Are the Spurs a Dynasty?

I'll refrain from widely covered topics unless I feel like I have something unique to add the discussion. With all the opinions flailing about on whether 4 championships in 9 years makes them a dynasty, I haven't heard the following statement from anyone:

You can't count their 1999 title in the discussion. For dynasty discussion purposes, they've won 3 in 5.

There are a couple good reasons why their 1999 title is irrelavent:

1. Roster

Tim Duncan is their only current Spur that was on their 1999 team. Their nucleus of Tony Parker, Manu Ginobli and Bruce Bowen were not holding up 4 fingers last night, they were holding up 3. It's not the same Spurs team at all--the 1999 had David Robinson in a starring role.

2. Laker's Dynasty

If you try and include their 99 title, that means that the Spurs Dynasty would be dated 1999-2007. The problem with that is there is a bonafide Laker's Dynasty dated 2000-2002. And they're in the same conference. If the Spurs are an 9-year dynasty, how could another dynasty surface in the middle? It's simple, they couldn't.

3. It weakens their current accomplishment

3 in 5 is a lot stronger than 4 in 9. It suggests dominance over a shorter timespan, than merely good teams over a decade.

4. They didn't come close in 2000-2002.

In 2000, they lost in the first round.
In 2001, they were swept by the Lakers in the Conf. Finals.
In 2002, they lost to the Lakers in 5 in the Conf. Semifinals.

Those are not 3 seasons that should be considered as the middle of a 9 year dynasty.


In closing, my point is not whether or not the Spurs are a dynasty, my point is that when deciding, you should only consider 3 in 5.