# Are the Spurs the next dynasty in the NBA? Does their dynasty begin THIS YEAR?



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

My main man RangerC posted something earlier about how the Spurs are an older team than the Kings. I disagree. This Spurs team certainly has some old fogies (Steve Kerr, David Robinson, Kevin Willis, Danny Ferry, Steve Smith), but none of these guys--NONE OF THEM--will be back next season. The nucleus is very young. Also, NONE of these old fogies--NONE OF THEM--are part of the Spurs' current six-man rotation. And, in tight games, or in big games, the Spurs only really use six players (take a look at some recent boxscores if you don't believe me).

Here is RangerC's original thread:


> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> This is a bit off the track of the trade Shaq debate, but I'm completely baffled as to why you're disqualifying Sacramento on the basis of age while pushing SA as a championship team. The Kings are a younger team than the Spurs and a much younger team than the Shaq-Pippen-Horry Grizz team you're proposing.
> 
> Sacramento's Ages:
> ...


First of all, when I said that Sacramento was "old," what I should have said is that they are injury-prone. They are one Chris Webber ankle sprain away from losing in the playoffs. And don't forget about Peja's plantar fascitis or Doug Christie's shoulder that gets dislocated every so often. And don't forget that Vlade Divac has been playing basketball NON-STOP for quite a while now (last year's regular season, then a deep playoff run, then the World Championships, then another regular season but with no Scot Pollard backing him up). They aren't a better basketball team right now than the Spurs are ANYWAY, even when they are healthy, but there's no point in debating this, because you guys will find out soon enough. The Spurs are going to win the whole thing this year.

Age isn't a HUGE deal, because veterans win championships. But veterans don't win championships if they're hurt. And I just have a feeling that Webber is going to get hurt. I can see it now--the Kings will cough it up AGAIN in the playoffs, and their fans will AGAIN make excuses ("If Webber hadn't gotten hurt...", "If the refs had called a fair game...", "If Divac hadn't worn his body down by playing in the World Championships," etc.). Webber is a loser, he's always been a loser. God, don't even get me started on this guy. He sits out for a month with an injury that a tough guy like Allen Iverson or John Stockton will play right through. Like I said before, if the Kings weren't going to win the whole thing last year, then it's never going to happen. Last year was their best shot and they blew it.

Now let's take a look at these guys' ages, position by position, and let's go with their ages as of April 30 of this year, i.e., during the first round of the playoffs:

PG Bibby (24) vs. Parker (20)
SG Christie (32) vs. Stephen Jackson (25)
SF Stojakovic (25) vs. Bowen (31)
PF Webber (30) vs. Duncan (27)
C Divac (35) vs. Malik Rose (28)

Rose is effectively this team's starting center at the moment, and I'm going to assume that he will continue to get starter's minutes during the playoffs, although The Admiral will certainly play 20-25 minutes/game.

The Spurs are younger at every single starting position except for SF, in other words. Webber's body sure seems more than three years older than Duncan's body, too. And Peja is awfully brittle for a 25-year-old.

Let's go ahead and look at the ages of their top bench players, too:

Bobby Jackson (30) vs. Emmanuel Ginobili (25)
Keon Clark (28) vs. David Robinson (37)
Jimmy Jackson (32) vs. Speedy Claxton (24)

So, among the top eight dudes on each team--which all that really matters--only two of Sacramento's eight guys are younger than their San Antonio counterparts: Stojakovic and Clark.

The Spurs' bench is awfully short during close games, take a look at some recent boxscores. Guys like Steve Kerr, Kevin Willis, Danny Ferry, and Steve Smith don't play much at all anymore. These four guys are all free agents at the end of the season, and I doubt any of them will be brought back. And, of course, David Robinson will be retiring. The Spurs are a much younger team than the Kings, in other words. You can't count guys like Turkoglu and Wallace, because these guys don't even touch the floor for this team and WILL NEVER touch the floor for this team, at least not while they are a legit championship contender.

