Most dysfunctional team in pro sports..

Seriously, is there a more dysfunctional team in pro sports than the NY Mets. There's more to this Beltran story that we know. In fact...there's more to the NY Mets injury situation of last season. There has to be because i've never seen anything like it.

I dont' have alot of time to post all my thoughts right now...but i'll post this one. Why the fu(k did the NY Mets organization express their unhappiness with Beltran through the media????? Arguably their biggest star....couldn't this have been expressed behind closed doors? And is it a surprise Beltran just went and did it w/o the NY Mets medical staff review & approval? Is there any doubt he and many Mets players distrust the competency or honesty of the medical staff?

Uhhh...hello Raiders anyone???

This one isn't even remotely close...

Where are the Nets?!?!

I don't think 3 wins half way through a season is very good in any sport, including football. :eek:



















I made a funny :)

And the Nationals deserve some love, on some level at least.

I am still going with the Nets though.

The Baltimore Orioles no doubt about it

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/272604/flowchart1.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KowboyKoop

Uhhh...hello Raiders anyone???

This one isn't even remotely close...

---

Al Davis takes any dysfunctional prize immediately.

I don't think McFail from the O's is THAT bad....they have a good young core.

but still.

Raiders for football (rams arne't that far off now)
Nets for baseketball
Nationals for baseball








































and Thunderbunnies are the greatest beer league softball team ever ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Nets for baseketball

---

For Baseketball I'd definitely have to disagree with you and go with the Milwaukee Beers

the nats and nets are badly run teams.....but not dysfunctional, or at least nearly as close as the Mets. Now the raiders are a good fit...a close second IMHO.

metsguys post was a big winner here though. the best post i've ever seen him make in fact. Great flow chart!!!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/272604/flowchart1.png

---

awesome!!! and so true...all of it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

For Baseketball I'd definitely have to disagree with you and go with the Milwaukee Beers

---

ha! good catch....i do that a lot when typing too fast....

Bad != dysfunctional
But dysfunctional usually leads to bad

Nats are less dysfunctional and more bad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

The Baltimore Orioles no doubt about it

---

No.


In baseball, it's a Contest between the Royals and Mets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

No.


In baseball, it's a Contest between the Royals and Mets.

---

Orioles or Twins. Not arguable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Orioles or Twins. Not arguable.

---

Please stop trolling.

Mets FTW Such an embrassment to be a fan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Please stop trolling.

---

http://www.tynansanger.com/uploaded_...tor-710628.jpg

Raiders. No contest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosensgo101

Raiders. No contest.

---

2nd isn't bad.

The mets and radiers should have a suckoff and see who sucks more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing6

2nd isn't bad.

The mets and radiers should have a suckoff and see who sucks more.

---

A suck off...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

A suck off...

---

:o

O's are bad, but not truly dysfunctional quite yet. The Nats, though? Signing 22 year old 18-year-olds...fining players for going to Little League games..."Natinals"...Lastings Milledge...Jim Bowden in general? The Mets are very high up the list, and you have to give the Royals credit for trying (Willie Bloomquist), but for pure entertainment value, nothing beats the Natinals!

Quote:

---

Lastings Milledge

---

Not even on the team anymore

Quote:

---

Jim Bowden in general

---

Again, not even part of the team anymore.

Quote:

---

Royals credit for trying (Willie Bloomquist)

---

Willie Bloomquist is hardly the reason they're considered dysfunctional.

I'm a Met, Knick, Nets, Wizards and Nationals fan and I'm sober!

The Knicks are on the rebound this year but when Issiah Thomas was in control, I don't think anyone can top that. With the amount of money the Mets have they have to be a runner up. A stoned Yami could have done a better job as GM of the Mets.

I don't think the Nets are dysfunctional at all, they are just rebuilding after a very successful run. Nats are young, I'm looking forward to seeing all the young pitchers they grow up. Wizards paid top dollar for a scoring point guard and like any team that did this in history they failed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guidi2009

I'm a Met, Knick, Nets, Wizards and Nationals fan and I'm sober!

The Knicks are on the rebound this year but when Issiah Thomas was in control, I don't think anyone can top that. With the amount of money the Mets have they have to be a runner up. A stoned Yami could have done a better job as GM of the Mets.

I don't think the Nets are dysfunctional at all, they are just rebuilding after a very successful run. Nats are young, I'm looking forward to seeing all the young pitchers they grow up. Wizards paid top dollar for a scoring point guard and like any team that did this in history they failed.

