After 17 consecutive seasons with over 50 wins and a winning percentage north of .700, you’d be hard-pressed to find an organization that does things any better than the San Antonio Spurs. But, even after a stretch that saw them win four NBA Titles and make five NBA Finals appearances, frequent Spurs agitator Phil Jackson says they’re not a dynasty.
Jackson battled the Spurs for much of the early part of the millennium when his Lakers were winning three successive NBA Titles. The Spurs, despite their four rings in the Duncan era, never repeated as champions. That’s the reasoning behind Jackson’s words to Newsday recently:
“Tim Duncan making the salary he’s making after being part of a dynasty – not a dynasty, I wouldn’t call San Antonio a dynasty — a force, a great force,” Jackson said. “They haven’t been able to win consecutive championships but they’ve always been there. San Antonio has had a wonderful run through Tim’s tenure there as a player. He’s agreed to take a salary cut so other players can play with him so they can be this good. And that’s the beginning of team play.”
Jackson’s small dig at the Spurs came in response to questions about Carmelo Anthony‘s upcoming free agency on July 1. ‘Melo has said he’ll take less to help the Knicks win, and Jackson alluded to Tim Duncan’s decision to renegotiate his contract for less to help give the Spurs more financial leverage to improve the team. The Zen Master is counting on ‘Melo to keep his word on that front during upcoming contraction negotiations.
As for the Spurs comment, Jackson was arguing semantics more than anything. He calls them a “great force,” if not a dynasty. And we agree, though we think the word dynasty works for the Spurs, too.
Are the Spurs a dynasty?
Follow Spencer on Twitter at @SpencerTyrel.
Follow Dime on Twitter at @DimeMag.
Become a fan of Dime Magazine on Facebook HERE.