I may as well also point out here that the Kings are going to be in big, BIG trouble if Divac decides to stop playing after the 2003-04 season (his contract will be expiring at the end of the 2003-04 season). Divac will be 36 years old at the end of the 2003-04 regular season, and I'm not sure if he'll keep playing or not. Even if he does, sooner or later, he's GOT to start showing his age. That team cannot contend for a title without Divac. They run their offense through Webber and Divac. Scot Pollard cannot even BEGIN to replace Divac. Neither can Keon Clark, and Clark isn't even necessarily going to be playing with the Kings anymore in a couple of years (he's a free agent either at the end of THIS season or NEXT season, and my guess is that he'll want to go sign with somebody who will give him starter's minutes). Webber, Bibby, and Peja are terrific players, but it's Divac and Christie who put that team over the top. Those guys aren't getting any younger. Sacramento's window just opened LAST YEAR, and it'll close NEXT year--that's just a three-year window.

The Spurs are already entering their SECOND championship window of opportunity during The Duncan Administration, and it's going to last for a while. In three years, that foundation--Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Rose, and Jackson--will be 30, 23, 28, 31, and 28 years old (respectively). And don't forget that this team is going to go get somebody really, really good this summer. I think they're going to get Brad Miller (to replace David Robinson--Michael Olowokandi is too much of a risk, they will be unable to get Jermaine O'Neal or Elton Brand, and there is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to go get a Jason Kidd or a Gary Payton when you have a dirt-cheap Tony Parker who isn't even 21 years old yet AND who will continue to be DIRT-CHEAP until the summer of 2005). Brad Miller, THREE YEARS FROM NOW, will turn 30. And Claxton will be 27. And Luis Scola--who should join the team either next season or the season after next--is only 23 years old, so he'll only be 26 three years from now.

Take a look:

2005-06 Spurs (gunning for their fourth consecutive championship)

PG Tony Parker (23 years old)
SG Emmanuel Ginobili (28 years old)
SF Stephen Jackson (28 years old)
PF Tim Duncan (30 years old)
C Brad Miller (30 years old)

Key reserves: Malik Rose (31 years old), Speedy Claxton (27 years old), and Luis Scola (26 years old)

The dynasty begins THIS YEAR! So GET READY!

The Kings missed their best shot. The Lakers are done, too, and it will become OFFICIAL after they trade Shaq to the Grizz next summer. [See that post about Jerry Buss and Shaq for details.]

The Timberwolves are limited in what they can do, UNLESS they can SOMEHOW CONVINCE Gary Payton to sign on for the mid-level exception this summer. If they gave him a really long contract--say, seven years--he just might do it, because teams will be reluctant to give this guy a longterm deal this summer. Payton is an ageless wonder, he is a physical freak of nature. He will continue to play at an All-Star level for the next 4-5 years, you watch! And, if Minnesota could get Payton, they become one of the 2-3 best teams in the league INSTANTLY. But better than the Spurs? I don't think so.

The Mavs? This team doesn't have enough cap flexibility to ever afford a legit big guy. Raef LaFrentz isn't the answer now and he never will be. Steve Nash and Michael Finley are both older than you guys think--Nash turns 30 next year, and Finley turns 31. You just can't win a championship when yr best player can't play a lick of defense. This Mavs team is totally fun to watch, but they're never going to win a championship. They'll never even make it to the damn NBA Finals, maybe not even to the Western Conference Finals.

So let's say that the Timberwolves DO get Payton this summer. And that the Spurs get Brad Miller. And that Shaq gets traded to Memphis. And that the Mavs go get a veteran PF with their MLE (Karl Malone makes a lot of sense, assuming that the Jazz decide to begin the rebuilding process in earnest, but if an Elton Brand isn't available for the Jazz to go get, look for the Mailman to re-sign for one more year, allowing the Jazz to go get Brand in the summer of 2004). And that the Kings stand pat. The Blazers missed their shot at a championship three years ago, I think we all know that. Houston and Phoenix are still a few years away. Kiki is doing things the right way in Denver but it's going to take a while, probably 4-5 years, before he's got a legit title contender on his hands over there.

The East? The East won't produce a legit title contender for at least 2-3 more years. Indiana was as good in November-December of this year as they're EVER GOING TO GET (you heard it here first). New Jersey was as good as THEY'RE ever going to get this time last year. Same deal with Boston. Philly is an aging pretender. Orlando is never going to get it done with T-Mac and I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up leaving sooner than you guys think. New Orleans is a perennial tease. Jerry Krause may actually end up with a legit title contender in Chicago, but not anytime soon, maybe in 3-4 years.

