Support for your local professional sports team

Donate To GopherHole
Ogie Ogilthorpe

Ogie Ogilthorpe

Tattooed Millionaire
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
23,109
Reaction score
16,405
Points
113
Seeing the Vikings make some moves lately like trading for Yannick N, signing Cook long term, et al and I guess maybe you can even lump in the Wolves move to trade for D Russell; how much of your team support is tied to your perception of how the team is committed to winning and their willingness to make moves to try to put them over the top?

For years the Twins and Pohlads were hammered on because they never would make big moves at the deadline to make a playoff push. The Wild? I don't know enough about their history but the results sure don't support that they are willing to do what it takes to be successful. The current Vikings regime seems willing to make moves to keep the team a contender from year to year and it looks like the new Twins management is more aggressive as well.

Since it's our city's first professional sports team, I'm a huge supporter and season ticket holder for the Vegas Golden Knights and a big part of the reason I am is because the ownership has shown that they are 100% committed to being successful, willing to make any move, any trade, and the results are there; currently in their second Western Conference Finals series in just 3 years in the league.

Who's your favorite pro franchise and are you happy with their effort in being competitive?
 

Vikings, they are doing what they can, without a young superstar quarterback or a quarterback willing to play at an under the market salary it's tough to have a dominant team in the NFL.
 

I'm an unabashed homer for all things Minnesota. I give the Wilf Era Vikings a lot of credit as they've gone "all in" in nearly every situation. From Jared Allen to Favre to stepping up on most team free agents, the Wilf's are here for a Super Bowl ring. It hasn't happened yet, but it's not without going all in.

Re: Wolves, I just hope we get new ownership. Outside of saving the franchise from moving two decades ago, Taylor has arguably been the worst owner in pro sports, outside of maybe the Browns owner.

The younger Pohlad's seem more willing to make the big move (re: Donaldson, Cruz, etc.) but as cheap as the older Pohlad's were, they still hoisted the trophy in 87/91.

Go Minnesota Sports!!
 

Hindsight is always 20-20. when the Wild signed Parise and Suter, hockey fans in MN thought they were on their way to the Stanley Cup. It didn't happen.

a bold move that works out is hailed. a bold move that doesn't work out is criticized.

It's not just about making moves. it's about having a plan for the franchise. and sometimes it's just about getting lucky.

for me, the bottom line is that there are no guarantees. I used to work for a guy who was a rabid Cubs fan. Until the Cubs won the Series in 2016, they had gone 98 years between championships. and their fans still supported them.

if it's only about winning, then why are we all here on a site devoted to Gopher sports?
 



I am a glutton for punishment as the Wolves are still the pro team I would love to see win a championship first. Being a Gophers and Wolves fan is never easy.
 


The Twins are my favorite professional team. I’ve been generally satisfied with their commitment to winning. However, I hated the decision to let Ortiz go at the time and, in retrospect, it proved to be a horrible decision.

I’m also a Wild fan - I was like most, fired up by the Suter and Parise signings in 2012, but that hasn’t resulted in much beyond a couple of first round series victories. If they trade Dumba, I’ll be pissed.

Love seeing the Vikings fail year after year.
 

Golden Knights were exposed. Not a bad team....just not very good.
 



Ogee Oglethorpe said:
Seeing the Vikings make some moves lately like trading for Yannick N, signing Cook long term, et al and I guess maybe you can even lump in the Wolves move to trade for D Russell; how much of your team support is tied to your perception of how the team is committed to winning and their willingness to make moves to try to put them over the top?

For years the Twins and Pohlads were hammered on because they never would make big moves at the deadline to make a playoff push. The Wild? I don't know enough about their history but the results sure don't support that they are willing to do what it takes to be successful. The current Vikings regime seems willing to make moves to keep the team a contender from year to year and it looks like the new Twins management is more aggressive as well.

Since it's our city's first professional sports team, I'm a huge supporter and season ticket holder for the Vegas Golden Knights and a big part of the reason I am is because the ownership has shown that they are 100% committed to being successful, willing to make any move, any trade, and the results are there; currently in their second Western Conference Finals series in just 3 years in the league.

Who's your favorite pro franchise and are you happy with their effort in being competitive?
Click to expand...
Nothing against the Knights (I actually have enjoyed their success and having them in the league), but the expansion draft was set up very favorably for them compared to the old rules. Compare the roster they started with to the Wild's original group - night and day different.
 

