New Uniforms/Logo for the Clippers?

[gosioux76]

This isn't the right solution by any means but just wanted to show concept of adding a wavy water element to the logo and removing the speed lines that make it Lakeresque.

I love the idea. It's not forced, but it gets the point across. Maybe the script could be designed to look like rope with knots. Or maybe that takes it too far. This is why I'm not a designer.

All of these subtle concepts are great, but they make me come to the conclusion that I want them to switch back to a baby blue to pair with the red. They had that color scheme in San Diego, right?

[chakfu]

So? By giving them a goofy small-market identity, you're consigning them to small-market existence. Treat them like a team in the #2 city in hopes that eventually they'll maximize that potential. I really don't think they need to make any significant departures, sartorially speaking.

This would be a perfectly acceptable primary logo for a Los Angeles team that didn't suck every year. This argument is a study in how success absolves idiosyncrasy.

I think a distinctive or "goofy" small market identity would serve the Clippers better than trying to be a 2nd classic styled big market team and eternally taking a back seat to the Lakers. I doubt that another bad red/white/blue team appeals much to people nationwide, and that a bad LA team that isn't the Lakers appeals to people in California. But, a unique light blue and orange team might at least attract the former.

And that isolated wordmark wouldn't be an acceptable primary logo for anyone.

I just think the Lakers are too entrenched for the Clippers to ever compete, even if they become a decent playoff team. Any time the Lakers are down, their glamour and appeal and good luck put them back on top - see Kareem and Kobe forcing trades, Shaq coming as a free agent, Gasol getting donated. I just can't visualize the Clippers becoming the Mets to the Lakers' Yankees. Just the Rams to the Browns, or Browns to the Cardinals. But maybe a perennial playoff team could do it; I just can't imagine it.

[The_Admiral]

Well-articulated points, so I suppose all I can do is firmly disagree with you. Second-tier teams are still in first-class cities, and as such should have designs that are built to last. I rip on the Ducks black/beige scheme (mostly because it's fun and easy to get Still Mighty's goat), but with some tweaks they can come up with something that'll work in the super-long-term. The old Clippers columbia/orange was okay but ran the risk of getting a little musty, and besides, light blue in today's NBA is hardly unique. And I like my slapdash standalone-wordmark primary. It's all they need.

[oddball]

Well-articulated points, so I suppose all I can do is firmly disagree with you. Second-tier teams are still in first-class cities, and as such should have designs that are built to last. I rip on the Ducks black/beige scheme (mostly because it's fun and easy to get Still Mighty's goat), but with some tweaks they can come up with something that'll work in the super-long-term. The old Clippers columbia/orange was okay but ran the risk of getting a little musty, and besides, light blue in today's NBA is hardly unique. And I like my slapdash standalone-wordmark primary. It's all they need.

Actually, the Ducks are a great example of a classic failure. They had a distinctive look with the purple and jade and they ruined it by becoming just another black team and on top of that, they added the cutesy numbers and font and their look is okay at best. If they went to a traditional block number, they would have a top 10 style, but the colors still absolutely suck and there is nothing original about them. Throw on top that their logo is a bad wordmark and overall it's just bad. It's not Islanders fisherman logo bad, but it's a step above the Buffalo-slug, Calgary's current monstrosities, Vancouver's cram everything on the front of the jersey, and of course the Atlanta crap. With the Clippers, I think they need to focus on the product on the court and put a consistent winner on the court and then you rebrand. Look at the Indians, or the Buccaneers as good examples of this. Then again, look at the Colts for a team that kept their look and changed the on-field product.

[powersurge]

Maybe its just me, but I find it extremely annoying that the Clippers have insisted on avoiding any kind of nautical or sea reference in their logo over the past 'x' number of years.

I can understand why the Lakers stuck with the ball and script logo; How do you graphically represent a Laker??? In the Clippers case it just looks ridiculous IMO. They have so much that they could do with their logo and identity that it seems to me that they are telling the world "Hey, when it comes to our identity we are Indifferent and/or Cheap"

They are in desperate need of a complete identity overhaul.

