Are the Pelicans the worst franchise ever?

[Mrakar]

I'm so glad the Pelicans didn't have a chance to draft Wembanyama.

He would be in hospital since day one

[Godymas]

So I think an earnest discussion here has to really put up front that franchises who began earlier need to be judged differently than those who started later.

The Kings for example began as the Rochester Royals, who had great success in the early years as a small market in part because of the money they made barnstorming. The franchise can always point to what it did in the 1940s/50s to avoid the "worst ever" designation.

Meanwhile the Clippers were absolutely the worst run franchise in sports for their first few decades, but if you stick around long enough in a major market, you're eventually going to have some success.

I think it makes sense to just look at cume W-L% to just give a sense of average badness, so of teams that still exist:

1. Timberwolves .412
2. Clippers .424
3. Hornets .431
4. Grizzlies .436
5. Nets .439
6. Wizards .444
7. Kings .458
8. Pelicans .465
9. Magic .470
10. Raptors .470

So then from this perspective, the Pelicans haven't really been an outlier in badness, they just are an expansion franchise that's mostly struggled.

In terms of their specifics across the Paul/Davis/Zion eras, I think they've mostly just been unlucky. I wouldn't say they've been particularly well-run, but honestly I wouldn't say their failures have been about outlier levels of incompetence.

Yes the Pelicans are not the worst franchise in terms of win loss and yet that list is really misleading. The Grizzlies have been a very well run franchise since the Grit and Grind era which is approaching a decade now. To be honest, their win/loss record being worse than the Pelicans is kind of shocking.

The TWolves were awful but KG's career has been better than the entirety of the Pelicans existence for the most part.

The Clippers are now on their 2nd official "era"

The Nets had the early 00s.

I'd much rather be any of those teams than the Pelicans because those teams have iconic franchise players, iconic eras in Basketball. The Pelicans have been around for so many years and never had a truly iconic "era" of Pelicans brand Basketball. Their overall impact on the NBA and culture is much less than any of the teams that have a worse record in my opinion.

How can it be misleading to look at cumulative record when talking about "ever"? I think maybe you need to really think about what criteria you're looking to discuss here.

The Grizzlie example is case in point: You're basically suggesting we should not consider the Vancouver era to be part of the Grizzlies franchise history which is just silly given the team's horrible performance on the court played a major role in why the team ended up in a position where the franchise had to be sold and moved far away to a place not actually populated by grizzly bears.

Re: Pelicans been around for so many years no iconic era of Pelicans brand basketball. They've only been the Pelicans since 2013, and have only existed since 2002. So, no they haven't made much of a dent as a brand, but the idea they've been around a long time when they're actually a young franchise is strange.

No, a big iconic period hasn't happened yet...but they aren't the only 21st century NBA franchise without iconic status in that time period.

because the true measurement of success is not win loss overall, it's the creation of something memorable and impactful to the game of basketball the culture. I'd rather see a team with high highs and low lows than a team that's always forgettable and the Pelicans are in the worst kind of category, forever forgettable.

Look you can say "oh the Grizzlies were forgettable in Vancouver" yes, they were, for literally 7 years. Then they got Pau and started to ramp up, then since basically 2010 they've been one of the best run franchises in the NBA. Years of consecutive success like that outdoes a bad early start. Maybe a few bumps but it's still been years since the Grizzlies were viewed as bad. The Pelicans have had chances to draft amazing players many times now, they've had opportunity to be a winning culture and franchise and it hasn't come together yet and now in 2025 they are set to lose all their "stars" which means another 2-3 years of rebuilding? Now? So basically it's going on 16 years of and existence that has mostly been meaningless outside of bein team to "grow assets".

And it's hilarious because the current era of Memphis basketball is defined by a player the Pelicans had the option to draft in 2019.

[Optms]

Also the worst name by far and among the worst in all of professional sports.

[jefe]

Others have pointed out how the Pelicans are a very young team (relatively speaking) and, as a result, their lack of success on the court is not really an outlier. To respond to OP's other points:

1. Clearly the OP (and many others) have not actually seen a Pelican in person. They're huge and look too much like a relative of a dinosaur. They're also the State bird. I agree, though, that phonetically, it's not the best sounding name.
2. Of course there was more Saints stuff present in New Orleans in November. What city with an NFL and NBA city is any different in November? Beyond the obvious with the sports calendar, the Saints are old, entrenched, and well known in the city given they've been there for decades - significantly moreso than the relatively young Pelicans.
3. If you don't like Nola the city itself, then it sounds like a you problem IMO.