The only team in the East with a shot at a title over the next three years is DETROIT, and that's ONLY IF Joe Dumars somehow gets a legit superstar either this summer or next summer. The supporting cast is already there, all that team needs is a Tracy McGrady, and they're a legit title contender. Dumars' decision to re-sign Clifford Robinson, Jon Barry (whose extension is coming right up pretty soon), and Rip Hamilton (he'll get re-signed to a reasonable extension this summer) means that Detroit has NO CAP ROOM for the summer of 2003. HOWEVER, he is ONLY giving out extremely reasonable and relatively short-term contracts to extremely efficient players. He is managing the cap extremely well up there, and sooner or later, his ingenuity is going to pay off in a big, big way. Look for him to somehow get his hands on a legit superstar sometime over the next year or so. I have this funny feeling that T-Mac is the guy he wants and ends up getting. You watch.

So that means that, unless Dumars gets his superstar (and I'm not talking FUTURE superstar, I'm talking PRESENT superstar--he could very well end up with either Darko Milicic or Carmelo Anthony in this year's draft, but these guys won't be legit superstars anytime soon, although either could be traded somehow for a T-Mac later on), the top five teams over the next couple of years will be:

1 San Antonio
2 Minnesota (assuming they get Payton)
3 Memphis (assuming they get Shaq)
4 Dallas (this team will only get worse)
5 Sacramento (like Dallas, this team will only get worse)

BELIEVE IT!


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

I used to think that the Pacers had a great shot to become a dynasty, but now I don't know..

San Antonio's hopes hinge on Parker's continued improvement (Ginobili too) and signing a free agent SF or C.

The dark horses to become a dynasty within the next few years are Chicago and Memphis, who are both at least 3 years away.


----------



## MasterOfPuppets (Nov 10, 2002)

Great analysis. But I think its hard to predict any dynasties in sports. One injury of a key player can make a complete team start to struggle.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

God I hope NOT!!! 

The Spurs are probably one of the most borring CONTENDING teams since the shotclock was implemented. They play Knicks/Heat style of basketball in terms playing un-inventive, clock contoled, snail paced and low scoring grind fests.

Plus they have NO PERSONALITY whatsoever, they give a new meaning to blandness.

If they do become the next dynasty watch as the NBA drops COMPLETELY out of the radar and becomes even less popular than the NHL.


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

*5 of 12 voters think that "some other team" is the next dynasty?*

Can you guys maybe tell us WHO you think is the next dynasty if it's not one of those eight teams that I listed? I have a pretty hard time envisioning anybody besides one of those eight teams winning a championship anytime over the next three years. So yeah, let's get some feedback in this beeyotch!


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

*Re: 5 of 12 voters think that "some other team" is the next dynasty?*



> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> Can you guys maybe tell us WHO you think is the next dynasty if it's not one of those eight teams that I listed? I have a pretty hard time envisioning anybody besides one of those eight teams winning a championship anytime over the next three years. So yeah, let's get some feedback in this beeyotch!


Hopefully you won't laugh at me BUT:

Chandler
Curry
Crawford
Williams
Fizer
Hassell

are all VERY young players... you need young players to build a dynasty and these young players also have some talent... 

Find another team that has 2 twenty year old 7 footers whom can get double doubles almost at will (if they are played the minutes)

Crawford has shown some good since the trading deadline..

Fizer was a force before he got injured... he really stepped it up and took on his role.

Jay Williams, well he has sucked this year but he IS a rookie

we have Rose through the year 2006

We will have a top 7 pick again this season to trade or take a wing player...

call me crazy but this team does have the potential down the road to win and has enough talent to consider them a POTENTIAL dynasty...

Donyell Marshall isn't exactly OLD either and he does whatever is asked of him... PF, SF, C, rebound, shoot 3 pointers

and well Eddie Robinson has some defense but you can't really count him since he is always injured.

