave Montreal, a smart entrepreneur would immediately look into starting a new team there, because there is a market there for an MLB team.

The Devil Rays are a sadder case; their owners probably would like to win a World Series but they’re simply out of their league. Tampa (Vince Naimoli) was given a team not because anyone thought Tampa was the best place for one, but because they were afraid Tampa would either sue or lobby to have baseball’s antitrust exemption revoked after the Giants said they’d move to Tampa and then reneged. Simply put, they gave a team to some people who simply don’t have the resources or the competence to run a pro sports team. It was a mistake MLB now regrets.

Of course, contracting Tampa and Montreal would cost MLB at LEAST $500 million. At least. The smart thing to do would be to let them sell to new owners, even if that means moving the teams, which it probably will, and then re-expanding to Tampa and Montreal when decent ownership is prepared to start a new team.

Hockey has no obvious candidates but with the league now ridiculously overexpanded I’m sure one or two clear candidates will soon emerge. Hockey probably SHOULD contact, whereas baseball could actually expand if it wanted to. The Ottawa Senators will be in terrible straits if they ever drop out of contention; Phoenix, as you point out, is a team in disarray and probably never should have moved from Winnipeg.

The NFL should expand, and it doesn’t really matter where to. The NFL is a license to print money. If I were NFL commish I’d be in a hurry to expand anywhere. I’d start new teams in LA, Portland, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Toronto, maybe another team in New York. NFL teams could make money without selling a single ticket.

The NBA has one franchise in trouble, Vancouver, and a lot of teams are losing money, or so they say; they’re probably lying. I don’t think they need to contract.

4

MLB - The Expos. No question. RickJay may be right about them being able to draw fans with a decent team, but I don’t think so. At least, I don’t think they have since the early 80’s. I’d love to say the Brewers, as they’re one of the worst-run teams in the league over the past 15-20 years, but we know that would never happen, regardless of the new stadium, because the same jackass who ran them into the ground is trying to do the same to the whole sport, now. Not that I’m bitter.

NFL - the Bengals. please. Just make them go away.

NHL - the Blackhawks. Dear god, they haven’t made the playoffs for three years (or is it four now) in the freaking NHL. That should be grounds for execution for the entire management staff.

NBA - I’d love to say the Bulls here, for making a mockery of the entire process. They should have to give a trophy back for every 10 games they finish under .500. I think the United Center was mostly privately financed, so losing both the Bulls and Hawks won’t cost the taxpayers -too- much money…

However, the Grizzlies are probably a better choice. As the Raptors will be when Vince leaves.

5

I forgot about Tampa Bay Lightning, boy are they a bad franchise.

Sorry, thought the Expos were getting a new stadium. I think part of the problem IS the market. When Montreal was awarded the franchise in the 1960s, Montreal was considered the #1 city in Canada, then all this French culture/language controversy heated up and many anglos moved to Toronto, along with their love of baseball. I was at an Expos game 2 season ago, right after Mark McGuire hit his 70 homers, and that should be a sellout at any baseball stadium, no matter how sucky the home team or the ballpark. 17,000 people showed up.

Montreal is a hockey town, not a baseball town. If they aren’t getting a new stadium, then I say get rid of 'em! It’s really one of those teams that’s always been in the twilight zone of baseball anyway. Not a shot at the Habs by the way- Montreal is a really really beautiful city, and the women there are absolutely gorgeous! (I have some friends there too!)

You can’t get rid of the Bengals- bad team, but brand new field. The Chicago Blackhawks fall under my rule #5- you can’t get rid of one of the original six NHL teams. Chicago Bulls, too much legacy.

The Vancouver Grizzlies would not be a bad choice, but don’t they have a new arena? Golden State is not a bad choice because I don’t think they have anew arena.

But the LA Clippers are the drizzling shits of franchise sports.

6

I’d agree with the ** Montreal Expos ** in baseball. They just don’t sell anymore, but Loria may end up moving them to N. VA anyway. Put a AAA team up there, the old Royals were there a long time. (Bklyn Dodger farm) Stadium also collapsing.

NHL - NY Islanders. Again, don’t sell. Maybe 2 or 3 sellouts a year, if they are lucky, other than NY Ranger games, where the Ranger fans buy the tix. They have one of the worst management records - run for years from FL where the owner retired to, then sold to a fraud who didn’t HAVE the money, but no one realized it. Guy’s in jail now. Current ownership tried to skip out of the lease, saying the scoreboard was going to fall, etc. Sorry, friend of mine maintained the video screen, said they worked on it and it was up solid as a rock. Reassuring to have your owner seen walking around with “Hockey for Dummies” (no exaggeration). Just got rid of a uniform where the emblem was a fisherman - looked like the guy on the Gortons box. Led to the opposing cheer “We want fish sticks” Now they want a new arena at public expense in a county where the bond rating is dropping like a rock. Sorry, no. Nearest other arena? MSG, older and PRIVATELY OWNED. Is there ateam who has missed the playoffs for a longer stretch than the Isles? 7 years, I believe?

