Which of these recent perennial losing teams is in best condition to become better?

[bobbymagee]

Orioles
Royals
Athletics
Padres
Pirates
Nationals

[sprucemoose]

How can a team with three pennants and four playoff appearances in the last decade be considered a perennial loser?

[bobbymagee]

How can a team with three pennants and four playoff appearances in the last decade be considered a perennial loser?

Oakland?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/OAK/

At the most mediocre, 12 winning seasons out of 20 years.

[Yankeeah]

Oakland has been in the playoffs half the decade and has the sixth most victories from 200-2009 and 1990-2009. Not exactly perennial losers.

[heyabbott]

Long term, I think the Nats are in the best position to get good and stay there, followed by the Royals

[bobbymagee]

Oakland has been in the playoffs half the decade and has the sixth most victories from 200-2009 and 1990-2009. Not exactly perennial losers.

Ok, I looked at the most recent three years: they had below .500 for those years. Plus, it has been a while since winning a World Series, twenty years.

[delv]

Long term, I think the Nats are in the best position to get good and stay there, followed by the Royals

but their GM sucks. they signed Pudge to a 2-yr deal.

it seems that most of the clubs on this list have crappy GMs. I voted for the Orioles. too much talent.

[eaganmafia]

I went with Oakland (even though they're far from perennial losers) I love what Baltimore has going on, but some many thing are going to have to go right for them to compete in the AL East with Boston, NYY and TB. While Oakland has a sick farm system and I think they can compete easier in the West.

BTW shouldn't the Rangers be on this list over the Padres & Oakland?

[Snatch Catch]

Royals, they've been crushing the draft.

[bobbymagee]

BTW shouldn't the Rangers be on this list over the Padres & Oakland?

I can't disagree with the notion about the Texas Rangers.

[eaganmafia]

Royals, they've been crushing the draft.

If by crushing you mean blowing it then yes...

[Snatch Catch]

If by crushing you mean blowing it then yes...

I meant blowing, yes.

[DEADSOX]

I'll say it's a tossup b/w the Royals and Orioles. The Royals actually try and get better, and have some real decent pieces in a fairly weak division. The Orioles have some really good bats and some promising young pitching, unforunately, being the in the AL East really hurts them.

[NYYRules#1]

Orioles. The only thing standing in their way is the vfact that they're in the thoughest division in baseball.

If they Harper, the Nats have to be up there as well.

[sprucemoose]

I vote for Oakland. Unless MLB institutes a salary cap in the next year...from what I hear, the Orioles would be World Series contenders every year if only a salary cap existed in baseball.

[BronxYanks45]

Oakland shouldnt be in the list

[bobbymagee]

Oakland shouldnt be in the list

Have you notice their records from 07 to 09? When was the last time they won a world series?

[eaganmafia]

Have you notice their records from 07 to 09? When was the last time they won a world series?

So a bad three year rebuilding run negats the rest of the decade?

The Twins haven't won a World Series since 1991, I sure as hell would call them perennial losers.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

Have you notice their records from 07 to 09? When was the last time they won a world series?

I know you focused on those seasons, but that seems a little shortsighted Yes, they've been pretty bad the past few years. Prior to that they had 8 straight years above .500, and have been to the playoffs 5 years in the 2000's. That's really not a team that belongs on a list of perennial losing teams, especially if that list is only 6 teams long.

As to the last time they won the WS, that's more recent than the last title for many teams you didn't include on your list, so I don't understand your point.

[BaylorBearYankeeFan]

I voted Royals...Detroit is shedding payroll. Chicago is alright. Cleveland is a mess. The Twins are by far the best in the division and that isn't saying much. I think the Royals will just have an easier time getting better.

While the O's do have some good prospects, they play in the AL East and the division isn't getting any easier.

[kan_t]

Padres shouldn't be on the list. They won two division titles in the middle of the decade.

[ace]

The Royals need to go for it soon, while they have a window.

[roblyo33]

I voted the O's because of some nice young talent. For some reason, I think Reimold will be a stud.

[bobbymagee]

So a bad three year rebuilding run negats the rest of the decade?

The Twins haven't won a World Series since 1991, I sure as hell would call them perennial losers.

I can't disagree with your thoughts.

Padres shouldn't be on the list. They won two division titles in the middle of the decade.

I can't disagree with your view. However, IMO, the Friars are either mediocre or real bad.

Oakland has been in the playoffs half the decade and has the sixth most victories from 2000 -2009 and 1990-2009. Not exactly perennial losers.

Your view is taken, I just believe they have done enough to be competetive yet continue to dissappoint. Yeah, they aren't perennial losers, but disappointing considering being close to what all teams aspire.

[corsari42]

I voted for the Pirates. I like what they're doing under their new GM. They've accumelated some nice talent and are really headed in the right direction I think.

The Orioles would seem like the obvious choice, as they have the most talent of all of these teams. But they're up against the Yanks and BoSox (and also TB). Had they been in another division I would've voted for them.