---

good point on the Knicks. They are improveing but far from over their dysfunctional mess Isaaih left.

when i think of dysfunctional...its far more than a teams win/loss record. the natinals are pretty damn dysfunctional...but IMO the Mets with all the injury issues (far more to the story than just injuries / Bernazard / Omar blaming a beat writer / failure to sign FA's / etc. etc. etc. The off the field stuff on the Mets hurt them more than any other teams off the field stuff.

In the words of the Indians field crew....."These guys are sh!tty"

The thing is, a team can be very, very, bad and have a history of making bad decisions, but I wouldn't consider them disfunctional unless the whole organization is simply screwed up. Look at the Detroit Lions, for example. They're bad; they've been bad for a long time. But organizationally, there's not much difference between them and the good teams in the league--they've just made bad decision after bad decision. Contrast that with the Raiders. The Raiders don't have an organizational structure that resembles any other team that I'm aware of in any other professional sport. Guys have odd titles that you don't find with other NFL teams, their duties and authority don't match their titles, and nobody can really tell you who makes what decisions, other than that anything important is decided by Al Davis himself. Even when they were good, IMO they were a disfunctional organization, because everything depended on 1 guy making good football decisions--and since that 1 guy was the (effective) owner, he couldn't be fired, kicked upstaris, or replaced, and wasn't answerable to anyone. That's disfunctional.

Hello, Oakland Raiders! And a small consolation prize to the LA Clippers.

The O's were pretty damn dysfunctional when the two headed GM monster of Beattie and Flanagan was running them into the ground with a large assist from one of the smartest attorneys/dumbest sports owners in history. They then passed the mantle in baseball to the Mets, although my Jays were giving the team from Queens a pretty good run for their money until the schnoz was fired last October 3. Since then I think the Mets are running away with it in baseball. Football has the Raiders and basketball has the Clippers, but definitely the current dysfunctional kings of baseball are the Mets. :D

MG: That flow chart = thread win. :D

In all Sports, its all Raidahs.

The Pirates do need a medal for 17 years without a winning record. But I think Hunnington finally gets it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

In all Sports, its all Raidahs.

---

Just lose baby!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Orioles or Twins. Not arguable.

---

lol Twins not even close

2 yeras ago I would have said pitt
now probably Houston NYM, or Royals

Twins are possibly one of the best ran organizations in baseball. If only the owner would pay to keep some players....Imagine if they had never done the Santana deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

The Pirates do need a medal for 17 years without a winning record. But I think Hunnington finally gets it

---

If I'm not mistaken 17 straight seasons without a winning record is a new MLB record. :cool: So yes indeed, they deserve a medal and congratulations Pirates and Pirates lovers everywhere. Keep it going. Make it one of the most unbreakable records in the sport. :p

No matter what and despite the "accomplishment", I don't think they'll ever match the agony of Phillies' fans from 1918 through 1948. From 1918 through 1931 they endured 14 straight non-winning seasons, with a brief small ray of sunshine in 1932 (a 78-76 [.506] record, break out the champagne baby! :D ) and then back to losing again with 16 straight non-winning seasons from 1933 through 1948. Ouch! Missed 31 straight by that much. Whoa! Chin up Pirates faithful. I believe when Huntington digs you out of this mess, things will be much better...but until then. :(

Other big ones (I include .500 seasons in these streaks because technically they're not winning seasons, :p but a .500 season cannot start a non-winning streak, it can only extend one - K? ;) ):

16: Red Sox (1919-1934), Cubs (1947-1962)

15: Athletics (1953-1967)

14: Orioles (1946-1959), Brewers (1993-2006), Mariners (1977-1990)

13: Athletics (1934-1946)

12: Orioles (1930-1941), Orioles (1998-2009: only other active double-digit streak), Tigers (1994-2005)

11: Braves (1903-1913), Braves (1922-1932), Cubs (1973-1983), Reds (1945-1955), Dodgers (1904-1914), Twins (1901-1911)

10: Astros (1962-1971), Athletics (1915-1924), Rays (1998-2007), Nationals (1969-1978)

I didn't change the nicknames of the franchises because they've changed so much through the years. If you want to...knock yourself out. :p

See metsguy, it's not so bad, your team's just dysfunctional - they don't completely suck. :D

Quote:

---

See metsguy, it's not so bad, your team's just dysfunctional - they don't completely suck.

---

perfect comment!!