[jtrip]

Well-articulated points, so I suppose all I can do is firmly disagree with you. Second-tier teams are still in first-class cities, and as such should have designs that are built to last. I rip on the Ducks black/beige scheme (mostly because it's fun and easy to get Still Mighty's goat), but with some tweaks they can come up with something that'll work in the super-long-term. The old Clippers columbia/orange was okay but ran the risk of getting a little musty, and besides, light blue in today's NBA is hardly unique. And I like my slapdash standalone-wordmark primary. It's all they need.

Actually, the Ducks are a great example of a classic failure. They had a distinctive look with the purple and jade and they ruined it by becoming just another black team and on top of that, they added the cutesy numbers and font and their look is okay at best. If they went to a traditional block number, they would have a top 10 style, but the colors still absolutely suck and there is nothing original about them. Throw on top that their logo is a bad wordmark and overall it's just bad. It's not Islanders fisherman logo bad, but it's a step above the Buffalo-slug, Calgary's current monstrosities, Vancouver's cram everything on the front of the jersey, and of course the Atlanta crap. With the Clippers, I think they need to focus on the product on the court and put a consistent winner on the court and then you rebrand. Look at the Indians, or the Buccaneers as good examples of this. Then again, look at the Colts for a team that kept their look and changed the on-field product.

I suppose if the Saints can do it, so to can the Clippers, but they have been so bad for so long that changing the on-court product just isn't likely to happen anytime soon - especially out West. This isn't a traditionally good team thats in a funk (i.e. Pistons), this a small dumpster fire. If they could convince a guy like Lebron or Wade to sign they'd be in great shape, but again, how likely is that really? I don't think the big names want to play little brother to Kobe and the Lakers. The Clippers need to re-brand to generate some positive buzz. And by re-brand, I don't mean start from scratch, but a face lift is long over due.

[jtthasportfreak]

A buddy of mine called them the Clitters, I've always called them the Flippers

[IceCap]

Well-articulated points, so I suppose all I can do is firmly disagree with you. Second-tier teams are still in first-class cities, and as such should have designs that are built to last. I rip on the Ducks black/beige scheme (mostly because it's fun and easy to get Still Mighty's goat), but with some tweaks they can come up with something that'll work in the super-long-term. The old Clippers columbia/orange was okay but ran the risk of getting a little musty, and besides, light blue in today's NBA is hardly unique. And I like my slapdash standalone-wordmark primary. It's all they need.

Actually, the Ducks are a great example of a classic failure. They had a distinctive look with the purple and jade and they ruined it by becoming just another black team and on top of that, they added the cutesy numbers and font and their look is okay at best. If they went to a traditional block number, they would have a top 10 style, but the colors still absolutely suck and there is nothing original about them. Throw on top that their logo is a bad wordmark and overall it's just bad. It's not Islanders fisherman logo bad, but it's a step above the Buffalo-slug, Calgary's current monstrosities, Vancouver's cram everything on the front of the jersey, and of course the Atlanta crap.

I disagree. The "distinctive" purple and jade look was just Disney extending their influence into pro sports designs. It was a horrible, childish, gimmicky look. It's a minor miracle the team won the Stanley Cup only after growing up and getting an identity appropriate for a major league team. "MIGHTY DUCKS" engraved on the Stanley Cup forever? Thank God it didn't come to that.

The current set isn't perfect, nor is it the best in the league, but it's a huge improvement over the skating Disney advertising look that they used to wear.

[Lights Out]

If they could convince a guy like Lebron or Wade to sign they'd be in great shape, but again, how likely is that really? I don't think the big names want to play little brother to Kobe and the Lakers.

There is absolutely no way LeBron would ever play "little brother" to Kobe in LA. LeBron is young and entering his prime. Kobe is old and might be exiting his prime. Also, most experts agree that LeBron is the best overall player in the league right now.

[IceCap]

Some argue you say?

Anyway I think the potential for LeBron to make the Clippers the top team in LA may be enough to lure either Wade or James in. As far as teams being close to getting over the hump, the Clippers are closer then the Knicks are, and would be a better choice for LeBron, but that's just my take, with my limited knowledge of the NBA.

[The_Admiral]

As far as teams being close to getting over the hump, the Clippers are closer then the Knicks are, and would be a better choice for LeBron, but that's just my take, with my limited knowledge of the NBA.

