The Question of "Dynasty"

[mikekim]

There has been much talk in the media--and I imagine here at spurstalk as well (I haven't been here in a while...i started getting my life back in order from the spurs fanaticism during the break before the finals and I got carried away with that...haha)--about whether or not the Spurs are a dynasty.

I say they are. Even if they haven't won consecutive championships, who says that that is a pre-requisite for being considered a "dynasty"?? If one had a choice between winning 3 straight and blowing up into oblivion (a la the lakers of the 2000's) or winning (for the most part) every other year for 9 years while being legitimate championship contenders every year in between (save but one season)....as a fan, I would choose the latter without hesitation!

I love the fact that I am able to carry the hope year in and year out of the spurs winning it all--and having that hope be concretely realistic and not delusional.

And yes...the ideal team wouldn't force you to choose between the two, like the celtics and lakers (although, it should be pointed out, the lakers kinda did the alternating pattern like the spurs...except...they made it to the finals those other "off" years...haha) and the MJ Bulls of the 90's. But, as mentioned everywhere by everybody, in this era of free agency and salary caps? In this era where it's so difficult to find players who would put TEAM and winning before contracts and personal glory?? In this era where it's difficult to pay players enough and keep them while staying under the salary cap, even if the players have relatively good attitudes?? There is no doubt in my mind that this Spurs team we have in front of us is a dynasty.

We Spurs fans really have it great. It is such a great decade to be a spurs fan--and it looks like it will continue to be a great time for at least a handful more years, championship or no championship. What this Spurs team has done, what it will continue to do for at least a few more years, put in the context of the current era of the NBA, is as impressive a DYNASTY as the 80's lakers or 90's bulls (that celtics run from '57-'86, no matter what you say about the number of teams, era, whatever...seems pretty untouchable, haha).

Whewww...man....but seriously...I don't think people will realize/appreciate this fact until a decade or two down the road...and that's a shame. Let us here in this forum, at least, recognize and appreciate this fact RIGHT NOW!

I love these Spurs.

With all that said, let's root like hell for the Spurs to repeat next year just to quiet the critics for good :toast

*I'm sorry if I'm regurgitating previous threads and responses on this topic. Like I said, I haven't really been here much the past few weeks.

[mikekim]

Oh...and I'm sure this was covered many times in the game thread, but that was no foul on manu on his BLOCK on damon jones...

[flipcritic]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/32544.html

Only Arizona thinks we're not a dynasty. :lmao
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=nba&pollId=46003

[Meat Thermometer]

spurs + dynasty = :dizzy

too much to comprehend :reading

[mikekim]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/32544.html

Only Arizona thinks we're not a dynasty. :lmao
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=nba&pollId=46003

I would really like to believe those polls...i really do. But based on the tv ratings for this series, most americans don't really care. Take the spurs fans out of that poll and what do you have?

I'm not trying to be cynical but i live in southern orange county in cali...I don't know one friend/acquaintance off the top of my head (who is not a spurs fan...spurs fans are rare here anyways) who would agree with what I wrote in here.

[PlaneFast]

If you consider the 80's Celtics a dynasty, then the Spurs are clearly a dynasty.

The 80's Celts won only 3 championships (81, 84, 86). Spurs in Duncan era has 4 championships They also haven't won less than 53 reg season games since Duncan joined, which shows consistent strength.

Some people think you can't be called a dynasty unless you win back-to-back championships. The Celts also NEVER WON BACK-TO-BACK championships. So I don't understand the hypocrisy.

PlaneFast.com

[whottt]

I would really like to believe those polls...i really do. But based on the tv ratings for this series, most americans don't really care. Take the spurs fans out of that poll and what do you have?

I'm not trying to be cynical but i live in southern orange county in cali...I don't know one friend/acquaintance off the top of my head (who is not a spurs fan...spurs fans are rare here anyways) who would agree with what I wrote in here.



