clips1386 wrote:I think we need a thread about this stickied.

+1
Essentially I think people ask us this question because we have the choice between the Lakers or Clippers, while most cities have to deal with whatever team they have in their city. The Clippers are relatively one of the younger franchises in the league, but because we're in a city with the Lakers, our challenges are magnified and the negative aura around the team perpetuates itself. This makes it much more difficult for us to have success.
I remember for a few years in the early 90s, it wasn't really a rivalry or comparison between the Lakers and the Clippers. Both teams were struggling and looking to rebuild, and in one of those years the Clippers actually were better than the Lakers. It was the allure of the Lakers name and history (and money) which helped land Shaq and turned everything around for them. You might recall the same cycle happening again a few years ago when the Clips finished better than the Lakers, but the Lakers got Gasol to come and bail them out.
The same thing will happen a few years from now, when Pau and Kobe are old. Most likely, the Lakers will have great luck again and get some great players to help them rebuild. However, I think the Clippers have a great chance to steal the city, as we're setting ourselves up with a strong young nucleus. In the past, the Clippers have let a lot of young talent get away, only to sign aging players to cheap contracts at the end of their careers.
A lot of blame is directed at the Clippers management, which is mostly reasonable. But because of our history in the shadow of the Lakers, it's 10 times as hard for us to succeed. We have to rewrite our brand perception, and then hope people buy into the "new" Clippers. Today, players don't want to sign with us because of this negative aura around our team. Maybe in a few years that won't be the case anymore.
Of course, a new owner and name change couldn't hurt, either.