Dynasties never last for long

[regio]

Mike Finger: Dynasties never last for long
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/columnists/mfinger/stories/MYSA021407.01C.COL.BKNfinger.dynasties.1bee69e.htm l
Web Posted: 02/14/2007 01:02 AM CST


San Antonio Express-News

They built a foundation with unheralded-but-brilliant draft picks, pulled off a couple of shrewd trades, and were led by a trio of elite players who seemed destined for each other, if not the Hall of Fame. They ended up with three championships to show for it, then woke up one day and found themselves looking awfully old.

And now?
The Spurs hope their next step works out a lot better than the Cowboys' did.

Dynasties in sports are funny things, what with how they can be so coveted and so taken for granted at the same time, and how they take so long to build and yet can fall apart so quickly. Few of them last longer than the prime of a star player, and those that do always require a little luck.

Sometimes, they even can start to look alike, even when they span different decades and different sports. Before Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker, the most beloved sports triumvirate in San Antonio had been Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin and Emmitt Smith.

A decade later, it's easy to forget how quickly the power of "The Triplets" disintegrated. The Cowboys won their third Super Bowl in 1995, won their division in 1996, and by 1997, full-scale panic had set in. Aikman didn't look as sharp, Irvin had lost a step, and the supporting cast wasn't as strong as it once was. Some said the naysayers were overreacting, but Dallas hasn't won a playoff game since.

Those Spurs fans who believe in déjà vu or numerology (a third championship in 2005, a division title in 2006, panic in 2007) can't like where this is heading. When the Cowboys hit the wall in 1997, the eldest two of their marquee trio were 31 and 30 years old. Today, Duncan is 30, and Ginobili is 29.

Of course, there are limits to this comparison. Basketball players don't peak at the same age as their football brethren, and the circumstances offer more differences. The Spurs, for example, are in no danger of being coached by the likes of Barry Switzer and Chan Gailey. And the Cowboys never had the opportunity to be rescued by the likes of Melvin Ely.

Ely won't save a dynasty by himself, but he can do more than some might think. He was talented enough to be the 12th overall pick in the 2002 NBA Draft, and he automatically becomes the Spurs' second-best low-post scorer as soon as he puts on a uniform. If he can provide the same kind of subtle spark Nazr Mohammed offered in 2005, he will have done his part.

If anything, Tuesday's trade shows the Spurs realize how fleeting dynasties can be. Even though the Mavericks and Suns have looked light years ahead of them over the past few months, the Spurs still have to believe they have a better chance to win this season than they do next year or in any after that. The window only stays open for so long, and it's better to spend energy keeping it pried open than to let it slam shut and search for another one.

The Cowboys figured that out the hard way. Four coaching searches and a multitude of new game plans later, they still haven't found another window. And they aren't the only ones.

The landscape is littered with dying sports dynasties, and it gets more cluttered every day. This week, the Duke men's basketball team was shut out of the Top 25 for the first time in the coaches' poll's nine-year history. The Yankees just spent another offseason trying to recreate the formula that enabled them to dominate the World Series from 1996-2000.

And last month, the New England Patriots — who like the Spurs and Cowboys had built their own three-title dynasty — were eliminated before the Super Bowl for the second year in a row. Tom Brady, by the way, is about to turn 30.

But Brady isn't over the hill yet, and neither is the core of the Spurs. Duncan is still two years younger than Steve Nash and just two years older than Dirk Nowitzki, and he'll be starting in the All-Star Game this week. Parker will be joining him, and Ginobili continues to display the kind of energy that belies his bald spot.

So there are a few reasons for optimism, just as there were 10 years ago with a different big three.

The Spurs can only hope the similarities end there.

[regio]

Can the spurs be considered a dynasty?

[Timmy!]

Can the spurs be considered a dynasty?

Hard to be considered a dynasty w/o winning back-2-back IMO. SAS is the closest thing to a dynasty since Bulls & Lakers tho.

