RealGM All-Time Franchise Ranking - #27

[euroleague]

for me, I can't vote the kings here because they should've won a title as recently as 02. They had a dynasty, they were competitive, and challenged the Lakers year in and year out. They were a bigger challenge to the Lakers than the Spurs - the Lakers dynasty should've ended in 02, not 03.

The Grizzlies also had a dynasty, but they were never the favorites over the Heat - Their style of play may have been better for the playoffs, but they were never in a clear-cut place where they should've won the Finals.

The conferences in both eras were stacked. The Pelicans also deserve consideration, and I might have to pick them - they've really never had even a hope of winning in their entire history. .

Comparing which franchise was worse can't be decided by comparing their many 17-65 seasons vs 24-58... the question who tanked harder might consider the 17 win one the smarter move. The contention of the teams for a title is what decides it. and the Pelicans never did that, despite having AD and CP3.... although, Rondo brought them close to being a contender the 18 Warriors were too much for them.

Vote Pelicans

[eminence]

The Grizzlies a dynasty? Now that's a new one

[trex_8063]

Final count:

Pelicans - 4
Grizzlies - 3
Kings - 2

Will get the next one up in a moment.....

[trex_8063]

Although the Pelicans have taken this spot, and I have to allow for differences in how we all approach evaluation (e.g. I'm not grading expansion franchises on a different scale than any other franchise, though as has been discussed itt [and in one of the previous ones] other people disagree on that front), I will state that I wonder if the Pelicans haven't in essence been penalized simply for not existing longer.

If the Pelicans had double the number of years, but with EXACTLY the same [that is: sort of poor] amount of success in those additional 17 years, I suspect fewer would have voted for them here......which is perhaps extra unfortunate given the Pels' unique franchise history (where they actually do have an additional 14 years which they've been "disenfranchised of" based on a technicality).

[Fadeaway_J]

Although the Pelicans have taken this spot, and I have to allow for differences in how we all approach evaluation (e.g. I'm not grading expansion franchises on a different scale than any other franchise, though as has been discussed itt [and in one of the previous ones] other people disagree on that front), I will state that I wonder if the Pelicans haven't in essence been penalized simply for not existing longer.

If the Pelicans had double the number of years, but with EXACTLY the same [that is: sort of poor] amount of success in those additional 17 years, I suspect fewer would have voted for them here......which is perhaps extra unfortunate given the Pels' unique franchise history (where they actually do have an additional 14 years which they've been "disenfranchised of" based on a technicality).

I actually feel the Pels should be judged more harshly than most of the newer franchises, because as I mentioned before, all they did was inherit what was already a decent roster to begin with. They didn't have to deal with building a brand new team with the rest of the league's castoffs. Add in the fact that they largely wasted AD's prime and didn't exactly set the world on fire with CP3 either, and I'm inclined to be less forgiving than I normally would be. To me, their failures are understated by the raw numbers (which aren't exactly stellar as it is).