Is the core of Klay/Curry/Draymond a dynasty?

[Monkhouse]

No.

Those 3 only one a single championship. The other 2 were with Durant. Why hasn’t anyone pointed this out?

That's been pointed out by me and jambr380.

[Csfan1984]

They could have been but they added KD. Right now Draymond has regressed and both Klay and Curry are out.

[Moranis]

And so is the Spurs 5 titles in 15 years. And the Lakers 5 in 11 years.

This is kind of interesting to me because of how different I view those two teams.

San Antonio feels like a 15 year dynasty, while the Lakers feel like 2 different teams/dynasties or mini-dynasties, but they're not really that different.

The Lakers had the same coach and 2 players that were present for all those championships (Kobe/Fisher).

The Spurs had the same coach and only 1 player present for all those championships (Duncan).

I guess it's the gradual changes and constant winning in San Antonio that make it feel like 1 team/dynasty, while the Lakers had big abrupt changes with a clear rebuild in the middle and only Kobe as a constant throughout (with Jackson and Fisher both leaving then coming back) that make it feel like different teams.

I mean the Heat won 3 titles with 2 other Finals appearances in a 9 year period, would they not be a dynasty under this definition?  And they had Wade and Haslem on those teams so there was some level of consistency in the players.  I mean the Spurs won 4 titles in 9 years with no other Finals appearances (then took a 6 year hiatus to make the finals and 7 to win).  How is that really any different than the Heat other than the Spurs were consistently winning a lot of regular season games?  I will give you the Spurs winning a lot of regular season games with the same best player makes them feel different than the Lakers or Heat, but I think you could certainly argue the Lakers and Heat were dynasties if you include the different title groupings. 

That said if the Spurs had only won the 3 in 5 seasons, I wouldn't have called them a dynasty, which is why I don't call the Warriors one.  You need to have more than 3 titles, especially if you really only have 5 seasons of real contention.  If the Warriors bounce back next year and look like a real contender and remain so for a few more seasons, then I think the argument for them becomes stronger, but right now.  Not a dynasty.  Remember they were the worst team in the league this year and lost in the 1st round of the playoffs before they won that first title.  So they were really only a contender for 5 seasons, that just isn't good enough to be considered a dynasty.

[slamtheking]

to be honest, I think there's only been one dynasty in basketball ever -- The Celtics with Bill Russell.  Pure domination over a very prolonged period of time.

I'm not saying there haven't been franchises with great talent and impressive results in much shorter spans than Russell's 13 years but that's all they are, franchises that achieved some greatness for a short period.

now if Jordan hadn't retired and the Bulls won the title the 2 years the Rockets won it, I'd add them as the second dynasty.

[gouki88]

No.

Those 3 only one a single championship. The other 2 were with Durant. Why hasn’t anyone pointed this out?

That's been pointed out by me and jambr380.

This is how I view it too. Had Durant not joined they had the chance to be

[colincb]

No and they're not likely to win again if that's the core going forward either.

[bopna]

The bigger what if here is would they have been a dynasty at all had KD joined a different team.

Ofcourse the team that KD would join then would have been the team to beat regardless of what team it is since KD was at his absolute prime...heck if he had stayed with the Thunder they could really in hindsight be the better team really than the Warriors the following years.

Its sad because we really have to view the Warriors as a flawed dynasty but nevertheless still a 5 year reign in the West is a difficult team to bypass.

Im glad that that superteam is now gone and we are at a new dawn of mini superteams instead of just one team dominating it all for the next blah..blah years.

[Monkhouse]

The bigger what if here is would they have been a dynasty at all had KD joined a different team.

Ofcourse the team that KD would join then would have been the team to beat regardless of what team it is since KD was at his absolute prime...heck if he had stayed with the Thunder they could really in hindsight be the better team really than the Warriors the following years.

Its sad because we really have to view the Warriors as a flawed dynasty but nevertheless still a 5 year reign in the West is a difficult team to bypass.

Im glad that that superteam is now gone and we are at a new dawn of mini superteams instead of just one team dominating it all for the next blah..blah years.

Honestly, I think Andre Roberson created a ripple effect in the NBA. Imagine if he could've been able to knock down a few more FT's in that GSW/OKC series... If it wasn't for Andre Roberson missing a few key FT's, who'd know where they would be right now.

He went 3/10 on FT's in that series, if he knocked down like 3-4 more FT's, (he increased his 3P % to 44 in that series oddly enough) I think they could've taken that extra game they needed to close the series out.

And to top it off, he's one of the best perimeter defenders, and managed to snag Rachel Demita while securing 3/$30 million while chilling rehabbing for the last 2 years. What a stud lol.

[Roy H.]

to be honest, I think there's only been one dynasty in basketball ever -- The Celtics with Bill Russell.  Pure domination over a very prolonged period of time.

I'm not saying there haven't been franchises with great talent and impressive results in much shorter spans than Russell's 13 years but that's all they are, franchises that achieved some greatness for a short period.

now if Jordan hadn't retired and the Bulls won the title the 2 years the Rockets won it, I'd add them as the second dynasty.

You don’t consider 6 titles in 8 years to be a dynasty?

That means that in American pro sports history, there have only been three dynasties: the Celts, the Canadiens and the 40s/50s Yankees.  Adding college, there’s UCLA and the UConn women, and Pitt football.

I think you miss out on lots of deserving teams if 6 out of 8 isn’t enough.  The earlier Yankees, the Oilers, the Packers, the Patriots.

[Moranis]

to be honest, I think there's only been one dynasty in basketball ever -- The Celtics with Bill Russell.  Pure domination over a very prolonged period of time.

I'm not saying there haven't been franchises with great talent and impressive results in much shorter spans than Russell's 13 years but that's all they are, franchises that achieved some greatness for a short period.

now if Jordan hadn't retired and the Bulls won the title the 2 years the Rockets won it, I'd add them as the second dynasty.

You don’t consider 6 titles in 8 years to be a dynasty?

That means that in American pro sports history, there have only been three dynasties: the Celts, the Canadiens and the 40s/50s Yankees.  Adding college, there’s UCLA and the UConn women, and Pitt football.

I think you miss out on lots of deserving teams if 6 out of 8 isn’t enough.  The earlier Yankees, the Oilers, the Packers, the Patriots.

I agree, but if you wanted to argue the Bulls weren't a dynasty the easiest argument is the simple reality that their 3rd title and 4th title only had 2 players that were on both.  Now granted Jordan and Pippen were the 2 most important people on all 6 titles, but the team had a total overhaul in the 2 years the Rockets won (which is one of the reasons I'm not so sure Houston doesn't win those titles anyway). 

[mmmmm]

to be honest, I think there's only been one dynasty in basketball ever -- The Celtics with Bill Russell.  Pure domination over a very prolonged period of time.

I'm not saying there haven't been franchises with great talent and impressive results in much shorter spans than Russell's 13 years but that's all they are, franchises that achieved some greatness for a short period.

now if Jordan hadn't retired and the Bulls won the title the 2 years the Rockets won it, I'd add them as the second dynasty.

You don’t consider 6 titles in 8 years to be a dynasty?

That means that in American pro sports history, there have only been three dynasties: the Celts, the Canadiens and the 40s/50s Yankees.  Adding college, there’s UCLA and the UConn women, and Pitt football.

I think you miss out on lots of deserving teams if 6 out of 8 isn’t enough.  The earlier Yankees, the Oilers, the Packers, the Patriots.

I concur with your general take, though I think it's important to use different standards for what constitutes a 'dynasty' in different leagues.  The NFL in particular is so heavily structured towards parity that the threshold for extended dominance is so difficult.