[Godymas]

Others have pointed out how the Pelicans are a very young team (relatively speaking) and, as a result, their lack of success on the court is not really an outlier. To respond to OP's other points:

1. Clearly the OP (and many others) have not actually seen a Pelican in person. They're huge and look too much like a relative of a dinosaur. They're also the State bird. I agree, though, that phonetically, it's not the best sounding name.
2. Of course there was more Saints stuff present in New Orleans in November. What city with an NFL and NBA city is any different in November? Beyond the obvious with the sports calendar, the Saints are old, entrenched, and well known in the city given they've been there for decades - significantly moreso than the relatively young Pelicans.
3. If you don't like Nola the city itself, then it sounds like a you problem IMO.

On Wizards opening night in DC a bus was driving by and it was displaying "Go Wizards". No one expected the team to be any good and there was still very much recognition of the team. I'm not saying that there needs to be "Go Pelicans" but to see how much pride the locals can put into their OTHER sports team and it not spill over to the other shows a lot.

[God Squad]

Focusing strictly on the name- it's probably one of the worst in all professional sports (NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB and WNBA).

IMO

I think it is the worst actually. I still can’t believe they called their team… pelicans

I remember when I first found out, I thought it was some kind of prank initially… then I was like… “oh ****, this is for real??? Pelicans???”

Yeah, it's terrible. They could have named their team after a crayon box and it'd still be better than the Pelicans.

Like I said, worst in all professional sports.

[Sofia]

I don't believe New Orleans ever was a viable market for the NBA, it didn't really make sense back then why George Shinn relocated the Hornets to begin with. More personal reasons than business reasons. They've been gift-wrapped two #1 overall picks both in drafts where generational talents were available (AD and Zion) without much to show for it. They had Baron Davis and CP3 before that too.

They probably should have just relocated to OKC instead of the Sonics, but Stern didn't want the bad PR of allowing a team to leave the city after a natural disaster. The Pelicans franchise is probably the obvious choice if one had to relocate a team to Seattle or Vegas.

Yeah, I love New Orleans but I don't think the NBA should be fighting so hard to keep a franchise in a market that will just keep getting smaller. Great that NO has the Saints who I think can thrive there forever, but I think eventually the Pelicans are going to move.

you mean like the population there is shrinking? Or are we talking sea levels?

[shi-woo]

I disagree, on both fronts. The name isn't the worst, nor is it the worst franchise. The name is fine honestly, even if I don't like it. They chose solid colors, and the jerseys aren't that bad. I know when it comes to taste and preference we all are different. Someone stated Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, Thunder, Heat were the worst names in this thread, and I personally like those the most People hated Thunder, remember I liked the Bison name when they held their vote, but Thunder really grew on me, especially once they made the playoffs and you had the thundersticks, thunderous Westbrook dunks, loudest arena in ssports type of stuff. Pels isn't the worst, they just don't have the history to make you care about it yet

On to their history, they clearly aren't the worst, Kings and Wolves have that on lock for a while. I think as a new franchise they have 100% been way to nice, and have allowed players and franchises to just walk all over them. As OP mentioned they have had 3 AS level players in their history, and each has requested a trade by their 2nd contract. That's some LeBron era stuff, and hopefully it's behind us, because for the most part those type of trades never work out.

Pels felt to need to follow the wishes of their stars, and trade them for known injured prospects Eric Gordon and Brandon Ingram. Pels now building around players they didn't want, have to pay them way sooner than if they drafted them, and now have competing interests. I know it worked for the Thunder with SGA, but I can't recall a time making one of these low brow moves has helped a team. Wovles didn't get it with Big Al, Wiggins and Beas did nothing there as well, Favors did nothing for the Jazz, Sabonis nothing for any team, ect. You can go on and on, these types of trades simply don't work, and is why teams want a ridiculous amount of draft capital for these types of players, and rightfully so.

Pels in my opinion just had the worst roe of the dice with injury luck. There 3 stars are literally all known for that more than actually playing ball, and then they were forced to trade those dudes and build around prospects that were more injury prone than those injury prone stars Eric Gordon, BI, Lonzo, all broken used cars and mediocre prospects at that point. Both trades were literally made with LA's best interests at heart, not NO.