NFL- Can we kill the Redskins? I know they have a storied past, and a new privately built stadium, but it would get Dan Snyder out of the sports pages… The Cowboys, because they’re the Cowboys? Heck, let all the teams live.

NBA - I don’t follow the NBA.

7

I hadn’t realized the Bengals had a new stadium, as I like to pretend they don’t exist. They’re down in drizzling shitville with the Clippers. Of course, the Clippers have a faint glimmer of hope that they can get better, now.

And, I didn’t notice a rule #5, but original 6 or not, the Blackhawks are an embarassment. And we can always slip them in under the organ-i-zational chaos rule.

And the Bulls have no legacy. Their legacy, as much as Reinsdorf and Doughboy wish to believe that they had anything to do with the titles, currently resides in the owner’s box at Wizards games and on the bench at Lakers games.

Of course, this is just my opinion :wink:

8

NHL: The NY Islanders. Pathetic.

NFL: The Cincinatti Bengals. Ditto.

NBA: The LA Clippers. Do they have any fans?

MLB: It’s too easy to say Les Expos, so I gotta say The New York Yankees. They’ve won too many. :slight_smile:

9

Try it bub. :wink:

However, I am for doing away with the Dallas Cowboys, Cincinnati Bengals, Oakland Raiders (only because their fan base is really obnoxious on the BART), NY Jets, Indianapolis Colts (unless they agree to come back to Baltimore), Baltimore Ravens (see previous team), and maybe the Carolina Panthers for good measure.

Hmm, that’s a good chunk of the league…

10

Baseball - My choice goes to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays (or “Rays” as they want to be called, you know, so they don’t promote satanism :rolleyes: ). They don’t even play in Tampa. The Marlins and Expos are close seconds. The Marlins, just call them what they are, the “Miami” Marlins. People from Orlando and Tallahassee don’t drive down to take in a Marlins game. I doubt that many outside of Miami (or the surrounding area) even consider the Marlins their team. The Expos, as has already been pointed out, are a terrible mess. What I don’t understand is why they seem to try every once in a while. Why did they give Vladimir Guerrero a new, expensive contract. Would it really make a difference to the 5k that show up if he was even on the team?

Back to the “Rays” :rolleyes: and Marlins, baseball in Florida seems like a pretty bad idea to me to begin with. It’s way too hot to have day games, and it’s not like it cools off all that much by night time. I believe the idea behind putting baseball in Florida was that all the people that moved down there from the Northeast to retire would support a team. I guess this idea kind of works, since Joe Robbie (Pro Player or whatever) is kind of like the Yankees National League home.

Tropicana Field (where the Rays play) is a joke too. It’s facing the wrong way (I forget which), I mean that the home plate is in a different corner compared to pretty much every other major league stadium. I don’t know how much that affects the players. It looks pretty crappy (IMO) and the ceiling is always getting hit. Once again, the reason they have the dome is because it’s too durn hot for baseball in Florida.

If MLB would’ve put any thought into the “baseball in Florida” idea I think a more logical spot would’ve been Orlando. People would go to the theme parks during the day, then they could take in a ball game at night. I could see that people might be too beat to take in a game after a day of walking around Disney World or something like that, but if there was a cool stadium it could become an attraction. They could have even toyed with the idea of getting Disney involved with another team.

Yeah, in Memphis. At least I’m pretty sure they’re moving there. I heard something about the NBA nixing Federal Express’s attempts to get naming rights to the team. So while I don’t think the Vancouver franchise should be dissolved, they definitely need to be moved.

In the NHL, I’m really surprised that no one has mentioned the absolutely terrible Carolina Hurricanes, they have that toilet bowl for their logo. As bad as attendance might have been in Hartford, I can’t believe that the owner (Karmanos?) thought he’d get more fans in a NASCAR town then he would in New England. While the team made the playoffs, I think that they still had trouble selling the games out.

While I believe that the attendance in new NHL cities (Atlanta, Nashville) in the south (the NASCAR teams, as I call 'em) is OK, I don’t know how they’ll fare in the long run. As for Phoenix, they are in trouble, but now that Gretzky’s on board that should help.

I agree with whomever said that the NFL could expand if they wanted to. I would say the only team that is a possible candidate to close shop would be the Arizona Cardinals. If I’m not mistaken, the Cowboys are usually the biggest draw of the year, and most of them are Cowboy fans. They’re getting a new stadium, but I’m sure that someone will find a way to screw that up.

11

Everytime you post about football, Myrr, I become more and more convinced that you must have been dropped on your head as a baby. Prolly more than once. First, you’re from Baltimore, but you like the Foreskins. Madness! Second, you want the Colts back??? Instead of the (World Champion) Ravens??? The name, absolutely, it should be retired back here where it belongs, but the idea of having a team again run by the greedy, arrogent son of that drunken, brain dead lout Bob is insane! He’s still an IRSAY, Myrr. Not welcome in MY town unless it’s to be the first customer at a new cemetary.

12

Oh there is just soooo much wrong with this.

