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

[Monkhouse]

I think for all intents and purposes, I love the core of Golden State Warriors. Don't get me wrong, no doubt Curry/Klay is the best shooting back court of all time, Draymond one of the most underappreciated elite role player, and has been consistently one of the best regular season teams before injuries interfered.

We can't forget the following: unanimous MVP from Curry, (although I'll dispute that year shouldn't have been 'unanimous,') DPOY from Draymond, and several of the greatest shooting careers from Klay and Steph.

But playoffs/finals should count as merit for something.

The drafted core accumulated exactly zero finals MVP awards. (Iggy won it over everyone else in a losing effort.)

They went 1-1, and created history by allowing the Cavaliers to come back from the craziest 3-1 victory.

The drafted core had the best player on the team just 1 of those 3 Championships, and even then Curry struggled in several of those. After that, KD came in as a FA and was the alpha for the other 2.

I know GSW will be remembered for their amazing ability to draft well, (their scouting department + picking in second round is almost second to none) the 73-9 record, and 3 championships, but if we're being realistic, they sort of choked...

If it wasn't for Durant, one of the greatest scorers of this era, would they have even won that many titles against the Cavaliers? Considering Love, Kyrie, and LeBron when healthy seemed to sort of either have their number or be on the same level as them.

They needed Durant to help them win 2 more championships, so can we really suggest that they are a dynasty? I don't know...

People get upset when I don't agree with 2007-2012 Celtics being a dynasty. Yes, we competed very well, but titles are titles. And even though we came close to 3 once upon a time, we didn't get those, so that point is moot.

So while I consider GSW mini- dynasty in my eyes, I place that with a huge asterisk. I just think it took a lot of luck for them to win the first championship, and when push came to shove, lost that 3-1 lead to the Cavaliers the year after.

What do you guys think?

[Donoghus]

I think you have to do more mental gymnastics to say they're not a dynasty. 

Dynasty in my eyes. No asterisk.  Team rosters are not gonna solely be homegrown talent.  There are trades, free agent signings.  Rosters happen.

Durant will be judged differently, though. 

Not to get off topic, but I don't seen many, if any, people call the New Three Celtics a "dynasty".

[Moranis]

3 titles in 5 seasons with 2 other finals appearance.  I'm not sure that really is a dynasty.  Are the Shaq/Kobe Lakers a dynasty?  I mean they won 3 in a row and reached another finals in a 5 season span.  What about the Heat with their 4 finals appearances and 2 wins in a 4 year span?  At some point you have to define what is a dynasty and I'm just not sure I'd call 3 wins a dynasty (at least in basketball - I think you have a better argument in football for that).

[Roy H.]

People get upset when I don't agree with 2007-2012 Celtics being a dynasty.

They do?

The Warriors are a mini-dynasty, and Curry, Klay, Dray, Iggy and Livingston were all part of that core. 

[petbrick]

3 titles in 5 seasons with 2 other finals appearance.  I'm not sure that really is a dynasty.  Are the Shaq/Kobe Lakers a dynasty?  I mean they won 3 in a row and reached another finals in a 5 season span.  What about the Heat with their 4 finals appearances and 2 wins in a 4 year span?  At some point you have to define what is a dynasty and I'm just not sure I'd call 3 wins a dynasty (at least in basketball - I think you have a better argument in football for that).

I agree.

The idea that a team with five straight trips to the Finals is dynastic in nature compared to, say, putting the label on San Antonio's run of 17 straight seasons with 50+ wins (even though that run only resulted in six appearances in the Finals overall) seems a peculiar use of the description.

Of course, that's entirely unprecedented in the history of basketball, so if you leave that out, a dominant 5-6 year run (even if you don't win every time) might qualify.

[Monkhouse]

I think you have to do more mental gymnastics to say they're not a dynasty. 

Dynasty in my eyes. No asterisk.  Team rosters are not gonna solely be homegrown talent.  There are trades, free agent signings.  Rosters happen.

Durant will be judged differently, though. 

Not to get off topic, but I don't seen many, if any, people call the New Three Celtics a "dynasty".

Fair enough, I created this thread more along the lines for discussion anyways, (there hasn't been much going on) I guess hypothetically, let me ask you then...

If Durant never joined the Warriors, and Cleveland beat Warriors the year after, would you consider 1-2 record in the Finals a dynasty?

I'm just curious, because where do you draw the line?

Also to answer your last sentence, there's been a lot of users here who have stated personally that the 2007-2012 Celtics is a dynasty. (They claimed we were robbed of the last 2 titles due to injuries, and could've 3peated if not for Perkins/KG's injuries.)

3 titles in 5 seasons with 2 other finals appearance.  I'm not sure that really is a dynasty.  Are the Shaq/Kobe Lakers a dynasty?  I mean they won 3 in a row and reached another finals in a 5 season span.  What about the Heat with their 4 finals appearances and 2 wins in a 4 year span?  At some point you have to define what is a dynasty and I'm just not sure I'd call 3 wins a dynasty (at least in basketball - I think you have a better argument in football for that).

That's sort of how I see it too. For me to consider any team as absolute dynasty, I would have to say 3 championships + continued success from henceforth, or at least 4-5 championships which I consider applies to the Spurs. I think GSW will have reached the former, but I still think if Durant hadn't gone to the Warriors, the last 2 titles could've been up in the air.