Most Americans might not care...but basketball is a global game, and there is the rest of the world. I have a feeling the Spurs play better on the World Stage than they do on the American.

[mikekim]

If you consider the 80's Celtics a dynasty, then the Spurs are clearly a dynasty.

The 80's Celts won only 3 championships (81, 84, 86). Spurs in Duncan era has 4 championships They also haven't won less than 53 reg season games since Duncan joined, which shows consistent strength.

Some people think you can't be called a dynasty unless you win back-to-back championships. The Celts also NEVER WON BACK-TO-BACK championships. So I don't understand the hypocrisy.

PlaneFast.com

Notice I didn't say "80's Celtics." I said Celtics from '57-'86...I counted it as one really long, incredible run of greatness.

And...they did make it to the finals 4 years in a row from 84-87. Don't just look at the wins. Those "off" years are as good as it gets without winning it. Making it to the finals certainly counts more than getting knocked out in any rounds before that.

[mikekim]

Most Americans might not care...but basketball is a global game, and there is the rest of the world. I have a feeling the Spurs play better on the World Stage than they do on the American.

Yeah...I take comfort in that too. But still...most of the players play in the U.S. and are citizens in the U.S. The media corporations that broadcast the games and coverage are based in the U.S.

It is an American league...even if there are many fans and players from around the world.

I just would like to see americans giving spurs their due props. most of all...i just would like to have the option of going out and celebrating, or even appreciating, what the spurs have done here in cali with other fans of basketball. It won't happen.

[whottt]

The reason the teams from the big metroplexes always are such big draws is not just because of their home market...it's because of their huge media influence, it's because people from those metroplexes live all over the country. There aren't San Antonians all over the country...like that.


Plus...some of this is on the fault of the Spurs Franchise itself, they suck ass at marketing. I can't even get every freaking Spurs game here in Austin, even though we get freaking blacked out because we are in the KENS broadcast range. I think the Spurs held a scrimmage here...once, about 15 years ago.

[mikekim]

Yeah...

I guess what really matters to me is....yes, that I still love my Spurs...haha

[wildbill2u]

This is like one of those Karnak routines where the answer is The SAN ANTONIO SPURS

[TampaDude]

Oh...and I'm sure this was covered many times in the game thread, but that was no foul on manu on his BLOCK on damon jones...

Yup...that was ALL BALL!!! Total BS foul!!!

Doesn't matter, though...Spurs are the Champions!!! :toast

[MadDog73]

And...they did make it to the finals 4 years in a row from 84-87. Don't just look at the wins. Those "off" years are as good as it gets without winning it. Making it to the finals certainly counts more than getting knocked out in any rounds before that.


Does it count that the teams that beat us either become Champions or make it to the Finals?

Spurs are now the best Franchise from 1999-2007. Call them a Dynasty or not, they will be known for owning this decade.

The Lakers had 3 good years, but then blew up and are now barely a playoff team. No other team even comes close.

All Time Dynasties:

Celtics (16)
Lakers (14)
Bulls (6)
Spurs (4)

We're two Championships away from tieing the Bulls!

[Spurminator]

I think the Dynasty talk is Media desperation for something compelling to talk about regarding the Spurs. It seems silly to me to talk about a 1999-2007 Spurs Dynasty when there was another team in that period that won three Titles in a row. I mean, if you have to talk about a Spurs Dynasty, it should really start with 2003. Three Championships in five years are nothing to scoff at.

IMO, there have been three dynasties: The Mikan Lakers, the Russell Celtics and the Jordan Bulls.

[MadDog73]

I think the Dynasty talk is Media desperation for something compelling to talk about regarding the Spurs. It seems silly to me to talk about a 1999-2007 Spurs Dynasty when there was another team in that period that won three Titles in a row. I mean, if you have to talk about a Spurs Dynasty, it should really start with 2003. Three Championships in five years are nothing to scoff at.

In 2000 Tim was hurt.

