Greatest Franchises Ever

[dunkside.com]

Newskoolbulls wrote:

Yea the Spurs are a amazing franchise.

Yes, they are.

I really wanted the Suns to beat them all these years, but you gotta give the Spurs credit.

Newskoolbulls wrote:

Their owner sells draft picks,

You confuse them with the Suns. S-U-N-S.
We're talking about the Spurs. S-P-U-R-S.

Newskoolbulls wrote:

sold Scola,

If in 10-12 years that's the only mistake you can find, then they are virtually perfect.
The Bulls made more and bigger mistakes almost every year since Jordan left. Yet you still think they're better.

Newskoolbulls wrote:

never wants to go over the salary cap.

I suppose you mean "luxury tax", which is completely different. If you really mean "salary cap", that's dumb, cause they are over the salary cap.

If you mean "luxury tax" and use this as an argument for them being a worse franchise than the Bulls, well, that's still dumb, cause the Bulls won't go into the luxury tax either.

At least the Spurs built 4 title teams without going into the luxury tax. The Bulls, well ... they got into the 2nd round. Great accomplishment over 10 years.

And if I'm not mistaken, the Spurs might have been over the luxury tax for 1-2 seasons around 2003 or 2005.

Newskoolbulls wrote:

Also they lucked into Robinson and Duncan.

Just like the Bulls lucked into Jordan, and now, Rose.


Newskoolbulls wrote:

Any of MJs bulls would handle any of Tims Spurs title teams.

You just don't get it, do you ?
It's not about who got the best team at one point. It's about who was good over a longer period of time. That's why the Lakers are ranked over the Celtics too.

 

[houheffna]

You just don't get it, do you ?
It's not about who got the best team at one point. It's about who was good over a longer period of time. That's why the Lakers are ranked over the Celtics too.

Well said, those who didn't get it, should get it after reading that...

 

[Diddy1122]

Hendu0520 wrote:
Yes the Spurs are great but I do not count what they did in the ABA. That's when the George Gervin teams were great, they came to the NBA in 76-77, and they might have been good but they weren't a threat to win anything. Lenny Wilkens has the most wins as a coach is he the greatest? You are using one stat, the fact that they have a better overall record. IMO, there are many reasons on the Bulls side, like more Chips, more consecutively, more dominant, better superstars, etc..

So based on overall record I guess that the Spurs are better but not like the Bulls record is horrible. And the Bulls playoff record is better and I'll take that anyday. Lets take a look at the records up to '06 is all i could find.

Spurs: 1,435-993 (nba only) playoff: 128-114

Bulls: 1,654-1,593 playoff: 151-114

Oh and just another tidbit; Would you put the Portland Trailblazers or the Milwaukee Bucks over the Detroit Pistons?

Portland and Milwaukee only have 1 chip apiece, Detroit has 3 and 2 in a row.

Portland and Milwaukee have winning records overall and Detroit has a losing record. I havve Detroit better than both those franchises.

You make a solid argument but I just don't like crowning people only based on their win loss record especially if their playoff record is worse.[/quote]

The Iceman was traded to Spurs in 74. He remained a Spur til the 84-85 season when he was traded to the Bulls. So, no, he didn't just play for the Spurs in the ABA. The majority of his career was played in the NBA, where he was the late 70's to early 80's version of MJ. He had the most scoring titles for any guard until MJ. Not a threat to win anything? The Spurs had 5 division titles in their first 7yrs in the NBA. Unfortunately for them, they had as much bad luck in the playoffs during that stretch as the Suns have had the past few years. They played against Magic's Lakers & Bird's Celtics.

I understand all the Bulls love & I totally expected it. And I agree with some of your points, but people get too easily blinded by the Jordan era. Other than that period in their history, the Bulls were not that great. Dunkside.com said it best. "It's not about who got the best team at one point. It's about who was good over a longer period of time."

