Discussion: Pop are we a dynasty?

A couple of months ago the San Antonio Spurs won their fourth title in 9 years in one of most boring and one sided series in recent memory. Between Lebron missed jump shots and Tony Parker impossible scoop shots, everybody was talking about that if we can considerer the Spurs a Dynasty. Right here me and Rusty boy are going to tackle this issue without any clear ideas or any resemblance of good old thinking.

Morgan: I’m starting taking some ammo away Rusty. The fact that they haven’t been able to repeat, doesn’t take anything away from them. Four championships are four championships, no matter if they are spread around a decade or 6 years, when u look back to the post MJ’s Bulls era, the most dominating team have been the Spurs followed by the Lakers.

Rusty: Being a treat, being a contender year after year is really amazing. I take my cap off for teams like the Spurs and the Pistons, both great examples of continuity and good management. Said that, that doesn’t mean they are a dynasty, the do need to repeat, they need to make a statement and said: “This is my league, and you are not taking it away from me “

Morgan: Do you consider the ‘89 and ’90 Pistons a dynasty?

Rusty: No, that’s only two titles. For my appreciation, they need 3 or more titles.

Morgan: Straight?

Rusty: They need to defend their title at least once.

Rusty: Is taking you a long time to answer. Are you bouncing of the walls?

Edit Note: As I wrote on the previous post, we are trying to make this as fluid as possible. It took me like 13 minutes to post the next replay

Morgan: My dog ate my reply.

Rusty: Lets say that Detroit wins two more titles in the next 3 years, that’d give them 3 titles in 6 years. Is that a dynasty for you?

Morgan: Yes. First of all, they would be repeating at some point, right? Secondly, we can’t underestimate 3 championships, we don’t have any idea of how hard is to win one, we can’t just say: “Buuu…just 3 rings”

Rusty: They would be repeating, but there’s no sense of domination from that team. A dynasty supposes to be dominating team, not only a contender.

Morgan: What if they go 16-0 and 16-1 in the playoffs? Does that change your opinion?

Rusty: That’s a lot of ifs!

Morgan: You're right. Let’s go back to the not repeating thing, everybody considers Larry Bird’s Celtics a dynasty. They won 3 rings without repeating, but still it’s a team that always comes up in dynasties discussions.

Rusty: Good point. Perhaps the factor that separates them, at least in my opinion, is the consistency of their roster. Those Celtics teams shared Larry Bird, Robert Parish, Kevin Mchale and I think ML Carr too. The only common character between the San Antonio’s four championship teams is Tim Duncan. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, they had to evolve because the league change of styles and rules in those 9 years but I’ve always thought that the 99 Spurs championship team is completely different to the other Spurs teams that won championships

Morgan: The Bill Russell’s Boston Celtics are the gold standard for a dynasty. The won 10 championships in 12 year, including 8 in a row, only have Russell as their “common character”. Does this mean they are less of a dynasty now?

Rusty: You can compare 10 titles to 4!!! And they defended their crown SEVEN times.

Morgan: I’m not comparing, I’m just saying no matter how the roster looked like in the different championship teams, they were still a dynasty. You want a more obvious example; Chicago 6 championships run only included MJ and Scottie as they “common characters”.

Edit Note: Double post. Sorry!

Morgan: You know what, I just love basketball-reference.com . I just checked and realized Birds’ Celtics won their 3 titles in 6 years. :D

Rusty: Damn it. Maybe the factor of the “common characters” wasn’t that good, I’m loosing this thing!

Morgan: So, are they a Dynasty?

Rusty: Perhaps they are lacking the respect that teams like Birds’ Celtics and Magic’s Lakers have received all this time. They just don’t have the cultural impact this other teams have

Morgan: True, but it’s not their fault that Tim Duncan is not a brand and San Antonio is not a “big market”. If we stick to basketball, you cannot take anything from them

Rusty: Basketball wise; they are a great team unbelievably well managed, lead by a perhaps the best power forward ever to play the game, genially coached. But you consider a wining team as a dynasty without taking in consideration the cultural impact.

Morgan: What about this? Teams around the league are copying, I mean, following the Spurs model of basketball, until a point that they are hiring any persona that even mop the floor at the SBC Center. Are Carlesimo, Presti and Ferry just coincidences? Statements of "spokespersons" the Cavs and Sonics , saying they want to become the next San Antonio, isn’t that a cultural change? Isn’t that a big impact on the league?

Rusty: Sacramento and New Jersey started running and winning games, achieving deep playoff runs at the start of the decade. Phoenix started running and winning with the arrival of Steve Nash and have been a contender ever since. Now, a bunch of teams are “following that model” , is that a cultural/ league change or just a trend?

Morgan: Tim Duncan have 4 rings and Steve Nash none. That’s the difference between creating a trend and a creating a cultural change.

Rusty: Well said, not true, but well said. Is easy to want to copy a successful model, I don't see GM's looking for the next Duncan as they looked for the next Jordan or Magic.

Morgan: They are always looking for fundamental big men with 4 years of college.

Ok, Rusty, I think this is getting to long for the reader, we are not ESPN here, you know. So, we might continue this next week or change the topic. Is there's any reader, besides my mom and my dog, leave a comment, let us know what you think.