Dynasty?
So here we are, the 2007 NBA Champs are the San Antonio Spurs.
As predicted, after commissioner Stern wanted them to beat the high flying Phoenix Suns in the West semifinals.
I don't want to spend too much time on this subject for few reasons:
- Stern robbed every single NBA fan of a possibly to watch an epic and FAIR battle between Spurs and Suns by blindly suspending 2 of the 5 starting players of the Suns for doing basically nothing wrong, thus handing the series to San Antonio. So, Cheap Shot Rob, who flagrantly fouled Steve Nash, and the Spurs, had the better part of the deal instead of being the ones paying the hefty price for it.
- Stern robbed the Suns of the possibility to win the championship.
- Stern sucks.
- Cleveland was NOT an NBA finals-ready team, and they don't have a top coach, and were swept away in easy fashion. Regardless of LBJ.
- Both Cleveland and San Antonio play boring basketball, and the lowest TV rates ever for the finals combined with the second lowest scoring totals, and the lowest scoring for a team (Cleveland) stand all as a sad proof for it.
So, I'm heading into the summer without the flow of emotions that normally the NBA finals leave deep in me. What a bitter disappointment.
So, to end this short entry, is San Antonio a Dynasty? My answer is NO. Sure, they they won a title in 1999, 2003, 2005 and 2007. But, first of all, the 1999 came in the shortened season of the lock out and the 2007 was a present of Stern. Plus, they never won back-to-back. Plus, they never had to beat MJ, they never beat Los Angeles when Shaq and Kobe were playing together. They won by being a good team, not a dominating one. My guess is, if they are a dynasty, so are the Lakers who won the 2000-2001-2002 titles. But for me, neither team is a dynasty.
The Minneapolis Lakers who won 5 titles in 6 years were a dynasty.
The Boston Celtics who won 11 titles in 13 season (and 12 finals) were a dynasty.
The Chicago Bulls who won 6 titles in 8 seasons (and if MJ hadn't retired, they would have won all 8) were a dynasty.
The Los Angeles Lakers who won 5 titles in 9 finals in the 80s were a very very good team, but no dynasty.
The Boston Celtics who won 3 titles in 5 finals in the 80s were a very very good team, but no dynasty.
The Detroit Pistons who won back to back (appearing in 3 straight finals) in the early 90s were a good team, but no dynasty.
The Los Angeles Lakers who won 3 straight in the early 2000s (with a loss in their 4th final) were a good team, but no dynasty.
So, San Antonio who won 4 titles in 8 seasons are a good team, but definitely no dynasty, and no team that will be remembered as one of the greats neither.
Now let me focus on the summer trades rumors and the draft night on the 28, they are definitely more interesting than this year's finals, and they should not be!!
As predicted, after commissioner Stern wanted them to beat the high flying Phoenix Suns in the West semifinals.
I don't want to spend too much time on this subject for few reasons:
- Stern robbed every single NBA fan of a possibly to watch an epic and FAIR battle between Spurs and Suns by blindly suspending 2 of the 5 starting players of the Suns for doing basically nothing wrong, thus handing the series to San Antonio. So, Cheap Shot Rob, who flagrantly fouled Steve Nash, and the Spurs, had the better part of the deal instead of being the ones paying the hefty price for it.
- Stern robbed the Suns of the possibility to win the championship.
- Stern sucks.
- Cleveland was NOT an NBA finals-ready team, and they don't have a top coach, and were swept away in easy fashion. Regardless of LBJ.
- Both Cleveland and San Antonio play boring basketball, and the lowest TV rates ever for the finals combined with the second lowest scoring totals, and the lowest scoring for a team (Cleveland) stand all as a sad proof for it.
So, I'm heading into the summer without the flow of emotions that normally the NBA finals leave deep in me. What a bitter disappointment.
So, to end this short entry, is San Antonio a Dynasty? My answer is NO. Sure, they they won a title in 1999, 2003, 2005 and 2007. But, first of all, the 1999 came in the shortened season of the lock out and the 2007 was a present of Stern. Plus, they never won back-to-back. Plus, they never had to beat MJ, they never beat Los Angeles when Shaq and Kobe were playing together. They won by being a good team, not a dominating one. My guess is, if they are a dynasty, so are the Lakers who won the 2000-2001-2002 titles. But for me, neither team is a dynasty.
The Minneapolis Lakers who won 5 titles in 6 years were a dynasty.
The Boston Celtics who won 11 titles in 13 season (and 12 finals) were a dynasty.
The Chicago Bulls who won 6 titles in 8 seasons (and if MJ hadn't retired, they would have won all 8) were a dynasty.
The Los Angeles Lakers who won 5 titles in 9 finals in the 80s were a very very good team, but no dynasty.
The Boston Celtics who won 3 titles in 5 finals in the 80s were a very very good team, but no dynasty.
The Detroit Pistons who won back to back (appearing in 3 straight finals) in the early 90s were a good team, but no dynasty.
The Los Angeles Lakers who won 3 straight in the early 2000s (with a loss in their 4th final) were a good team, but no dynasty.
So, San Antonio who won 4 titles in 8 seasons are a good team, but definitely no dynasty, and no team that will be remembered as one of the greats neither.
Now let me focus on the summer trades rumors and the draft night on the 28, they are definitely more interesting than this year's finals, and they should not be!!
posted by Raf at 3:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home