 

[houheffna]

Hendu, Iceman has never been ANY version of MJ. Have to disagree with you on that point. I do think you would be hard pressed to find a organization that had a stretch of years as bad as the Krause years...

 

[Diddy1122]

houheffna wrote:

Hendu, Iceman has never been ANY version of MJ. Have to disagree with you on that point. I do think you would be hard pressed to find a organization that had a stretch of years as bad as the Krause years...

Technically the Krause years also brought 6 championships & the greatest team in NBA history in 95-96. The Jordanless era is probably more accurate.

And it was me, not Hendu, who said Iceman was a late 70s-early 80s version of MJ. I realize there's only 1 MJ, & comparing other players to the GOAT can be dicey, but the Iceman was one hell of a ball player & the best scoring 2 guard in the NBA from 77-84. He averaged 28.8ppg over that period. And he played less than 36mins per game. He won 4 scoring titles during that span. He was not MJ but he was the best 2 guard of his era & that's a fact.

 

[houheffna]

Technically the Krause years also brought 6 championships & the greatest team in NBA history in 95-96.

you are right, those were the Krause years, I considered them the Jordan Years, but he was in charge so you are right. The greatest team in history? Well, there's an argument worth having...I think those teams from the 1980's would have given the Bulls a very, very hard time.

 

[Kush77]

Newskoolbulls wrote:

Spurs are not a better franchise than the Bulls, PERIOD.

I agree. The Bulls should be third. The Spurs can't even win back-to-back titles and to me were not a dynasty. You have to win b2b to be considered a dynasty to me. And you can't count the 99 title in their "dynasty" because the Lakers won three straight. What dynasty allows another team to 3-peat during their run. Bulls should be ahead of S.A..

 

[Diddy1122]

Kush77 wrote:

Newskoolbulls wrote:

Spurs are not a better franchise than the Bulls, PERIOD.

I agree. The Bulls should be third. The Spurs can't even win back-to-back titles and to me were not a dynasty. You have to win b2b to be considered a dynasty to me. And you can't count the 99 title in their "dynasty" because the Lakers won three straight. What dynasty allows another team to 3-peat during their run. Bulls should be ahead of S.A..

Is everyone forgetting how ridiculously good the West was during that time? Lakers, Spurs, Kings, & the Mavs. The West had all the talent. It wasn't that the Spurs "allowed" the Lakers to win 3 straight, LA was just that good. In 99-00 Duncan went down with a knee injury that kept him out of the playoffs. By 00-01 & 01-02, it was the Shaq & Kobe show. 02-03 is when the team changed. That's the "dynasty". 3 championships in 5 seasons. Probably could have won 4 but it was .4 by Fisher instead. Just because they couldn't win back-to-back titles, neither did the Celtics of the 80's & people call them a dynasty, doesn't discount the overall sustained success of their franchise over it's entire existence.

 

[Kush77]

Diddy1122 wrote:

Kush77 wrote:

Newskoolbulls wrote:

Spurs are not a better franchise than the Bulls, PERIOD.

I agree. The Bulls should be third. The Spurs can't even win back-to-back titles and to me were not a dynasty. You have to win b2b to be considered a dynasty to me. And you can't count the 99 title in their "dynasty" because the Lakers won three straight. What dynasty allows another team to 3-peat during their run. Bulls should be ahead of S.A..

Is everyone forgetting how ridiculously good the West was during that time? Lakers, Spurs, Kings, & the Mavs. The West had all the talent. It wasn't that the Spurs "allowed" the Lakers to win 3 straight, LA was just that good. In 99-00 Duncan went down with a knee injury that kept him out of the playoffs. By 00-01 & 01-02, it was the Shaq & Kobe show. 02-03 is when the team changed. That's the "dynasty". 3 championships in 5 seasons. Probably could have won 4 but it was .4 by Fisher instead. Just because they couldn't win back-to-back titles, neither did the Celtics of the 80's & people call them a dynasty, doesn't discount the overall sustained success of their franchise over it's entire existence.