(hey you asked :grinning: )


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

let me just say in defense before I get ripped

I'm talking that if this team stays together for 2-3 more years THEN they can be considered a possible dynasty because in 2-3 more years everyone on the team will be of NORMAL age (not 19, 20, 23, 24 yrs old etc)


----------



## Tenshi25 (Nov 27, 2002)

Watch out for the Rockets coming back to the elite if we can make some good trade.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

i don't think there will be another dynasty in the next few years. the kings are really good but i agree that they will just get worse. dallas is good but wouldn't be able to get past a few teams. the pacers aren't going to be able to sign everyone, and even if they did, look at them now. detroit can contend(maybe even win one) but they don't a superstar that means they will be a consistent winner. the nets aren't going to get any better. portland has some young guys who can fill in when old guys leave but they need a pg. the lakers are just going to get worse.

the only top team right now that i think could become a dynasty would be the spurs. if they can get brad miller and a sf who can be good off the bench, i think they will be set. but i don't think they will be a dynasty because those other good teams aren't just going to completely collapse leaving just one good team. they will still contend. some young teams will also be able to contend. if the rockets could get consistent, they will be a legit contender soon. the suns are looking good if amare keeps getting better. memphis looks like they have a team that is just going to get better. the sonics have looked good ever since they got allen. golden state is young and close to the playoffs right now. orlando is getting better with giricek and gooden to go with tmac. even the bulls are starting to look like they could be good(chandler and curry are starting to play).

i think there are just too many teams that are going to be able to contend in the next few years for anyone to really seperate themselves and create a dynasty.


----------



## <<<D>>> (Jul 15, 2002)

I can still see the Lakers winning a few more to add, but it's going to be very tight from here On.
I would say the Spurs are the next Dyansty in the making. They are lead by none other than Big Fun - T.Duncan. They have young talent that's hitting their peak. Parker just continues to show improvements and the ability to lead his team as their floor leader. Ginobili, S.Jackson & Bowen are all acceptional solid players that play well within the flow of the system, from Offense to Defense. With the Big FA Market opening up next season, they'll pursue and land another Big Man to compliment and play alongside Duncan. The Spurs have always been effective and successful with the Big Men-combo upfront. They're sending a message now and they will be strong contenders all leading up to the next Dynasty. Remember the Alamo :yes:


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

I honestly cannot believe that more people in here think that the Lakers are going to win the whole thing this year. I just cannot believe it. But there's no reason to debate it, you guys will find out soon enough that the Lakers dynasty is SO OVER.

Yeah, I kind of figured that the "some other team" that people think is the next dynasty was either the Bulls or Rockets. Listen up. You don't go from being a terrible perennial lottery team to dynasty in one year. The Bulls, yeah, they might end up being good, maybe even really good, maybe even DYNASTY good, but not next year, not in 2004-05, not in 2005-06. It takes a while. Look at the Kings--it's taken them SEVERAL YEARS to get to championship contender status, and they STILL haven't won one yet (and they never will)! Same deal with the Rockets--Yao is going to be a great one, and I mean a GREAT one, he is not THE LEAST BIT OVERRATED, he is going to be EVEN BETTER than most people think he's going to be. I can't believe how good that guy is going to be. But, again, if the Rockets do everything the right way, if the best case scenario actually somehow becomes REALITY, you're still looking at a championship for this bunch NO EARLIER than, say, 2006. It takes a while. The NBA isn't like major league baseball or the NFL. It takes a few years to get to a championship level.

Anyway, yeah, so maybe the Bulls or Rockets will be a dynasty starting in 2006, 2007, but I'm not talking about 2006, fellers, I'm talking about NOW. I'm talking about THIS season, and NEXT season, and the season after that. Who do you think will be winning championships during this three-year period? I'm saying that it's going to be the Spurs, and I've made my argument.

The Spurs! It starts THIS YEAR! BELIEVE IT!


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

the spurs have a chance to win this season. the thing is that most people don't see them sweeping the next 3 championships. i don't think that there is going to be a dynasty in the next couple of seasons as no team is heads and shoulders above the rest. that's the reason that we have to look a little further into the future to see who the next dominant team will be. i also tend to think that it will be houston and the bulls a couple of years down the road.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> But, again, if the Rockets do everything the right way, if the best case scenario actually somehow becomes REALITY, you're still looking at a championship for this bunch NO EARLIER than, say, 2006.


when the rockets are playing good this year, they are a championship caliber team. they can beat(and pretty much have beaten) all of the top contenders. whether they can make the next step to become a real contender all depends on if they can get some consistency. that could happen as early as next year. when they are playing good, everyone is involved, yao gets a lot of touches, and everyone is moving and passing. they struggle when yao doesn't get any touches or when they give him the ball and stand around. if they can find the middle ground where they are really good and stay there, they can be a title conteder next season. but i still don't think they will be a dynasty because there are several other teams that should be(or already are) contenders soon.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> 
> 
> Anyway, yeah, so maybe the Bulls or Rockets will be a dynasty starting in 2006, 2007, but I'm not talking about 2006, fellers, I'm talking about NOW. I'm talking about THIS season, and NEXT season, and the season after that. Who do you think will be winning championships during this three-year period? I'm saying that it's going to be the Spurs, and I've made my argument.
> ...