So, in Spurs vs Lakers, Lakers only beat the Spurs 3 times, and only won Championships twice after beating the Spurs.

Then, the Lakers blew up. That to me is the biggest blow against calling the 2000-2002 Lakers a "dynasty"; they aren't even competing anymore.

From 1999 - 2007 Spurs have been legitimate Champion contenders. They have the best winning % of all sports during this time. And finally, they have 4 rings.

How can they not be considered a Dynasty? Do you have to win back-to-backs?

[Strike]

Yup...that was ALL BALL!!! Total BS foul!!!

Doesn't matter, though...Spurs are the Champions!!! :toast

Actually Manu got him in the head. Just grazed him but made contact nonetheless.

And by the way..........WHO THE FUCK CARES!!!!!!! THE SPURS WON THE GAME AND THE TITLE!!!!!!!!!!

[Spurminator]

So, in Spurs vs Lakers, Lakers only beat the Spurs 3 times, and only won Championships twice after beating the Spurs.

You say "only" as if it's just a blip on the radar. The Lakers were THE premiere team in the NBA from 2000-2002, and they were Western Conference Champions four out of five years, compared to once for the Spurs. Does that sound like something that happens during a Spurs Dynasty?

It's no insult to the Spurs to simply call them a great team, or even the Team of the Decade. But I think we're jumping the gun with all of the Dynasty talk.

[MadDog73]

You say "only" as if it's just a blip on the radar. The Lakers were THE premiere team in the NBA from 2000-2002, and they were Western Conference Champions four out of five years, compared to once for the Spurs. Does that sound like something that happens during a Spurs Dynasty?

It's no insult to the Spurs to simply call them a great team, or even the Team of the Decade. But I think we're jumping the gun with all of the Dynasty talk.

WTF? Now Conference Championships count?

Bullshit. Total rings baby. 4 > 3.

Spurs dominate this decade. They are, therefore, a dynasty, even if the least dynasty of the Big 3. (Celtics, Lakers and Bulls).

(and yes, I consider the 80's Lakers a dynasty).

[SAGambler]

I suppose "Dynasty" is one of those subjected words. And never will all agree on what it takes to be known as one.

But all that aside, what other team as performed as consistently as the Spurs over the past few years? Every year they are in it. Sure, they don't always make it to the Finals. Only one team out of each conference can. And then sometimes shit just happens.

Looking back at one foul at the end of the game costing the Spurs what would probably now be a 3peat, with 5 rings, and there wouldn't even be a discussion of whether they were a Dynasty or not. It would be a given. One simple little foul. That now looms so large. If not for that, neither us nor the the media would even be having this discussion.

But now the Spurs have the chance to do it again in '08 and maybe even '09. A couple of pieces may need to be added along the way, but the CORE, the heart of this team, is here for at least that long.

And may I add. I think with Tony winning that MVP, he will only strive to be the best there is at his position next year. He could become the "terror of the league". If he works over the summer on his 3 point shot (which didn't look too shabby last night) how in the world will anyone stop him from averaging 25 to 30 ppg?

I see nothing but a bright future for the next 3 or 4 years for these guys.

Have a good summer off guys, and be ready to "Go for 5" next year. I can hardly wait for November to get here. It's going to be a long summer for me.

[Spurminator]

Is there a Dynasty Ring?

Why the desperation to rush to call this team a Dynasty? Why fall in line with the predictable, unimaginative national Media? You know they were calling the Lakers a Dynasty 4 years ago, right?

[tlongII]

The question has been answered. The Spurs are a dynasty. The Blazers got NEXT!

[MadDog73]

Is there a Dynasty Ring?

Why the desperation to rush to call this team a Dynasty? Why fall in line with the predictable, unimaginative national Media? You know they were calling the Lakers a Dynasty 4 years ago, right?


Bah. I don't consider the 2000-2002 Lakers a Dynasty for reasons I listed above. I could give a flying fuck what the media thinks.