[Darkwaters]

Without a doubt. 3 rings in the last 8 years, a deep playoff run nearly every year that didn't end in a ring and a core of multiple all-stars in the overloaded west. Plus, I believe the franchise has only missed the playoffs a total of like 4 times ever.

Now, the dynasty is definately waning, but I believe its still there in some form.

[nkdlunch]

I would not consider a dynasty. Dynasties start losing when they get old and slow enough. Our big 3 especially Duncan is still not old, or slow enough. They have no excuse to be losing right now. If they were a real dynasty, they should still be wining.

[Mr. Body]

Celtics in the 80s are considered a dynasty. They only won 3 and never back-to-back.

[Mr. Body]

I would not consider a dynasty. Dynasties start losing when they get old and slow enough. Our big 3 especially Duncan is still not old, or slow enough. They have no excuse to be losing right now. If they were a real dynasty, they should still be wining.

I'm not sure you actually read the article.

[td4mvp21]

Maybe last year or a year ago. 3 Rings in 7 years is pretty good, but beyond that is pushing it, especially with no repeats.

[kobe_bryant]

d y n a s t y

[Man In Black]

I agree with Kobe. Spurs...a dynasty.

[Timmy!]

Celtics in the 80s are considered a dynasty. They only won 3 and never back-to-back.

Argubly. Depends on one's definition. I would argue that the Lakers were more of a dynasty in the 80's.

[Mr. Body]

They've both been called dynasties in the 80s. The Bird Celtics. The Magic Lakers. What matters isn't so much winning back-to-back but competing year after year, while winning during that period. Isiah's Pistons won back-to-back but weren't a dynasty. Hakeem's Rockets weren't a dynasty.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I could not care less whether the Spurs go down in history as a dynasty; I witnessed all 3 Championship seasons, and enjoyed each one. If they never win again, I can't complain.

[KB24]

*********** = No Dynasty

[Extra Stout]

Celtics in the 80s are considered a dynasty. They only won 3 and never back-to-back.
They appeared in 5 Finals over 7 years, going 3-2, including 4 straight from 1984-87.

The Spurs aren't at that level.

[timvp]

They appeared in 5 Finals over 7 years, going 3-2, including 4 straight from 1984-87.

The Spurs aren't at that level.
Are you saying if we lose four more times in the Finals that we will be a dynasty?

Sincerely,

Mav Fan

[Extra Stout]

Are you saying if we lose four more times in the Finals that we will be a dynasty?

Sincerely,

Mav Fan
No, but if you win 3 and lose 2, that would be better than winning 3 and losing none, because those other two times at least you got there, rather than losing in the second round, or getting swept out of the conference finals.

[Kori Ellis]

Bruce Bowen said once that he didn't think a team was a dynasty unless they won 4 titles or more in a row. :lol Spurs have a long way to go by that definition.

[Spurminator]

The definition of "Dynasty" is debatable, and the debate typically only serves to diminish what NBA Champions have achieved.

With that said, I'll do my part by saying I think the only span of years where you could even argue the Spurs were a "Dynasty" are 2003-2005. And even then, you could argue that the Lakers "Dynasty" didn't end until 2004.

So because I refuse to call the Lakers a Dynasty, it follows that I cannot call the Spurs a dynasty either.

[ArgSpursFan]

Hard to be considered a dynasty w/o winning back-2-back IMO. SAS is the closest thing to a dynasty since Bulls & Lakers tho.

Celtics were more like a dynasty tham the Bulls or the fakers.

[sabar]

Just use other teams as a measuring stick. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_%28sports%29)

[TheMulvany]

The Spurs weren't a dynasty. The Lakers were.....the Spurs were just the team that won a few championships then got stomped the year after.

[LilMissSPURfect]

Are you saying if we lose four more times in the Finals that we will be a dynasty?

Sincerely,

Mav Fan


:p: :spin :lol

[Texas_Ranger]

There were be no dynasty for the Spurs. Only if Duncan will start playing like he is 25 years old.
We had a chance for dynasty but we waste it.

[sabar]

You got...

Fluke < ??? < Dynasty

Spurs are whatever you call the ???