No. If the Knicks get LeBron, they're overnight contenders. Even if there's more ancillary talent on the Clippers (debatable), he still has to slug it out with the Western conference teams, especially the Lakers and Suns. The Knicks would steamroll their conference. That's how and why the Celtics did what they did two years ago.

[chakfu]

As far as teams being close to getting over the hump, the Clippers are closer then the Knicks are, and would be a better choice for LeBron, but that's just my take, with my limited knowledge of the NBA.

No. If the Knicks get LeBron, they're overnight contenders. Even if there's more ancillary talent on the Clippers (debatable), he still has to slug it out with the Western conference teams, especially the Lakers and Suns. The Knicks would steamroll their conference. That's how and why the Celtics did what they did two years ago.

Wait, what? Until the Gasol trade there wasn't a team in the west on the level of Boston, Detroit, or Cleveland in '07-08, except maybe the aging defending champs in the Spurs.

There are a ton of good but not great teams in the west, but that hasn't stopped the Lakers from waltzing unopposed to the finals 2 years in a row and won't this year either. Other than the Lakers, I don't think there's a western team as good as Cleveland or as good as Boston would be if they still had any heart.

The Knicks with LeBron would be as good as the LeBron / Larry Hughes era Cavs, but without Ilgauskas. As good as the '86 Bulls. LeBron goes to NY (without Bosh or Wade) and Orlando owns the east and the Lakers own the league. LeBron goes to the Clippers and they're in the mix with the good but not great teams, espeically once Griffin gets back; but that's much better than fighting it out with Miami and Chicago for 3rd in the east behind Orlando and Atlanta.

That said, there's zero chance he chooses the Clippers because they have none of the glamour despite being a big market. I still say he's more likely to go to Chicago than anywhere.

[Lights Out]

No. If the Knicks get LeBron, they're overnight contenders. Even if there's more ancillary talent on the Clippers (debatable), he still has to slug it out with the Western conference teams, especially the Lakers and Suns. The Knicks would steamroll their conference. That's how and why the Celtics did what they did two years ago.

Frankly, LeBron is starring on a mediocre roster in Cleveland. What would be the motivation to go star for an even worse roster in New York? I strongly doubt he would win a championship there anyway.

However, in sunny LA, the Clippers have a good core of young talent (DeAndre Jordan, Blake Griffin, and Eric Gordon) and established veterans (Baron Davis and Chris Kaman, although one would have to go in order for the Clippers to sign LeBron), which would be unstoppable with the best player in the league added to the mix. The Western Conference is tough, but that hasn't stopped the Lakers and Spurs from winning multiple championships this decade.

There are a ton of good but not great teams in the west, but that hasn't stopped the Lakers from waltzing unopposed to the finals 2 years in a row and won't this year either. Other than the Lakers, I don't think there's a western team as good as Cleveland or as good as Boston would be if they still had any heart.

The Mavericks say hi.

[andrewharrington]

As far as teams being close to getting over the hump, the Clippers are closer then the Knicks are, and would be a better choice for LeBron, but that's just my take, with my limited knowledge of the NBA.

No. If the Knicks get LeBron, they're overnight contenders. Even if there's more ancillary talent on the Clippers (debatable), he still has to slug it out with the Western conference teams, especially the Lakers and Suns. The Knicks would steamroll their conference. That's how and why the Celtics did what they did two years ago.

Wait, what? Until the Gasol trade there wasn't a team in the west on the level of Boston, Detroit, or Cleveland in '07-08, except maybe the aging defending champs in the Spurs.

There are a ton of good but not great teams in the west, but that hasn't stopped the Lakers from waltzing unopposed to the finals 2 years in a row and won't this year either. Other than the Lakers, I don't think there's a western team as good as Cleveland or as good as Boston would be if they still had any heart.

The Knicks with LeBron would be as good as the LeBron / Larry Hughes era Cavs, but without Ilgauskas. As good as the '86 Bulls. LeBron goes to NY (without Bosh or Wade) and Orlando owns the east and the Lakers own the league. LeBron goes to the Clippers and they're in the mix with the good but not great teams, espeically once Griffin gets back; but that's much better than fighting it out with Miami and Chicago for 3rd in the east behind Orlando and Atlanta.

That said, there's zero chance he chooses the Clippers because they have none of the glamour despite being a big market. I still say he's more likely to go to Chicago than anywhere.