People may hate Pat all they want, and believe these players should be able to do whatever they want and play where ever their heart desires, but Pels leadership needs to start respecting itself first, and stop tanking their franchise to meat the demands of players who are actively telling you they are leaving.

[Sofia]

I’m just going to throw it out there because others already brought it up.

It’s the start of the 2031 season… does New Orleans still have a team? Yes or No?

[Jon1798]

Someone will have to explain to me why they think Knickerbockers is a better team name than the Pelicans. I want a detailed explanation lol

[Godymas]

Someone will have to explain to me why they think Knickerbockers is a better team name than the Pelicans. I want a detailed explanation lol

Because it’s the “Knicks” and it’s easy to say, not some 3 syllable nonsense “Pel-I-Can”

[The Servant]

In boxing there used to be a term to describe a bum who was set up to be crushed: a tomato can

Eventually this was shortened to being a can.

Pelicans are referred to as the Cans, and damn does it make sense. They exist simply to be crushed by the rest of the league. Just like the Wiz, and the Hornets. Every league needs a Washington Generals to make their star teams star.

[Moahst]

I'd like to think the Wizards have them beat

This is correct.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't believe New Orleans ever was a viable market for the NBA, it didn't really make sense back then why George Shinn relocated the Hornets to begin with. More personal reasons than business reasons. They've been gift-wrapped two #1 overall picks both in drafts where generational talents were available (AD and Zion) without much to show for it. They had Baron Davis and CP3 before that too.

They probably should have just relocated to OKC instead of the Sonics, but Stern didn't want the bad PR of allowing a team to leave the city after a natural disaster. The Pelicans franchise is probably the obvious choice if one had to relocate a team to Seattle or Vegas.

Yeah, I love New Orleans but I don't think the NBA should be fighting so hard to keep a franchise in a market that will just keep getting smaller. Great that NO has the Saints who I think can thrive there forever, but I think eventually the Pelicans are going to move.

you mean like the population there is shrinking? Or are we talking sea levels?

Well both are true of course, but I was referring to the population shrinking relative to other population centers - partially absolute shrinking, partially other places just growing.

[AbeVigodaLive]

KG had a great career in Minnesota, he played his entire prime there and won an MVP. NoLA has never had a player of that caliber..ever.

If the argument is that KG was a great player, no question. Hall of famer.

And the TWolves did nothing while he was there. Even though he gave them his first 12 seasons. He is the A#1 example of why the Wolves are below the Pels.

I feel like we lost the mark of the conversation here.

The Wolves have made the WCF...twice

The Pelicans have never done that.

The Pelicans have 1 50+ win season, the TWolves have 4, yes the franchise has been around longer, not long enough to justify 4 to 1.

The point is there are more memories and highs with the TWolves. The Pelicans have churned along and accomplished less. Having fewer lows with worse highs is worse than having low lows and high highs basically every other "bad' franchise has over the Pelicans except the Hornets.

If we're mentioning the HIGH moments in a comparison of worst franchises... let's compare their LOW moments, too since being terrible is what we're talking about when discussing the all-time worst.

- The Pelicans have 3 seasons with 50+ losses (and 1 season with 60+ losses) in 23 years.
- The Timberwolves have 16 seasons with 50+ losses (and 9 seasons with 60+ losses) in 36 years. It would be even worse... but the 2020 and 2021 seasons were shortened.

[Jon1798]

Someone will have to explain to me why they think Knickerbockers is a better team name than the Pelicans. I want a detailed explanation lol

Because it’s the “Knicks” and it’s easy to say, not some 3 syllable nonsense “Pel-I-Can”

Knickerbockers is easier than Pelicans?

And Knicks is easier than Pels?

We are stretching

[Doctor MJ]

Yes the Pelicans are not the worst franchise in terms of win loss and yet that list is really misleading. The Grizzlies have been a very well run franchise since the Grit and Grind era which is approaching a decade now. To be honest, their win/loss record being worse than the Pelicans is kind of shocking.

The TWolves were awful but KG's career has been better than the entirety of the Pelicans existence for the most part.

The Clippers are now on their 2nd official "era"

The Nets had the early 00s.

I'd much rather be any of those teams than the Pelicans because those teams have iconic franchise players, iconic eras in Basketball. The Pelicans have been around for so many years and never had a truly iconic "era" of Pelicans brand Basketball. Their overall impact on the NBA and culture is much less than any of the teams that have a worse record in my opinion.