[SilverPlayer]

The Spurs weren't a dynasty. The Lakers were.....the Spurs were just the team that won a few championships then got stomped the year after.


Coming from a never has been Mavs fan, That's just sad.

[LEONARD]

It's a sad day in Spurs-land...

[KB24]

NBA Dynasties

Minneapolis Lakers of the 1950s (5 championships between 1949 and 1954)

Boston Celtics (1956 to 1986 16 NBA titles in 30 years overall. 26 winning seasons, 20 division titles, 18 conference titles)

Los Angeles Lakers of 1979 to 1991 (5 NBA championships, 10 division titles, 9 conference championships, 12 winning seasons)

Chicago Bulls of the 1990s (6 championships in 8 seasons)

Los Angeles Lakers 1999- 2004 (3 NBA championships, 3 division titles, 4 NBA Finals appearances, 5 playoff appearances)

LAKER DOMINATION BITCHES

[dg7md]

Any team that wins multiple titles in the same era is considered a dynasty. Now if we won in 1997, then 2009, then 2019, we aren't a dynasty. People who claim we aren't a dynasty (winning in 99, 03, and 05) are just hating on the franchise. Those are all close enough together to consider them as winning the era in titles.

Winning in the modern NBA is a lot tougher than winning back in the 50's through the early 80's.

[ArgSpursFan]

NBA Dynasties

Minneapolis Lakers of the 1950s (5 championships between 1949 and 1954)

Boston Celtics (1956 to 1986 16 NBA titles in 30 years overall. 26 winning seasons, 20 division titles, 18 conference titles)
Los Angeles Lakers of 1979 to 1991 (5 NBA championships, 10 division titles, 9 conference championships, 12 winning seasons)

Chicago Bulls of the 1990s (6 championships in 8 seasons)

Los Angeles Lakers 1999- 2004 (3 NBA championships, 3 division titles, 4 NBA Finals appearances, 5 playoff appearances)

LAKER DOMINATION BITCHES

considering that Boston never relocated like the fackers did,they own the Dynasty tittle.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

The term dynasty is thrown around way too much. I don't see how you can consider the Spurs a dynasty(dominant) when the Lakers won 3 straight titles in between their first and second titles. Add that to the fact that it wasn't even the Spurs who ended the Lakers' run and you have a pretty weak argument.

EDIT: It was the Spurs. For some reason I confused 2003 with 2004.

I don't think the Spurs' have been dominant enough to be considered a dynasty. OTOH, they've clearly been the best franchise over that period of rime.

[SilverPlayer]

The term dynasty is thrown around way too much. I don't see how you can consider the Spurs a dynasty(dominant) when the Lakers won 3 straight titles in between their first and second titles. Add that to the fact that it wasn't even the Spurs who ended the Lakers' run and you have a pretty weak argument.


Most Spurs fans wouldn't consider our team a dynasty, but they have always been on the cusp of one. When all is said and done in Duncan's career, if we win 2 more at any point. It will be a dynasty. If we ever win b2b it will solidify Duncan as the greatest PF of all time, and he will have been a dynasty unto himself.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Most Spurs fans wouldn't consider our team a dynasty, but they have always been on the cusp of one. When all is said and done in Duncan's career, if we win 2 more at any point. It will be a dynasty. If we ever win b2b it will solidify Duncan as the greatest PF of all time, and he will have been a dynasty unto himself.


I would agree that that's the best way to state it: The Spurs are on the cusp of being considered a dynasty. If they do win another two, they would have a pretty solid case.

[ehz33satx]

I would consider the Spurs the closest to being a dynasty in sports. I feel that championships were snatched from our hands at least 2 times by forces out of our control. Someone high up in the NBA hierachy did not want the Spurs to make it to the Finals the last few years. It all comes down to making money and when the Spurs play in the Finals, nobody else cares but Spurs fans, hence less money. So quite possibly we could be working on 4 maybe 5 straight championships. So why not consider the Spurs a dynasty? One more thing, I think sticking with Nick Van Exel all last year and into the playoffs seriously handicapped the Spurs.