Since your talking NOW I agree, yup the Spurs will be and can be the next dynasty (the dynasty of now)... I thought you meant potential dynasties which in that case I figured the Bulls would have to be an option with so many young and skilled players at positions where the league is weak...


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rocketeer</b>!
> when the rockets are playing good this year, they are a championship caliber team. they can beat(and pretty much have beaten) all of the top contenders. whether they can make the next step to become a real contender all depends on if they can get some consistency. that could happen as early as next year...


Dude, I don't even know where to begin. This Rockets team isn't even necessarily going to make the PLAYOFFS this year. Now how in the world are they going to go from not being good enough to make the PLAYOFFS ahead of the damn UTAH JAZZ (who we keep predicting won't make the playoffs, and WE'RE ALWAYS WRONG) to winning a championship in one season? Answer: THEY'RE NOT. This isn't my OPINION, this is a FACT!

You guys need to be realistic. Take a look at the past 20 or so NBA champions. How many of those teams didn't make the playoffs the previous season? I'm pretty sure that the answer to this question is ZERO.

The Shaq-Kobe Lakers: They were a #4-#5 seed for a couple of years and THEN they started winning championships. And the first one should not have even happened, because the Blazers blew that one. Wow did they blow that one.

Before that, we had, who, the Spurs? That Spurs team was a perennial #3-#4 seed with David Robinson, they couldn't quite get over the hump, The Admiral missed an entire season and they sucked, which allowed them to get Tim Duncan, and, a few years later, they won a championship.

Let's keep going with this. It took the Bulls several years of losing to the Pistons in the playoffs before they finally got over the hump. Everybody knows this.

Those two Rockets championships that were sandwiched in between the two Bulls three-year runs? Olajuwon had been taking that team to the playoffs for a while, they just weren't winning anything.

Before the Bulls, we had the Pistons. It took a while for the Pistons to finally be able to knock off the Celtics in the playoffs.

C'mon, guys. Teams don't just go from the lottery to winning a championship overnight. Be realistic. Bulls fans and Rockets fans have a reason to be optimistic, that's great for you guys, but there is absolutely no reason that a fan cannot be simultaneously optimistic AND realistic. Rockets fans need to shoot for making the playoffs THIS year and, next year, moving up to, say, the #5 or #6 seed. Here is what you guys need to shoot for:

2002-03: #8 seed
2003-04: #5-#6 seed, give the #3-#4 seed a run for their money in the first round
2004-05: #3 seed, make it to the conference semifinals, maybe even make it to the conference FINALS and giving the other conference finalist a run for their money
2005-06: conference finals, maybe you win, maybe you don't
2006-07: championship

Now THAT is being REALISTIC!

The East is a little different simply because there are so many bad teams. Going from the lottery to the conference semifinals isn't such a longshot, in other words. Hell, going from the lottery to the NBA Finals two years later isn't such an impossibility. But winning in the NBA Finals 2-3 years after being a lottery team? Not going to happen. The best team in the East--either Detroit or New Jersey, probably Detroit--is NO BETTER than the SEVENTH-best team in the NBA right now. Maybe the Pistons would beat the Jazz in a seven-game series, maybe they wouldn't. The gap between the West and the East is getting bigger, not smaller!

Incidentally, how many people in here thought that the Clippers would be better than the Jazz this year? About 90% of you? See? Improvement doesn't happen overnight in the NBA.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

Kings. Kings is much deeper, so even if they're injury prone, they have other players to step up. If the Laker dynasty is over, then Kings dynasty is next. Spurs would probably lose to the Lakers in the first round this year.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> Dude, I don't even know where to begin. This Rockets team isn't even necessarily going to make the PLAYOFFS this year. Now how in the world are they going to go from not being good enough to make the PLAYOFFS ahead of the damn UTAH JAZZ (who we keep predicting won't make the playoffs, and WE'RE ALWAYS WRONG) to winning a championship in one season? Answer: THEY'RE NOT. This isn't my OPINION, this is a FACT!


look at the rockets record against the top contenders in the west. they are 2-1 against the kings, 1-2 against the spurs, 2-1 against the lakers, 0-4 against dallas, 1-1 against portland, and 2-2 against the twolves. so besides dallas they play the top teams in the west pretty even. they aren't having their problems against the good teams. they just need to play like they do against the top teams all the time. which is why i think the can be a legit contender as early as next year(i never said they would actually win). for now i think the spurs are the best, but i seriously doubt it will last for more than 2 years.


