THEE NYG SWAG THREAD

[DavenIII]

Happens all the time. As has been previously discussed, real sports "Dynasties" last over many, many years, usually well more than 10 and can even stretch over decades. Fake dynasties (with low standards) are 4 or 5 years with 3 championships. To me thats a good run. The Montreal canadians of the fifties thru the seventies, the Boston Celtics of the 50's and 60's, or the Yankees from the 20's thru the early sixties.
You kids today drive me nuts!!!

as you said, this has been previously discussed...

I forgot the specifics maybe you could enlighten us on the topic, I was pretty sure that in "thee thread" a dynasty was of course 3 championships in a short period of time?

Also perhaps we could discuss the topic of Champions and "reigning" Champs?

[JPizzack]

I misspoke yesterday....although the Yankees had one of the most impressive runs in baseball of the past 50 years, the Chicago Bulls were the last true Dynasty in my eyes.
The only thing that could stop the 90-98 Bulls...? Michael Jordan retiring twice.....

[MattMeyerBud]

f-bomb said the new rankings have to do with penis size

sounds about right...

[Morehead State]

as you said, this has been previously discussed...

I forgot the specifics maybe you could enlighten us on the topic, I was pretty sure that in "thee thread" a dynasty was of course 3 championships in a short period of time?

Also perhaps we could discuss the topic of Champions and "reigning" Champs?

Thats because in most aspects of life, pop culture has lowered the standards for just about everything. A true sports dynasty must come over an extended period of time. To me, the closest thing recently was the 20 year run of the 49'rs. But in my view it still fell short. 3 championships in 4 years is a great run. The Bulls of the 90's was a great run. But a true dynasty is a far greater accomplishment.
There have really only been a very few true sports dynasties. The Yankees from the 20's into the 60's, the Canadians from the 50's into the 70's, the Celtics of the 50's and 60's and UCLA basketball in the John Wooden era.
If the Sox managed to win 3 more championships over the next 15 years, while maintaining a high level of play, that would qualify in my book. If the Giants managed to do the same, with the 2 championships we already, that would too. But in today's mediocre standards, there will be those who will continue to refer to short runs of success as "dynasties". And they will mostly be Democrats.
Hahaha!!!!!

[DavenIII]

but what about free agency morehead, dynasty's can't be expected to last like they have in the past, you can't have Mickey Mantle for 17 seasons anymore...it just doesn't work.

same in every sport.

[JPizzack]

Thats because in most aspects of life, pop culture has lowered the standards for just about everything. A true sports dynasty must come over an extended period of time. To me, the closest thing recently was the 20 year run of the 49'rs. But in my view it still fell short. 3 championships in 4 years is a great run. The Bulls of the 90's was a great run. But a true dynasty is a far greater accomplishment.
There have really only been a very few true sports dynasties. The Yankees from the 20's into the 60's, the Canadians from the 50's into the 70's, the Celtics of the 50's and 60's and UCLA basketball in the John Wooden era.
If the Sox managed to win 3 more championships over the next 15 years, while maintaining a high level of play, that would qualify in my book. If the Giants managed to do the same, with the 2 championships we already, that would too. But in today's mediocre standards, there will be those who will continue to refer to short runs of success as "dynasties". And they will mostly be Democrats.
Hahaha!!!!!

no way...the sox would have to win like 5 more championships to compensate for their irellevance as of late. and thats just not in your deck of cards right now. i would not consider that a dynasty at all.
the yankees of the 30s thru the 60s, sure....i think it was like 16 championships in 30 years...thats pretty diesel. 2 more championships in the 70s....but thats 4 spread over 20 years, so i dont count that.
I do consider the Bulls a dynasty. sorry....unstoppaBULL

[JPizzack]

but what about free agency morehead, dynasty's can't be expected to last like they have in the past, you can't have Mickey Mantle for 17 seasons anymore...it just doesn't work.

same in every sport.

thats what I said.
I mean, baseball WOULD be the only sport to be able to pull it off because theres no cap...but, its highly unlikely that one team is going to pay someone that long, like you just said.

[Morehead State]

but what about free agency morehead, dynasty's can't be expected to last like they have in the past, you can't have Mickey Mantle for 17 seasons anymore...it just doesn't work.

same in every sport.

Then its much harder to have a real dynasty. Just because we have free agancy doesn't mean the definition of a dynasty changes. One has nothing to do with the other. It could very well be that there will be no more sports dynasties because of what you are suggesting.

[Morehead State]

no way...the sox would have to win like 5 more championships to compensate for their irellevance as of late. and thats just not in your deck of cards right now. i would not consider that a dynasty at all.
the yankees of the 30s thru the 60s, sure....i think it was like 16 championships in 30 years...thats pretty diesel. 2 more championships in the 70s....but thats 4 spread over 20 years, so i dont count that.
I do consider the Bulls a dynasty. sorry....unstoppaBULL

Championships are certainly a major component, but its also a consistent excellence as well. These "down" years for the Sox are still winning seasons. 90-72 and 89-73 are not losing seasons. The Giants have been 8-8 twice recently. It would be tough to call the Giants a true dynasty if they won 2 or 3 more in the next 10 years unless they play better than they have in the regular season. Quite honestly, what we got in 2 championships came in 2, 4 game runs in the playoffs. Both those regular seasons were very up and down.
And you can call the Bullsa dynasty if you want, but they aren't be my standards. No one would argue that those were great teams, but the time was very short.

[DavenIII]

Then its much harder to have a real dynasty. Just because we have free agancy doesn't mean the definition of a dynasty changes. One has nothing to do with the other. It could very well be that there will be no more sports dynasties because of what you are suggesting.

I disagree here, I think if you are using the term Dynasty in a sports context, if "sports" change then the definition of what a Dynasty is "in that context" also changes.