I'm calling the Spurs a Dynasty because that's what I think they are.

Obviously there is no "right" definition, that's what makes it a fun discussion.

If you think only the 50's Lakers, the 60's Celtics, and the 90's Bulls are true dynasties, than, no, the Spurs aren't there.

If you think the 80's Lakers are a Dynasty the Spurs are right there with them.

(Interesting question, does anyone out there even with the most liberal definition of Dynasty consider any team in the 70's a Dynasty?)

[colargol]

I suppose "Dynasty" is one of those subjected words. And never will all agree on what it takes to be known as one.


But now the Spurs have the chance to do it again in '08 and maybe even '09. A couple of pieces may need to be added along the way, but the CORE, the heart of this team, is here for at least that long.

And may I add. I think with Tony winning that MVP, he will only strive to be the best there is at his position next year. He could become the "terror of the league". If he works over the summer on his 3 point shot (which didn't look too shabby last night) how in the world will anyone stop him from averaging 25 to 30 ppg?
I see nothing but a bright future for the next 3 or 4 years for these guys.

Have a good summer off guys, and be ready to "Go for 5" next year. I can hardly wait for November to get here. It's going to be a long summer for me.


:clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap

[spurster]

It says "DYNASTY" right on front of the San Antonio Express-News, so it must be.

[smeagol]

The question has been answered. The Spurs are a dynasty. The Blazers got NEXT!
I note a change of tone in your post . . . how should I discribe it . . . respect, maybe?

Even though this part remains moronic :lol


The Blazers got NEXT!

[mikekim]

Bump (sorry, I just woke up and missed out on the conversation)

But, like I said, even if you just look at championships and hold the Spurs to the same criteria as the other "dynasties" in NBA history, it is ARGUABLE that they are a dynasty....But:

"as mentioned everywhere by everybody, in this era of free agency and salary caps? In this era where it's so difficult to find players who would put TEAM and winning before contracts and personal glory?? In this era where it's difficult to pay players enough and keep them while staying under the salary cap, even if the players have relatively good attitudes?? There is no doubt in my mind that this Spurs team we have in front of us is a dynasty."

Put in the context of the era and situation of the NBA today (and what is ANYTHING without context??? and i think in this case, the context plays a huuuge role), there is not even a question as to whether or not the Spurs are a dynasty. They are. Even with the lakers winning 3 in the middle, they still are. (But as someone else mentioned, I would rather look at the 3 rings in 5 years just cuz it looks better on paper...especially when one considers that Spurs got pretty unlucky those "off" years and really could've won it all. But "destined" teams do make it through and they do catch the breaks...so, no complaints I guess. They should've won 5 in a row though. Fisher's ".4" was waste that led to the lakers getting manhandled by the pistons. They should've just let the Spurs try. And Dallas series--esp. games 3 and 4--were really, as bad as it sounds to whine, "biased." And the manu foul, of course.)

If one looks at it in context, the Spurs are a dynasty.

[pooh]

There's so many ways to look at it. Over an extended period, you can say that the Spurs have had a dynastic run, something similar to the Niners of the 80's, which had the Redskins as a close second in Super Bowl appearances and wins.

In the Spurs' case, their wins were put in between the Lakers' three-peat. For the Spurs to be in that Dynasty catagory, they must at least make a return trip to the finals next year...win or lose it. They have failed to make it back each year after winning it all. Even Detroit, made it back after winning it in 2004. The Nets went back to back as well, now granted they didn't win, but they did go twice in a row.

Now do the Spurs have that hunger there to repeat? Who knows? Perhaps this title was just a desire to prove that the lost last year to the Mavs was a fluke. It will be interesting to see what the Spurs do this coming season, their legacy may be determined by it.

[mikekim]

geez...after all that work i put in, you forget about the all-important CONTEXT that i spoke of already???

But yeah...I do agree that the Spurs should win again next year just to shut EVERYONE up about their dynasty.