I find the Mets fascinating because they have tons of talent....but they are just completely dysfunctional. If they sucked and were dysfunctional (like the Raiders or Pirates) they wouldn't be nearly as much fun. The Mets are solid humor.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by actionjackson

If I'm not mistaken 17 straight seasons without a winning record is a new MLB record. :cool: So yes indeed, they deserve a medal and congratulations Pirates and Pirates lovers everywhere. Keep it going. Make it one of the most unbreakable records in the sport. :p

No matter what and despite the "accomplishment", I don't think they'll ever match the agony of Phillies' fans from 1918 through 1948. From 1918 through 1931 they endured 14 straight non-winning seasons, with a brief small ray of sunshine in 1932 (a 78-76 [.506] record, break out the champagne baby! :D ) and then back to losing again with 16 straight non-winning seasons from 1933 through 1948. Ouch! Missed 31 straight by that much. Whoa! Chin up Pirates faithful. I believe when Huntington digs you out of this mess, things will be much better...but until then. :(

Other big ones (I include .500 seasons in these streaks because technically they're not winning seasons, :p but a .500 season cannot start a non-winning streak, it can only extend one - K? ;) ):

16: Red Sox (1919-1934), Cubs (1947-1962)

15: Athletics (1953-1967)

14: Orioles (1946-1959), Brewers (1993-2006), Mariners (1977-1990)

13: Athletics (1934-1946)

12: Orioles (1930-1941), Orioles (1998-2009: only other active double-digit streak), Tigers (1994-2005)

11: Braves (1903-1913), Braves (1922-1932), Cubs (1973-1983), Reds (1945-1955), Dodgers (1904-1914), Twins (1901-1911)

10: Astros (1962-1971), Athletics (1915-1924), Rays (1998-2007), Nationals (1969-1978)

I didn't change the nicknames of the franchises because they've changed so much through the years. If you want to...knock yourself out. :p

See metsguy, it's not so bad, your team's just dysfunctional - they don't completely suck. :D

---

wait a second...weren't the cubs out of the playoffs for 39 straight years prior to 84?

just thought I would add that.




what's the longest over .500 streak then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

wait a second...1) weren't the cubs out of the playoffs for 39 straight years prior to 84?

just thought I would add that.




2) what's the longest over .500 streak then?

---

1) It is possible to have a winning record without getting to the playoffs.

2) If I were a betting man, I'd look at one team and one team only. You either love them or you hate them: The New York Yankee$. Their economic clout tends to result in fans with this perspective on all things baseball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

perfect comment!!

I find the Mets fascinating because they have tons of talent....but they are just completely dysfunctional. If they sucked and were dysfunctional (like the Raiders or Pirates) they wouldn't be nearly as much fun. The Mets are solid humor.:D

---

I actually think the Pirates are quite functional right now. I don't think it's fair to lay the debacles of the 8 year (ugh!) Cam Bonifay era (1994-2001) and the 5 year Dave Littlefield era (2002-2006) at the feet of Neal Huntington who's only had the job for three years and is still cleaning up from 13 years of idiot GMs. To a certain extent you can only be as successful as a GM as ownership will allow you to be and I think it says a lot that they've allowed Huntington to strip it to the bare bones and build it back up from the ground up. I think he'll do a great job.

Minaya has been an incredibly dysfunctional GM since taking over the Expos in 2002 at the behest of MLB. While it may not be fair to judge a man on his record at the helm of a team without ownership, I'm quite sure Nationals fans would beg to differ. You see Minaya was the bonehead who traded Cliff Lee, Brandon Phillips, Grady Sizemore, and Lee Stevens for half a season of this guy and Tim (not J.D., not Stephen) Drew. I'm pretty sure the Nats would love to have Lee, Phillips, and Sizemore at this point, that is if Jim Bowden could've resisted the temptation to trade all of them off for toolsy outfielders. :rolleyes: Everybody knows about his time with the Mets, but that trade wound up fu(king up another NL East team and he hasn't been able to take advantage of that yet, with only 1 division title to show for his five years with a team with a huge payroll budget. Add in the distractions and inanities illustrated brilliantly by metsguy's flow chart earlier in the thread, and you have a rather sad legacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by actionjackson

1) It is possible to have a winning record without getting to the playoffs.

2) If I were a betting man, I'd look at one team and one team only. You either love them or you hate them: The New York Yankee$. Their economic clout tends to result in fans with this perspective on all things baseball:

---

you love adding that photo everywhere.

on issue number 1. I edited my comment to say that i realize that he said .500 not playoff.