Category: Barstool Debates (Page 8 of 8)

Granted, they’re not as important as the Lincoln-Douglas debates, but as long as there have been barstools, there have been men sitting on those stools arguing about sports. This week, John Paulsen and Anthony Stalter sit at a virtual bar and debate whether or not the San Antonio Spurs qualify as a dynasty. Take a seat, order a beverage and feel free to give us your two cents.

Anthony: The first thing anyone looks at when considering whether or not a team should be viewed as a dynasty is the number of championships won in a certain amount of time. Well, since the strike-shortened season of 1999, the Spurs have won four titles. While none of those have been back to back, there’s no denying how hard it is to win one NBA title, nevertheless four in nine years. They’ve also won six division titles in nine years, which is quite an accomplishment in the stacked Western Conference. Another thing to consider is that they’ve largely kept the same core of players throughout the years and only Tim Duncan can really be considered a superstar. (Although Tony Parker might be on his way.)

John: The Merriam-Webster definition of a dynasty is “a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time.” Applying this to sports is a little tricky. There’s no doubt that the Boston Celtics – who won 11 total titles from 1957 to 1969 (including eight straight titles from ‘59 to ‘66) – were a dynasty. Michael Jordan’s Chicago Bulls won six titles in eight years from 1991-1998, so they should be considered a dynasty, especially considering that His Airness missed all of the 1993-94 season and most of the following season, the only two years the Bulls didn’t win the title in that span. The 2000-02 Los Angeles Lakers were probably a dynasty, albeit a short one, as they won three straight titles (and dominated the league) with Shaq and Kobe leading the way. After that, things get a little dicey. The 1980-88 Los Angeles Lakers won five titles in the nine seasons – were they a dynasty? A dynasty is a period of dominance, and while the Lakers were amazing during that span – five titles and four other Finals appearances in 12 seasons – they didn’t dominate the league. And I’d put these Spurs a notch below those Lakers. They have won four titles in nine years, but in the years they didn’t win a championship, they didn’t make a single Finals appearance. In fact, they only went to the Western Conference Finals once during those five non-title years. How can a team be dominant if it can’t make it out of its own Conference Semifinals in four of the nine years of its so-called dynasty?

Anthony: I’ll go back to my argument about how the Spurs have kept the same core group of players over the years. It’s amazing what the Spurs have been able to do on the court and yet keep everyone happy off it. Amazingly, they arguably haven’t overspent for any one player, either. Duncan’s two-year, $40 million contract extension in October of last year was certainly reasonable for a player of his stature, while Parker’s $10.5 million salary for 2008 is peanuts compared to what Dallas is paying Jason Kidd ($19.7 mil). And Parker is arguably more effective and not to mention much younger. So when you consider what teams have to go through as far as retaining their players in this salary cap era, it’s even more impressive what the Spurs have been able to accomplish.

John: The NBA implemented the salary cap in 1984 to improve competitiveness of small market teams, which actually helped the Spurs as they play in a small market. That said, the Spurs have done a terrific job of locking up their stars to long, reasonably priced contracts, but some of that was luck. Both Parker and Manu Ginobili signed deals just before they made big jumps in their respective games. In Ginobili’s case, the Spurs just matched an offer sheet made by the Nuggets, so timing played a big part in getting those guys for a good price. And unlike some other “max contract” players who are more talk than walk, Tim Duncan is actually a no-brainer max contract guy. While I agree that the definition of “dynasty” certainly has to change with and without a salary cap, both MJ’s Bulls and the 2000-02 Lakers were able to win multiple titles in a row during their reign under the salary cap. Isn’t part of being a dynasty dominating for consecutive years?

Anthony: Good points. I guess what this all depends on your definition of “dynasty.” To me, it’s being able to win multiple championships within a certain period of time. Four titles in nine years qualifies and, therefore, I don’t have any qualms about saying the Spurs are a dynasty.

John: If the Spurs had played better in the years they didn’t win the title, I’d be more agreeable to anointing them a dynasty. But, thus far, they’ve been unable to make back-to-back Finals appearances, much less win two consecutive titles. So for now, they’re a great team and an even better franchise, and the closest thing we have to a dynasty in the NBA.