The Angels do draw fans. Many more fans than Montreal, Tampa Bay, Florida, Kansan City, etc… And the stadium there is a thing of beauty, unlike Dodger Stadium, which is a dump(and I’m a Dodger Fan).

LA has a team. Anaheim has a team. The towns are not that close, and in different counties.

Montreal will get a new stadium when hell freezes over…

Montreal’s gotta go, so do the Clippers and the Bruins.

My Bengals are not going anywhere.

13

Well, I could care less about baseball anymore, so take 'em all.

Basketball, ditto.

Hockey, I say ditch the Flyers. Can we say overrated? Or underachieving? You’d think that Bob Clarke would have gotten some value for the Big Baby while he could, but then Clarkie wouldn’t have been able to take out his vengeance on him. (The big baby, by the way, is Eric Lindros.) They are a poorly run team with second-rate players, except for Primeau.

If they disappeared I wouldn’t shed a single tear.

On to football. Ditch the “World Champion” Ravens. :rolleyes: Why, you say? Because I have the misfortune of living in Harrisburg, which the NFL, in all of it’s infinite wisdom, has determined to be in the Ravens’ viewing area.

My experience here has been that this area is full of ardent Steeler fans, like myself. Hell, we pay for the damn stadium, why can’t we watch the games?

So ditch the Ravens. I want to see my Steelers games.

14

I appreciate all the responses, especially from you Airman, you always have some interesting thoughts to add . . HOWEVER . .

:asshole threadstarter pretending to be school teacher hat on:

I’m starting to notice some of the teams getting eliminated for “personal” reasons. Obviously you CAN’T get rid of the Baltimore Ravens- they are the Super Bowl Champions for chrissakes!:rolleyes:

I hate to pick on you dude, because there are others breaking the rules, but I will use you as an example:

Again, to make this challenging, the 5 rules ARE:

  1. Can’t have a new stadium or stadium deal (though I will admit, Tropicana Field is a pretty pathetic facility) This eliminates the Ravens.
  2. Can’t be a team supported by the fans. Baltimore sells out it’s games and has a rabid fan base. This eliminates the Ravens.
  3. Must have a legacy of mediocrity. The Ravens erased their loser image at the Super Bowl. If they play like shit for the next 40 years, then we will talk. This eliminates the Ravens.
  4. If the team does not follow those rules, but their ownership is a total embarrassment, they can be included (hence the argument for the Islanders despite their 4 straight Stanley Cup championships). Art Modell love him or hate him, runs a team that has won the Super Bowl. This eliminates the Ravens.
  5. They can’t be one of the Original 6 NHL Teams (yeah, I added that one in!:))The Baltimore Ravens never played in the NHL, so I guess you could make an argument that they should be eliminated. Okay you got me there! :rolleyes:

If this were an “I hate this team so let’s get rid of them, I’d already have the Devils, Mets, Giants and Lakers eliminated!!!”

:asshole threadstarter pretending to be school teacher hat off. Preparing to be lowered into BBQ Pit!:

15

Hey, I never said I wanted the owner back with them. In fact, I’d be happy to just kick him in the groin until he agrees to swap Indianapolis’ and Baltimore’s team names and (pre-83) history.

Vinnie Virginslayer: I am invoking “is a mockery of all that is sacred in the NFL” rule… :slight_smile:

16

Dignan:

Probably not much, since the field is indoors. Usually, designers of outdoor stadiums make a point of putting home plate in a specific corner so the batters don’t face the sun during afternoon/evening games. In an indoor stadium, that point is moot.

spooje:

The Bronx and Queens are different counties as well. Does that mean the Yankees and Mets don’t serve the same market?

Let’s face the facts: Anaheim-as-its-own-city-and-not-just-a-Los-Angeles-suburb is a specific promotional effort of the Walt Disney corporation, not any reflection of demographical reality.

17

NFL Football: Arizona Cardinals. As long as the Bidwell family runs them they’re going to stink. They’ve been run out of two cities already, and are close to wearing out their welcome in a third. Just put them out of their misery already.

NBA Basketball: The Nets, the Wizards or my beloved Cavs. None of them have got either a prayer or a clue.

MLB: None

NHL: I don’t follow it enough to know.

FWIW, I disagree with the criteria about new stadiums. Just because a rotten team plays in a new park is no reason to justify continue to throwing good money after bad.

18

Exactly. Kill the teams, and let the local schools play there or something. The kids would love it, and the taxpayers paid for half of em anyway.

19

Have to argue with “absolutely terrible” - as you noted, the Hurricanes made the playoffs this year and even won a couple of games there against New Jersey. And last year they only missed going to the playoffs by a single point in the standings. They’ve only played two seasons so far in Raleigh, and somewhat slow in getting support – ACC sports at NC State, UNC and Duke are actually more competition for their demographics than NASCAR – but recently they met their season ticket goal for next year of 12,000. Management and the players seem to get along well, and there are no conflicts with the community, so I think some of the more disorganized franchises are better candidates for dissolving.

20

The Bronx and Queens are in different counties but are both burroughs of the City of New York. There are lots of suburbs of LA, Anaheim isn’t one of them.(BTW, I’m in LA)