The Question of "Dynasty"

[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

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 at udes?? 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 le 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.