[Donoghus]

If Durant never joined the Warriors, and Cleveland beat Warriors the year after, would you consider 1-2 record in the Finals a dynasty?

I'm just curious, because where do you draw the line?

Also to answer your last sentence, there's been a lot of users here who have stated personally that the 2007-2012 Celtics is a dynasty. (They claimed we were robbed of the last 2 titles due to injuries, and could've 3peated if not for Perkins/KG's injuries.)

1)  No,  I would not. 

2)  There's no "paint by numbers" definition of dynasty but 3 championships is when I start giving consideration although there are several other factors that should be considered also but it starts with title.

3)  I don't recall "dynasty" being thrown at the New Three era Celtics.  Certainly, the larger discussion with that group delves into the what-ifs, especially with regards to '09 & '10.  Win titles there and its more of a discussion.  It was a great era and awesome on so many levels but there's always going to be the feeling that it should've been more but it certainly wasn't dynastic.

[action781]

I think 3 titles is where dynasty talk can begin.  I absolutely considered the Patriots a dynasty already in 2005 after their third title in 4 years and I know I wasn't alone in that.


I also consider the Warriors a dynasty.  But had they gone 1-2 in the Finals I would not, similarly to how I don't consider the '08-'13 Celtics a dynasty.

It does get gray though.  Were the 1994-95 Rockets a dynasty?  The early 90's Pistons?  The 2010's Heat?  The 1980's Celtics?

Google tells me the origin of the word "dynasty" comes in part from the greek word "dunasteia" meaning "lordship", "power".  If we want to get in the weeds here... in order to be a dynasty one could maybe argue that a team needs to have had indisputable dominance/power over the league during that time period?

[KGs Knee]

3 titles in a 5 year period meets my definition of a dynasty, at least by modern standards.

But you have to include Durant as part of that. Curry/Klay/Dray only won the one title on their own, and that was against a team missing 2 of its 3 best players.

[Moranis]

I think 3 titles is where dynasty talk can begin.  I absolutely considered the Patriots a dynasty already in 2005 after their third title in 4 years and I know I wasn't alone in that.


I also consider the Warriors a dynasty.  But had they gone 1-2 in the Finals I would not, similarly to how I don't consider the '08-'13 Celtics a dynasty.

It does get gray though.  Were the 1994-95 Rockets a dynasty?  The early 90's Pistons?  The 2010's Heat?  The 1980's Celtics?

Google tells me the origin of the word "dynasty" comes in part from the greek word "dunasteia" meaning "lordship", "power".  If we want to get in the weeds here... in order to be a dynasty one could maybe argue that a team needs to have had indisputable dominance/power over the league during that time period?

football is different than the other sports.  It is far more difficult to have sustained success given the roster size, playing lifespan, etc.  3 titles in a 5 year span in the NFL gets you labeled a dynasty, it does not (imo) in any of the other sports.  I mean basketball (and baseball and hockey) are spots that have real dynasties, the 40/50's Lakers, the 50/60's Celtics, 80's Lakers, 90's Bulls, and more recently the Spurs.  Those are teams that have won 5+ titles with the same basic core.  That is a dynasty.  3 titles is great, but not a dynasty.  Now if GS comes back and makes the Finals a couple of more times (even if they don't win), I think that starts to be where 3 titles might work i.e. 3 titles and in the midst of a decade of sustained excellence, but they aren't one right now (like I think you could maybe say the 80's Celtics were a dynasty, but the Lakers overshadow them making it a harder sell and if the Bird Celtics weren't a dynasty than the Curry Warriors aren't either).

[nickagneta]

I think dynasties in the 2000's need to be judged differently just due to the sheer size of the leagues. But also because of rules changes to the draft, free agency, the Advent of the salary cap, etc. 

The NBA in the 50's and 60's had just 8-10 teams. During the 80's there were just 22-23 teams. Now there are 30 teams. It's just exponentially more difficult to win 3 titles in 4 or 5 years than it was in the 60's or 80's due, not only to size of the league, but also due to rule changes in the draft and free agency.

It's harder to retain star level talent. The salary cap places major restraints on team building. The draft lottery means you are not guaranteed your spot in the draft if you are one of the worst teams.

So yeah, the Warriors 3 titles in 4 years while playing in 5 straight Finals is definitely a dynasty. And so is the Spurs 5 titles in 15 years. And the Lakers 5 in 11 years.

[jambr380]

If you add Durant to the front of that list, then I suppose you could call that a modern day dynasty (borderline); but, Lol at Klay/Curry/Draymond being the foundation of a dynasty. I know I am talking out of two sides of my mouth by first complaining that Durant took the easy way out by joining a 73-win team and then saying that team wouldn't have won additional championships without him, but I guess that is what I am saying.

[bdm860]

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.

[Monkhouse]

If you add Durant to the front of that list, then I suppose you could call that a modern day dynasty (borderline); but, Lol at Klay/Curry/Draymond being the foundation of a dynasty. I know I am talking out of two sides of my mouth by first complaining that Durant took the easy way out by joining a 73-win team and then saying that team wouldn't have won additional championships without him, but I guess that is what I am saying.

That's precisely the gist of my point.

While I think Curry/Klay/Draymond are an excellent trio to build around, it took Irving to break his knee cap, and Love to get his shoulder torn from Kelly Olynyk against us during the Celtics series to knock them out. And even then, the year after that's when the Cavaliers basically Thanos'ed them from a 3-1 deficit.

[footey]

No.

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