[Cry Havoc]

Wow, so sticking with the "you need two years in a row" excuse, you guys are saying that a team could win 8 titles in 16 years and not be considered a dynasty? 20 in 40? I don't know if they make words in the English language for that kind of idiocy, but it's completely bunk. By that statement, the Rockets have had more of a dynasty than the Spurs, and that obviously isn't true.

Spurs have been the #1 winningest franchise (% wise) in ALL of Sports since Duncan came into the league.

They have won 3 titles, and have been at or near the top of the league for 9 years and counting, never missing the playoffs in that span, and never having less than a 3 seed in that span as well.

Dynasty. Seriously, in today's age of parody and competition, anytime you post the winning % with multiple titles, it's a dynasty. The Spurs have been a juggernaut, and they could prove to be a very real force again this year, every bit capable of winning a 4th title.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Spurs can be...if you look at it

first Celtics led by Larry Bird had a legitimate rival in the Lakers by Magic, they made multiple finals appearances, three titles and never had a back to back. Take one or the other out of the equation, and you'd probably have multiple, multiple back-to-backs for either of those teams.

Spurs have had 3 titles in the last seven years, and had contended to go all the way at least two years in between. Also given the context of the period. Whoever won the western conference final was considered most likely winner of the championship. Only post 2004,2005 did that change a little. East still sucks however. While the West is still loaded.

Didn't Horry say you had to win at least five championships to be considered a dynasty??

[Cry Havoc]

Spurs can be...if you look at it

first Celtics led by Larry Bird had a legitimate rival in the Lakers by Magic, they made multiple finals appearances, three titles and never had a back to back. Take one or the other out of the equation, and you'd probably have multiple, multiple back-to-backs for either of those teams.

Spurs have had 3 titles in the last seven years, and had contended to go all the way at least two years in between. Also given the context of the period. Whoever won the western conference final was considered most likely winner of the championship. Only post 2004,2005 did that change a little. East still sucks however. While the West is still loaded.

Didn't Horry say you had to win at least five championships to be considered a dynasty??


You could actually make the case that the west hasn't been this much better than the east for decades. There are ZERO power teams in the east right now, and unless Detroit can continue stringing wins together, it's going to be a hell of an upset for an EC squad to take the finals past 5 games, to say nothing of winning it. The 5 seed in the west right now has a better record than the 1 seed from the east. The 6 is better record-wise than the 2. The disparity between conferences is wider than it was during the Lakers-Spurs rivalry, IMO.

[WalterBenitez]

d y n a s t y

I do agree Kobe's monarchy rocks in LA. :sleep

Spurs' dinasty .. we should agree on the meaning :reading

[WalterBenitez]

*********** = No Dynasty

Another kido missing Shaq? :sleep

[Oh, Gee!!]

I would consider the Spurs the closest to being a dynasty in sports. I feel that championships were snatched from our hands at least 2 times by forces out of our control. Someone high up in the NBA hierachy did not want the Spurs to make it to the Finals the last few years. It all comes down to making money and when the Spurs play in the Finals, nobody else cares but Spurs fans, hence less money. So quite possibly we could be working on 4 maybe 5 straight championships. So why not consider the Spurs a dynasty? One more thing, I think sticking with Nick Van Exel all last year and into the playoffs seriously handicapped the Spurs.

shhh......they're watching us right now. :dizzy

[bdictjames]

Horry himself is a dynasty.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

You could actually make the case that the west hasn't been this much better than the east for decades. There are ZERO power teams in the east right now, and unless Detroit can continue stringing wins together, it's going to be a hell of an upset for an EC squad to take the finals past 5 games, to say nothing of winning it. The 5 seed in the west right now has a better record than the 1 seed from the east. The 6 is better record-wise than the 2. The disparity between conferences is wider than it was during the Lakers-Spurs rivalry, IMO.

Is it really that much better? If an EC team wins this year, that's 3 of the last 4 titles going to an EC team. Overall, there is a lot, and I mean a lot, more depth in the West but teams like Detroit and Miami are definitely capable of winning another title.