I don't call the 80's Celtics a dynasty, because they weren't. I always refer to them a great Celtic teams of the 80's, the Lakers were the dynasty.

I'm not saying the Spurs rolled over and died for the Lakers, but you can't tell me the Spurs are a dynasty from 99-07 when a team 3-peated during the same time. Dynasty is domination, so how can you be a dynasty if another team dominated during the same period? For three straight years no less.

The West was good during the Spurs' run, but the teams were just as good during the Bulls title runs, and the Lakers in the 80's.

And I understand the point of the Spurs having more division titles. I'm not even sure what the overall winning % is. But I'll take 6 titles over 4. It's about championships if we're talking about great franchises.

The Bulls had some good teams in the late 80's but the Pistons kept them from winning the division. And division titles don't really mean anything in basketball, so it should go by ECF/WCF trips or something like that.

Was the Spurs' ABA accomplishments taken into account? If it's comparing it vs the Bulls than it shouldn't. It should just be NBA vs NBA.

 

[Diddy1122]

I'm not calling the Spurs a dynasty by any means, & that's really not what the list was about. It's about the franchise not just a dynasty within the franchise. And factors like overall record, playoff appearances, division titles, HOF players, & championships should all be taken into account. I love the Bulls. That will never change but I see this too often with most Bulls fans. The Jordan era defined this franchise & made it one of the most profitable & followed franchises in sports. Before it, the Bulls were mediocre, after it they were the worst in all sports, & in the past 5 yrs mediocre to semi-good. But as an overall franchise from start to finish, I feel the Spurs have a slight edge on them.

And believe me it pains me to admit that because, except for my 3 little nieces, there's nothing I hold more dear to my heart than my Bulls.

 

[Kush77]

Diddy1122 wrote:

I'm not calling the Spurs a dynasty by any means, & that's really not what the list was about. It's about the franchise not just a dynasty within the franchise. And factors like overall record, playoff appearances, division titles, HOF players, & championships should all be taken into account. I love the Bulls. That will never change but I see this too often with most Bulls fans. The Jordan era defined this franchise & made it one of the most profitable & followed franchises in sports. Before it, the Bulls were mediocre, after it they were the worst in all sports, & in the past 5 yrs mediocre to semi-good. But as an overall franchise from start to finish, I feel the Spurs have a slight edge on them.

And believe me it pains me to admit that because, except for my 3 little nieces, there's nothing I hold more dear to my heart than my Bulls.

I could almost make the same argument for the Spurs. Outside of the Tim Duncan era, what have they done? They had a good year in 1995 with Robinson and Rodman but lost in the WCF.

But I guess Hollinger should have given more weight for titles. I read his breakdown and he did give the most points for titles but I think it should be more.

 

[Hendu0520]

Diddy makes good points I just think we are putting emphasis on different things, he reads it as overall winning of all games in the franchise history. Where I am weighing when franchises are ultimately successful and win titles.

To me division titles mean little because a team could find themselves in a very weak division or a very tough division. Therefore overall record and division record shouldn't count as much. The Bulls did not have the best record overall in the NBA when they won some years but every year everyone knew who would come out on top. Houston won the Chip as a 6 seed and S.A. yes even S.A. rests their players during the season thinking they can just win from any position like they did from the 3 or maybe 4th seed one year.

How many conference championships do the Spurs have? 4, only when they won. That's what counts. It doesn't matter that they won their division with the San Diego/LA Clippers, Denver Nuggets, Dallas Mavs historically have been mostly bad. If you lose in the 1st round of the playoffs then you are gon' fishin' with the rest of the .500 clubs.

 

[Shakes]

I don't know, if I had the two improbable circumstances of choosing a team from scratch and also knowing the future, I think I'd take 4 titles and playoffs nearly every year over 6 titles and playoffs half the time.