----------



## Tenshi25 (Nov 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rocketeer</b>!
> 
> 
> look at the rockets record against the top contenders in the west. they are 2-1 against the kings, 1-2 against the spurs, 2-1 against the lakers, 0-4 against dallas, 1-1 against portland, and 2-2 against the twolves. so besides dallas they play the top teams in the west pretty even. they aren't having their problems against the good teams. they just need to play like they do against the top teams all the time. which is why i think the can be a legit contender as early as next year(i never said they would actually win). for now i think the spurs are the best, but i seriously doubt it will last for more than 2 years.


I mostly agree with you that the Rockets have shown this year already that they can compete with any team in the league (Dallas is the only one who has beaten us all the games), and that was it not for all the stupid losses against below .500 teams we would definitely be a #5-6 team in the West. I also think they're gonna be contenders but I think next year is too soon, they still have to improve lots of things, figure out what kind of game they wanna run, what kind of players are the right ones for that game, whom do they wanna build the team around. 
So IMO, in two or three years we might be watching the Rockets in the elite again, but not likely sooner than that.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I'm going to move this to the San Antonio board. I'll leave the link on the NBA big board.


----------



## Lakers_32_4ever (Dec 30, 2002)

I truly do not think there will be another NBA dynasty over the next five years, as champions will shuffle round and so will free agents. Stephen JAckson will not stay in San Antonio this off season, becuase he is too good, to get as little use as he does in SA. DUncan will go away later too. I don't think any team will truly show dynastic talk in the next 5 years. LA may win another, and without shaq, i think memphis is going to become a serious contender.


----------



## Obe1Kobe (Feb 20, 2003)

*No more dynasties*

The game is changing it face. Look to the NFL to see its make-up.
Freeagency coupled with the demands to win THIS Year not four years from now, will not allow for oppertunity of another dynasty. You get a couple years with a group at best and then your looking at change. This does not exclude the coaching staff. 

There will be no more real dynasties. Even the recent Laker run does not feel dynasty-like. 6, 7, 8 years of success is true dynasty magic.


----------



## Genjuro (Jul 17, 2002)

I think there are just two teams capable of starting a dinasty in the short term: Kings and Spurs.

For Sacramento it would be crucial to keep Webber and Divac healthy. Robyg1974 is right pointing Divac as one of the main keys of this team. If he keeps his current playing level during the next years, the Kings would have the chance.


> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> You can't count guys like Turkoglu and Wallace, because these guys don't even touch the floor for this team and WILL NEVER touch the floor for this team, at least not while they are a legit championship contender.


Turkoglu was a starter and performed really well last year during de Conference Finals. If fact, I think his current situation in the team is a mistake of the coaching staff. He is a quite good baller, young and very well integrated in the Kings style of play. They are playing Jimmy Jackson as if this year was their last chance to win the championship (well... maybe they feel like you, robyg).

As for the Spurs, I feel they are in the path of getting a ring soon. I don't think it will be this year (Parker is still a 20 year-old sophomore and Ginobili is a rookie), but if they move smartly this summer, they could be in the pace of becoming a dinasty.

Dinasties are not quite easy predictable. You can never say they will be or won't be in a given number of years. Now it is a time of changes. Lakers might win this year or even next year, but Shaq won't keep it up for ever. Who is gonna take their place?. In the long term I can't avoid thinking in Yao.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

the main point here should be is the fact that it is EXTREMELY unlikey that the spurs will be a "dynasty" of any sort over the next 5 years. they certainly don't strike me as a dynasty team, regardless of how good they are. it's entirely possible that they win 3 champs in the next five years but i wouldn't call it likely by any stretch of the imagination. 

again, if you have to look ahead and try to predict the next team that will win 3 out of 5, i would have to go with the rockets or the bulls. their franchise players have the makings of greatness already and these teams are just starting to come together. 

i don't think the spurs chances of winning 3 in 5 are as great.


----------

