Yeah, the Tampa Bay (Devil) Rays and the St. Louis Browns were the 1st 2 teams to come to mind.
I lived in Gainesville for two years and would drive the ~2.5 hrs to Tropicana whenever the Red Sox were in town for a weekend series and I could catch two game if I stayed overnight. The area was by far the best part. Now I know that isn't the same thing as saying the locals would go to more games if it was more convenient for them. However, it was great to see the Sox, terrible to watch baseball in that building, great to visit the Dali museum, great to hang out in Ybor city, etc.
I'm surprised that you weight championship success above all else. surely you'd rather be a Cubs fan than Diamondbacks fan.
The Cubs are a strange one in that we all expect them to be awesome now and break their streak in the next few years. But that Diamondbacks run from 1999-2002 is way better than anything the Cubs have done since the war. It actually happened, rather than us expecting it to happen.
yes, pure logic dictates it's the Cubs. interestingly, on the illogical "feels" side of things, it's also the Cubs.
.
No, based on pure logic, it can't be the Cubs because the Cubs remain in Chicago where they've been since 1876. They've had the same team name since 1903, numerous hall-of-fame players and have been successful enough often enough in the regular season to warrant a "curse" legend to explain what keeps them from winning the championship.
I'm going to second this one. Marginally better post-season success with one championship in the last nearly 100 years, which can be argued was the epitome of catching lightning in a bottle. Horrible attendance over the years, and horrible ballparks to boot. They threatened to leave town in order to strong arm the city/state to build them a new ballpark and what do they do? They botch the "retro" trend before it really began by building a soulless replica of their old shit hole rather than going for something new. In retrospect it makes sense considering the stadium that was built to lure them out of Chicago is its own brand of soulless (the Trop).
Maybe the Indians then. But even they are a long way from the Major League days.
The Phils and Cleveland were my #s 2 and 3 picks. I didn't choose them based solely on market size (vs the massive Chicagoland population and affluence) and that the fan base has shown SOME support when they have been winners (which granted hasn't been often).
The Cubs, as the Cubs and before that the White Stockings back to 1876, were pretty good, making that .512 kind of distorted WRT the modern era.
I would have been able to name at least Frank Howard, Paul Casanova, Don Blasingame, Ed Brinkmann Ken Harrelson, Hank Allen (Dick's brother), Camillo Pasqual...and Gil Hodges as Manager (Casanova and Pasqual became two of my favorite APBA game board players later in HS). But that is because, as I mentioned above, I followed them as a kid. And then, as chance would have it, a HS classmate and teammate of my Dad's - Bob Humphrey, joined the Senators in '66, and he invited us into the clubhouse on a number of occasions. As a 10-11 YO, standing next to Frank Howard was an unforgettable experience.
Have to co-sign TheYaz67 here --
...either we have very different ideas about what makes a park great or crappy, or you've never been to Petco.
The Indians had the 90's. The Marlins had 2 title years and each year was celebrated with a bonfire.
Egg on my face. I was thinking of Jack Murphy. Didn't realize that Petco was an entirely new stadium, not just a rename. So, umm, yeah, that was like 10 years ago.
The Phillies, however, have at least had their share of all-time great players. An all-time Phillies team would stack up awfully well compared to the other franchises called out in this thread.
and really until 1945 the Cubs had been successful (10 pennants in 40 years or so). they just lost a lot in the world series. the phillies had exactly TWO pennants prior to 1980.
The Pilots were moved after their one season to Milwaukee and are now the Brewers. The Brew Crew hasn't been great, but they haven't been completely terrible either.
The bolded is just weird, not an indicator of how bad a franchise is. Put it this way up until two (or three) years ago, the Mets have never had a no-hitter. The Mets have had Tom Seaver, Nolan Ryan, Dwight Gooden, David Cone, Brett Saberhagen among others on their staffs and never had a no-hitter. That's just crazy.
That's only because they've existed for 130 years. Even then I don't know who I'd take them over aside from the expansion teams of the last 30 years and the Padres.
If we're counting the St Louis Browns and omitting them as the Baltimore Orioles (and, ironically in the context of this thread, the Milwaukee Brewers), you have to consider the Seattle Pilots independent of their later existence as the second incarnation of the Milwaukee Brewers.
Well, I mean, it would seem the Yankees have had an extremely negative value over time, so it would seem to be a perfect pick.
A quick glance at the all-time WAR leaders (Fangraphs edition) might have me changing my vote to San Diego. Their third-best position player of all time is Chase Headley.
Gene Tenace being fifth is even more damning. He's an Oakland Athletic famous for hitting a few homers in the 1972 World Series. I had no idea he even played for the Padres.