As a fan, the anticipation and sustained excitement is better than the actual event, so I think I'd rather support a team that was always a contender. With the disclaimer that I'd like them to actually win sometimes, it becomes not fun if they keep on nearly making it but falling short like the Suns.

I'm also pretty sure making the playoffs but not winning the title was a lot more enjoyable for Spurs fans than Bulls fans who were stuck watching a team that couldn't even be relied on to crack a half century of points in a game. There's something to be said for not being completely and utterly crap.

 

[houheffna]

I don't know, if I had the two improbable circumstances of choosing a team from scratch and also knowing the future, I think I'd take 4 titles and playoffs nearly every year over 6 titles and playoffs half the time.

Amen, I am a big fan of teams who can sustain contention for a title over a long period of time. The Spurs were actually labeled contenders in the mid 1990's and now 15 years later, they have spent a bulk of their time engaged in great rivalries, and winning divisions, conferences and championships.

 

[Hendu0520]

houheffna wrote:

I don't know, if I had the two improbable circumstances of choosing a team from scratch and also knowing the future, I think I'd take 4 titles and playoffs nearly every year over 6 titles and playoffs half the time.

Amen, I am a big fan of teams who can sustain contention for a title over a long period of time. The Spurs were actually labeled contenders in the mid 1990's and now 15 years later, they have spent a bulk of their time engaged in great rivalries, and winning divisions, conferences and championships.

Hhhmmm I never thought of it like that from the perspective of a fan, lol, hard to argue with you there. Although it would really bother me that they couldn't win 2 in a row, that would really eat at me as a Spurs fan. But yes I guess your right it might be better to be a Spurs fan.

Although it was great to know that the Bulls were going to win every year when they were good, and if Jordan didn't get suspended for gambling and faked playing baseball for 1 1/2 years we would have won 8 in a row. And rebuilding isn't all that bad there is some fun in seeing young players develop but ya I'd rather be in the playoffs.

 

[dunkside.com]

Kush77 wrote:

Newskoolbulls wrote:

Spurs are not a better franchise than the Bulls, PERIOD.

I agree. The Bulls should be third. The Spurs can't even win back-to-back titles and to me were not a dynasty. You have to win b2b to be considered a dynasty to me. And you can't count the 99 title in their "dynasty" because the Lakers won three straight. What dynasty allows another team to 3-peat during their run. Bulls should be ahead of S.A..

I'm gonna type this really really slow so everyone can follow: it's not about no of titles or who had a dynasty. If it was, it'd be called "Most titles" or "Best dynasties". It's about the best franchise. It's about the excellence of the ORGANIZATION. The ability to stay relevant over a long period of time. The ability to rebuild a team over and over.

Hendu0520 wrote:

Hhhmmm I never thought of it like that from the perspective of a fan, lol, hard to argue with you there. Although it would really bother me that they couldn't win 2 in a row, that would really eat at me as a Spurs fan. But yes I guess your right it might be better to be a Spurs fan.

Although it was great to know that the Bulls were going to win every year when they were good, and if Jordan didn't get suspended for gambling and faked playing baseball for 1 1/2 years we would have won 8 in a row. And rebuilding isn't all that bad there is some fun in seeing young players develop but ya I'd rather be in the playoffs.

Actually you did. Cause I doubt you were thinking about it from the perspective of a GM, coach or player. Only you were thinking about it from the perspective of a homeristic Bulls' fan. Which is to say you weren't objective about it. The whole idea behind these kinds of lists/rankings is to be objective. And if you're subjective, as most fans are, you won't agree with the ranking (unless you're a fan of the team that got 1st place in the ranking).

To put things into perspective for the other Bulls fans, the question would be: would you prefer to keep watching a lottery/1st round exit team over the next 10 years, or a team that keeps contending and maybe, just maybe, wins another title or 2 over the same period ? Cause that's the historical difference between the Bulls and Spurs. Did the 6 titles won a decade ago make the past years 10 years of mediocrity more bearable ? Will they make the next 10 years of mediocrity more bearable too ?