How can it be misleading to look at cumulative record when talking about "ever"? I think maybe you need to really think about what criteria you're looking to discuss here.

The Grizzlie example is case in point: You're basically suggesting we should not consider the Vancouver era to be part of the Grizzlies franchise history which is just silly given the team's horrible performance on the court played a major role in why the team ended up in a position where the franchise had to be sold and moved far away to a place not actually populated by grizzly bears.

Re: Pelicans been around for so many years no iconic era of Pelicans brand basketball. They've only been the Pelicans since 2013, and have only existed since 2002. So, no they haven't made much of a dent as a brand, but the idea they've been around a long time when they're actually a young franchise is strange.

No, a big iconic period hasn't happened yet...but they aren't the only 21st century NBA franchise without iconic status in that time period.

because the true measurement of success is not win loss overall, it's the creation of something memorable and impactful to the game of basketball the culture. I'd rather see a team with high highs and low lows than a team that's always forgettable and the Pelicans are in the worst kind of category, forever forgettable.

Look you can say "oh the Grizzlies were forgettable in Vancouver" yes, they were, for literally 7 years. Then they got Pau and started to ramp up, then since basically 2010 they've been one of the best run franchises in the NBA. Years of consecutive success like that outdoes a bad early start. Maybe a few bumps but it's still been years since the Grizzlies were viewed as bad. The Pelicans have had chances to draft amazing players many times now, they've had opportunity to be a winning culture and franchise and it hasn't come together yet and now in 2025 they are set to lose all their "stars" which means another 2-3 years of rebuilding? Now? So basically it's going on 16 years of and existence that has mostly been meaningless outside of bein team to "grow assets".

And it's hilarious because the current era of Memphis basketball is defined by a player the Pelicans had the option to draft in 2019.

You're now just mostly just bringing up stuff I've already addressed so I won't belabor those points other than to say that I agree that the success of a franchise in a given market is more about indelible moments than it is about average success and the Pelicans haven't had that.

I do think we should note here that in the comparison with the Grizzlies, in a competitive sense, the Pelicans have gotten to the 2nd round more than once, and the the Grizzlies only got past that round to the WCF once in a fluky year where everyone knew they weren't a top 2 WC team until injuries crippled other teams at the right time, so let's hold horses on the idea that the Grizzlies have had vastly more success.

Re: Current Memphis defined by a player Pelicans had option to draft in 2019. Indeed, but let's note:

If the Grizzlies had had the #1 pick, they'd have picked Zion too, and then they'd be the ones screwed because Zion's issues are really about Zion and not the franchise in question.

The fact the Pelicans got unlucky here doesn't mean we should pretend they had success where they didn't, but if we're going to talk about the Pelicans passing up Ja, we should at least note that that's literally what any other franchise would have done, and that it's not like the Grizzlies haven't blown it with draft picks in the Memphis era.

[Onlytimewilltel]

Someone will have to explain to me why they think Knickerbockers is a better team name than the Pelicans. I want a detailed explanation lol

Because it’s the “Knicks” and it’s easy to say, not some 3 syllable nonsense “Pel-I-Can”

Knickerbockers is easier than Pelicans?

And Knicks is easier than Pels?

Dude, no one says “knockerbockers” lol. 99.9% of folks just say “Knicks”. Even if you go on espn or nba.com where scores are listed it will just say “Knicks”. And for New Orleans it will say “Pelicans”. These are not the same.

We are stretching

[Onlytimewilltel]

Someone will have to explain to me why they think Knickerbockers is a better team name than the Pelicans. I want a detailed explanation lol

Because it’s the “Knicks” and it’s easy to say, not some 3 syllable nonsense “Pel-I-Can”

Knickerbockers is easier than Pelicans?

And Knicks is easier than Pels?

We are stretching

Dude, no one says “knickerbockers” lol. 99.9% of folks just say “Knicks”. Even if you go on espn or nba.com where scores are listed it will just say “Knicks”. And for New Orleans it will say “Pelicans”.

Even when it’s on line TV it will say “Knicks”. And for New Orleans it will say “Pelicans”.

These are not the same.

[donato]

I like the name Pelicans (also a fan). The team is in zero danger of moving given strong local ownership and succession plan. They've been dealt a bad hand with Zion injuries, but I think they'll be back in the playoffs next year. The worst team name to me is the Raptors. A mascot that was created because of Jurassic Park ffs. Peak cringe.