Are Dallas and PHX really considered power teams when neither has one a title and they have one Finals appearance between them since the turn of the century?

Regular season records are nice and all, but they mean absolutely nothing come April.

[ehz33satx]

Dynasty. Seriously, in today's age of parody and competition, anytime you post the winning % with multiple titles, it's a dynasty. The Spurs have been a juggernaut, and they could prove to be a very real force again this year, every bit capable of winning a 4th title.

No offense, but its parity not parody.

[jeffdrums22]

Are we 35-18 or 34-18? NBA.com says 34, but I thought we had 35 wins by now?

[ambchang]

All you flip-flopping haters, look at posts back in 2005 before the Spurs won the championship, every one was saying how that championship would solidify the Spurs as a dynasty, and Duncan as the best PF of all time, and NOBODY disagreed.
Haters.
BTW, I do consider the Spurs a dynasty, but it IS the least impressive dynasty outside of the 80's celtics and the 00's Lakers. The 80's Lakers, Celtics in the 60's and Bulls in the 90's were by far better, but there is no shame in that.

[BradLohaus]

Just use other teams as a measuring stick. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_%28sports%29)

I am 100% positive that the Spurs used to be listed as an NBA dynasty on the sports dynasty Wikipedia page. They must have been taken off some time in the last couple of months.

[KB24]

All you flip-flopping haters, look at posts back in 2005 before the Spurs won the championship, every one was saying how that championship would solidify the Spurs as a dynasty, and Duncan as the best PF of all time, and NOBODY disagreed.
Haters.
BTW, I do consider the Spurs a dynasty, but it IS the least impressive dynasty outside of the 80's celtics and the 00's Lakers. The 80's Lakers, Celtics in the 60's and Bulls in the 90's were by far better, but there is no shame in that.


SHAQ & KOBE Laker DYNASTY is far more impressive than the *S*P*U*R*S* so called Dynasty. Only SPURS FANS acknowledge this so called *S*P*U*R*S* Dynasty.

[ambchang]

SHAQ & KOBE Laker DYNASTY is far more impressive than the *S*P*U*R*S* so called Dynasty. Only SPURS FANS acknowledge this so called *S*P*U*R*S* Dynasty.
Yeah, a 3 year dynasty.

[Cry Havoc]

No offense, but its parity not parody.

My bad. I knew it was one or the other.

[KB24]

Yeah, a 3 year dynasty.


3 IN a ROW. It's called defending a title. Something the SPURS have never done. TOO SOFT.

[dbreiden83080]

Can the spurs be considered a dynasty?

They are not a dynasty but they are a near dynasty if you ask me. With all the whining that Spurs fans do about this year, if they never win another title in 20 years you will look back and say in the Duncan Era they won 3 titles in a span of 7 years. How many teams in the history of pro sports can honestly say that, not too many.

[dbreiden83080]

3 IN a ROW. It's called defending a title. Something the SPURS have never done. TOO SOFT.

Your team was so much better than anything the Spurs have ever had and they still won 3 total titles.

[jeffdrums22]

NBA Dynasties

Minneapolis Lakers of the 1950s (5 championships between 1949 and 1954)

Boston Celtics (1956 to 1986 16 NBA titles in 30 years overall. 26 winning seasons, 20 division titles, 18 conference titles)

Los Angeles Lakers of 1979 to 1991 (5 NBA championships, 10 division titles, 9 conference championships, 12 winning seasons)

Chicago Bulls of the 1990s (6 championships in 8 seasons)

Los Angeles Lakers 1999- 2004 (3 NBA championships, 3 division titles, 4 NBA Finals appearances, 5 playoff appearances)

LAKER DOMINATION BITCHES


Sorry, but I don't count teams that win multiple championships in a league of only 13 or so teams (1960s was it?) a real dynasty. Whenever the era of 25 or so teams started (late 70s, 80s? I don't know) that's when you can start talking about real dynasties.