Gophers1992 said:
Nothing against the Knights (I actually have enjoyed their success and having them in the league), but the expansion draft was set up very favorably for them compared to the old rules. Compare the roster they started with to the Wild's original group - night and day different.
Click to expand...
Jesus. No offense but at what point are people going to let this go? It's the favorite fallback for every VGK hater; they were gifted a good team out of the gate, blah, blah, blah... That doesn't change the fact that they got really lucky with a few acquisitions blossoming with increased roles, they absolutely fleeced a few other GM's who tried to outsmart themselves (much love to the Wild for handing over Haula and Tuch), and yes they were able to pick some cast-offs from other teams that were not top-6 (in many cases not even top-9) players. That's why they called themselves the Golden Misfits the first year.

Arguably many of the best players during this year's run to the WC Final were later acquisitions; Mark Stone, Pacioretty, Lehner, Stephenson, Cousins, Martinez were all key players that were not on the roster that first year. But what the heck, I guess we'll hear about this being gifted a good team for the first 6, 8, 10 years of the franchise?

Were the expansion rules different? Yes, they were. But I guess I would argue it's for the better? Regardless of the sport, what does it benefit anyone for a new franchise to absolutely suck for the first several years?

Back to the original point of the thread; SINCE that first season, VGK has aggressively made moves to improve their position every year in both the offseason and at the deadline and it makes it a lot easier to get behind a team that has management willing to go all in.

Some owners are there to be owners, and some are there to win and be competitive; I was just curious about what some thought about their favorite team in regards to whether or not they believe their ownership and management are aggressive and committed to winning.
 

Nokomis said:
Lynx, yes.
Click to expand...
Just curious... not watching the Lynx SUPER closely, do you think they are competitive because of strong/aggressive ownership or they just happen to have drafted some of the best players in the league? I know they've come up big with some of their high draft picks.

Luck with draft picks? Or shrewd and aggressive management? I'm curious
 

Ogee Oglethorpe said:
Just curious... not watching the Lynx SUPER closely, do you think they are competitive because of strong/aggressive ownership or they just happen to have drafted some of the best players in the league? I know they've come up big with some of their high draft picks.

Luck with draft picks? Or shrewd and aggressive management? I'm curious
Click to expand...
Lindsay Whalen. Perhaps the greatest trade in MN sports history and the very definition of a franchise player. Maybe not the best player on the team but certainly the linchpin that brought it all together and helped solidify the fanbase. So maybe a bit of luck, but also having enough sense to aggressively pursue Whalen and build a team around her.
 



Gophers1992 said:
Nothing against the Knights (I actually have enjoyed their success and having them in the league), but the expansion draft was set up very favorably for them compared to the old rules. Compare the roster they started with to the Wild's original group - night and day different.
Click to expand...

Handed a very favorable hand and still face planted. Ouch!
 

again - simply being aggressive doesn't guarantee anything.

aggressive and smart is a much better combination.

but the franchise has to have everything in sync - supportive ownership willing to spend money - a front office that makes smart moves - a coaching staff that can execute the game plan - and players who buy into the vision for the franchise.

put all of that together, and you've got a good shot to be successful.

On the Lynx - they have played most of the year without Fowles, so they have none of the regulars left from the last title team. and they are still having a decent season. they have drafted well and made some smart trades. they also had at least one key player opt out due to covid. Their Coach/GM is arguably one of the best for any Twin Cities sports franchise.
 

BleedGopher said:
Re: Wolves, I just hope we get new ownership. Outside of saving the franchise from moving two decades ago, Taylor has arguably been the worst owner in pro sports, outside of maybe the Browns owner.

The younger Pohlad's seem more willing to make the big move (re: Donaldson, Cruz, etc.) but as cheap as the older Pohlad's were, they still hoisted the trophy in 87/91.

Go Minnesota Sports!!
Click to expand...

As long as James Lawrence Dolan lives and owns the Knicks, he is hands down, the worst owner in Sports. And he just hired Thibodeau to solidify that position!

After watching the North Stars and Seattle Supersonics despicable ownership transfers, maybe just gotta hope that the new ownership of the Wolves means it when they say the team will stay here. Then hope they can at least turn the clock back to the Garnett years. Without any "Joe Smith" like mistakes in the middle of it.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe said:
Jesus. No offense but at what point are people going to let this go? It's the favorite fallback for every VGK hater; they were gifted a good team out of the gate, blah, blah, blah... That doesn't change the fact that they got really lucky with a few acquisitions blossoming with increased roles, they absolutely fleeced a few other GM's who tried to outsmart themselves (much love to the Wild for handing over Haula and Tuch), and yes they were able to pick some cast-offs from other teams that were not top-6 (in many cases not even top-9) players. That's why they called themselves the Golden Misfits the first year.