The Royals, with their favorable division, would be my 2nd choice, after the Pirates.

I really don't like the Nationals' farm, outside of a few prospects. And I'm not sure what to think of the Padres, they did look pretty good after the AS break.

The Athletics shouldn't be an option for this poll.

[DontHateOnNumber2]

I voted for the Pirates. Their young guys have been playing quite well for them, and assuming management doesn't deal any of them, I'm sure they can contend in their division.

[TheGameEpisode2]

If the Orioles played anywhere else but the AL East they might be division contenders this year with their nice pitching coming up to go along with their offense.

But looking at some of the teams on this list, a lot of them are pretty pathetic. Padres won't do anything for a long time, especially in that division (which has improved drastically) and while the Nationals have nice pieces coming up (Strasburg...that other dude they drafted), they continue to make fools of themselves like giving Pudge 2 years.

The Royals will be bad until Moore gets the hell out of there.

[NYYRules#1]

Your view is taken, I just believe they have done enough to be competetive yet continue to dissappoint. Yeah, they aren't perennial losers, but disappointing considering being close to what all teams aspire.

Being competitive inherently means they're not perennial losers. In fact, they're one of the more successful teams of this decade, and I'd put them right alongside the Twins, Indians, Cubs, and maybe Braves as best teams this decade that didn't win a World Series.

[NYYRules#1]

I voted for the Pirates. I like what they're doing under their new GM. They've accumelated some nice talent and are really headed in the right direction I think.

The Orioles would seem like the obvious choice, as they have the most talent of all of these teams. But they're up against the Yanks and BoSox (and also TB). Had they been in another division I would've voted for them.

The Royals, with their favorable division, would be my 2nd choice, after the Pirates.

I really don't like the Nationals' farm, outside of a few prospects. And I'm not sure what to think of the Padres, they did look pretty good after the AS break.

The Athletics shouldn't be an option for this poll.

Totally agreed. Although with the Royals, they still have a ways until they can become contenders, IMO. I love their pitching, but they have an abysmal offense - on historic levels - that doesn't look like it's getting that much better. Until they can piece together a decent offense, I can't see them jumping into the playoffs. It's a shame too, because their pitching staff is quite nice (especially if Hochevar gets his act together and starts performing like a #1 draft pick, which I wouldn't count on). KC needs a better FO though - Moore has proven abysmal at assembling an offense, and hasn't been great in the draft either (exhibit A: Hochevar, who was taken over Lincecum, Kershaw, Longoria, Snider, Stubbs, Scherzer, etc.).

[NewEraYanks2527]

The Nats if Strausberg lives up to half of his expectations. That and if they draft Bryce and he follows suit. I would really like to see the Nats do well and be another thorn in the side of the Mets.

[ej877]

The Orioles are eventually going to get better,
which is not saying much.
They have an organization less opposed to spending on free agents,
and a few young core players around which to build.
Weiters
Jones
Reimold
Markakis
Matusz
Tillman
Arrieta

Also, a solid fan base, and a collective memory of having been successful as an organization.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

I voted for the Pirates. Their young guys have been playing quite well for them, and assuming management doesn't deal any of them, I'm sure they can contend in their division.

That seems a little like assuming the yankees move towards a league-average payroll.

[bobbymagee]

Being competitive inherently means they're not perennial losers. In fact, they're one of the more successful teams of this decade, and I'd put them right alongside the Twins, Indians, Cubs, and maybe Braves as best teams this decade that didn't win a World Series.

Ok big boy.... you are probably right about your issue.
Which recent perennial losing team would replace Oakland in this poll? Anyone else can chime in too.

[Ram Man]

Which recent perennial losing team would replace Oakland in this poll? Anyone else can chime in too.

It depends on what you use as the definition of "losing team?" At one level, there is no team that is more of a loser than the Cubs, but at least they have had a recent habit of doing their losing in the playoffs. The Reds haven't done much winning since 1990 other than getting swept in the 1995 NLCS. That's 14 straight seasons of nada and only one .500+ season this decade.

[hellonewman]

It depends on what you use as the definition of "losing team?" At one level, there is no team that is more of a loser than the Cubs, but at least they have had a recent habit of doing their losing in the playoffs. The Reds haven't done much winning since 1990 other than getting swept in the 1995 NLCS. That's 14 straight seasons of nada and only one .500+ season this decade.

The Reds are definitely the stealth suck team. No winning seasons since 2000, no playoffs since 1995 although they made a play-in game in 1999.

I voted the Orioles in this poll. Not sure why so many are using the division they're in as a disqualifier. The question wasn't which team has the best chance to win a division, it's which team has the best chance to "become better." They've got some young talent that gives them a chance to "get better," though they're still short on pitching.

[bobbymagee]

The Reds are definitely the stealth suck team.

You have a way with words...

[cyhughes22]

The Nats if Strausberg lives up to half of his expectations. That and if they draft Bryce and he follows suit. I would really like to see the Nats do well and be another thorn in the side of the Mets.

Is it bad that I would sell my first born for Bryce?