Exactly. If LeBron goes to New York, he's likely watching a rerun of the Cavs the next 4 years. I think he's figured out that every championship team has more than one elite player and a solid defense. The Knicks are 0/2 there. I'd be interested to see what LeBron could do if he joined a team with some young studs, Like the Clippers or the Bulls. Unlikely, but an interesting hypothetical.

He'd probably already have a ring (maybe two) if Boozer hadn't jumped ship. Oh, what could have been. Ol' Carlos is probably kicking himself, too, for not seeing the potential. I think LeBron could average 10 assists for a season if he had a reliable finisher in the paint.

[The_Admiral]

Well, no, but it would certainly be the path of least resistance to sign with New York and trample everyone there. Do you really think the Knicks would just add LeBron to the roster as it stands and call it a day? Come on. People just like ragging on the Knicks.

The Knicks with LeBron would be as good as the LeBron / Larry Hughes era Cavs, but without Ilgauskas.

Patently ridiculous. Not only is LeBron better now than he was then, he'd have a much better supporting cast accompanying him into town, like I said.

I still say he's more likely to go to Chicago than anywhere.

The Bulls are already printing millions upon millions of dollars for the White Sox to play with, and they suck. What's the incentive to spend on LeBron James, or anyone, when you can keep saying "we love our core" and sell out 41 times? And people give Cubs fans grief.

[Lights Out]

That said, there's zero chance he chooses the Clippers because they have none of the glamour despite being a big market.

But he can create the glamour for the Clippers. It's LeBron who would put butts in seats at Staples for Clippers games instead of Lakers games. It's LeBron who would attract a top coach for a franchise in need of a plan. It's LeBron who would finally give the Lakers a taste of irrelevance and the Clippers the dominance that they have been sorely lacking throughout their whole history.

[ESTONES6]

Honestly, I don't see LeBron going to LA. He is having trouble sharing #23... so I don't see him sharing LA, especially when everyone pins he and Kobe against each other for "best player on the planet." People have to understand... Wade and LeBron are not going to play together unless they are in the last 2 years of the career, and want to make one last push for a title.

I can see Joe Johnson and Bosh going to NY. I really can. Johnson loves D'antoni... and Bosh, I think, wants to be a team with potential. If NY gets Johnson, it makes the appeal enormous for Bosh. However, I do NOT see Bosh playing with LeBron, nor do I see him playing with Wade. I don't think the egos and # of shots would work out.

Soudemire is the wild card. He may want to go back with D'antoni, and if that is the case, again, I could see Johnson going to NY. The problem with these "super stars" is that they want to be the center piece of a championship. They want no question on who the best player, on the best team is... Similar to LeBron.

I don't think he will go to NY, at least not yet. NY is basically showing him they are putting all their marbles into a pipe dream, while the Cavs are giving everything they got to put a contender on the floor. The other reason i don't think it will happen is because LeBron talks about multiple championships. He has had the best chance of his career this year... and if he goes to NY, he is AT LEAST 3 years from being in the ECF. There is no way he can carry a team of scrubs passed Boston, Orlando, and Atlanta. Let's face it... you think Galinari is enough to lure him away?

If he DOES go to NY... it doesn't make them a contender, but it puts them in the top 5 in the east. Boston, Orlando, and Atlanta would all over the Knicks/LeBron. Miami and the Bucks would also be in the running in the 4 through 6 spots.

[TheOldRoman]

The Bulls are already printing millions upon millions of dollars for the White Sox to play with, and they suck.

And people give Cubs fans grief.

Yes, and with good reason.

[The_Admiral]

I meant the Bulls suck! Don't me.

[dfwabel]

As for the Clippers, any change will be panned here for any reason which people will want to post. After reading this and looking at the current logo, I now think that the team changed while in San Diego knowing that were moving LA and changed colors/logos to mimic the Dodgers. Same three colors and while not at the same angle as the "Dodgers" script, it mimics LAD. Since red is seen as bad, I can see a royal blue road.

If there is such a free agency talk for the major 2010 players, then it should just be a thread for "Sports In General". It is nice that you name names, but do talk $$$ since a free agent can got 105% of their former salary in their first year with a new team, however they get one less guaranteed year with a new team, plus the "Larry Bird Rule" allows a six year contract as opposed to a five year contract which is a new team's limit.