Arguably many of the best players during this year's run to the WC Final were later acquisitions; Mark Stone, Pacioretty, Lehner, Stephenson, Cousins, Martinez were all key players that were not on the roster that first year. But what the heck, I guess we'll hear about this being gifted a good team for the first 6, 8, 10 years of the franchise?

Were the expansion rules different? Yes, they were. But I guess I would argue it's for the better? Regardless of the sport, what does it benefit anyone for a new franchise to absolutely suck for the first several years?

Back to the original point of the thread; SINCE that first season, VGK has aggressively made moves to improve their position every year in both the offseason and at the deadline and it makes it a lot easier to get behind a team that has management willing to go all in.

Some owners are there to be owners, and some are there to win and be competitive; I was just curious about what some thought about their favorite team in regards to whether or not they believe their ownership and management are aggressive and committed to winning.
Click to expand...
I don't hate the Knights (thought I made that clear in my post). They deserve credit for what they've done, I'm just pointing out it's not an apples to apples comparison. The Wild did make the WCF their 3rd year BTW despite their team of misfits.

I agree I like the way they did the expansion - even if it put the Wild and other teams in a tough spot having to "hand over" guys like Tuch and Haula. The Wild's shortcomings are not due to lack of effort IMO. You admitted to not knowing much about their history, but then responded to my post acting as if you do.
 

I agree that Taylor needs to sell the Wolves, but Rosas was a magician in being able to re-shape the roster as quickly as he did, including eliminating their worst contract in Wiggins.

The Wilf's continue to show they are willing to do what it takes, however I've lost faith in Spielman.

I was one who loved to rip on the Twins, but Falvey and Levine have done a great job since being hired. I think all of the MN teams are in great hands currently, minus maybe Spielman.
 

Gophers1992 said:
I don't hate the Knights (thought I made that clear in my post). They deserve credit for what they've done, I'm just pointing out it's not an apples to apples comparison. The Wild did make the WCF their 3rd year BTW despite their team of misfits.

I agree I like the way they did the expansion - even if it put the Wild and other teams in a tough spot having to "hand over" guys like Tuch and Haula. The Wild's shortcomings are not due to lack of effort IMO. You admitted to not knowing much about their history, but then responded to my post acting as if you do.
Click to expand...
Sorry, sensitive subject for Knights fans, the whole being gifted a good team angle. I reacted quickly and harshly! Had to take the cheap shot about Tuch and Haula; while Haula left after the first year, Tuch sure looks like he's going to be one of the better players for a long time, he has the tools to be really, really good.

So you bring up a good point, about the lack of success not due to lack of effort. Is it really about effort though? I admittedly don't know much about the ownership of the Wild but do they have stable competent ownership? It's surprising how much of success is tied to ownership when you would think it has not much to do with the actual product on the field/ice. Teams that have historically not had success almost always have poor ownership, but they may be trying like hell?

Look at tradition-rich franchises like the NY Knicks and the Washington Redskins; epic shitty ownership, no reason those franchises shouldn't be good every year, and those shitty owners have run those franchises into the ground.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe said:
Sorry, sensitive subject for Knights fans, the whole being gifted a good team angle. I reacted quickly and harshly! Had to take the cheap shot about Tuch and Haula; while Haula left after the first year, Tuch sure looks like he's going to be one of the better players for a long time, he has the tools to be really, really good.

So you bring up a good point, about the lack of success not due to lack of effort. Is it really about effort though? I admittedly don't know much about the ownership of the Wild but do they have stable competent ownership? It's surprising how much of success is tied to ownership when you would think it has not much to do with the actual product on the field/ice. Teams that have historically not had success almost always have poor ownership, but they may be trying like hell?

Look at tradition-rich franchises like the NY Knicks and the Washington Redskins; epic shitty ownership, no reason those franchises shouldn't be good every year, and those shitty owners have run those franchises into the ground.
Click to expand...
Fair - the Knights do not need to apologize for anything, they are playing by the rules that others set up. Naturally success is followed by jealousy, but that's just sports.

I think Leipold has shown a willingness to spend when needed (see Parise and Suter), they just haven't made the right moves to get over the top - more of a GM issue than ownership IMO.

And in defense of the Wild, while we have all been frustrated with the lack of deep playoff runs, the reality is they have been a relatively competitive franchise since about 2012 (Parise and Suter), so i think many in MN tend to overstate their failures.

In short, yes ownership is often essential to success, but it is one of many factors. And yes "trying hard", aka spending, is only one piece of the equation.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom