Hats off to the Royals, their city and their fans. That was an amazing series and I'm glad that franchise is relevant against after being the laughing stock of the league for three decades. If it wasn't for the greatest pitching performance of postseason and world series history it very well could have turned out differently. It was an amazing run for both teams but even more amazing for the giants who now have won 3 championships in 5 years and have made their claim as a baseball powerhouse.
Here is my question- this morning the talking heads on espn radio have been debating whether the giants are a dynasty or not. It has been split, many say yes, the other say no. The reasons against have included that the championships weren't won in consecutive years, core players have changed and a punch of other mindless dribble.
Hell yes the giants are a modern day dynasty!!!! Three championships in 5 years for a franchise that went 56 years without winning one! In an era when players are brought up, moved up, traded and released till game 162. When a GM loses his 2nd best player and 2/3's of his outfield due to injuries, 1/2 of us infield for an extended time and still manages to win by trading to get peavy, bringing up panik. Remember when the Red Sox won and those same exact morons at espn were claiming that theo epstein was the best GM in baseball? Hows that working out for the Cubs? Jesus....just look and appreciate what the Giants have managed to do!!! They don't have superstars on this team. Posey, sure but he had a very average year. Bumgarner, getting there after this postseason performance. Pence? Nope. Belt? not even close. So please give me these players that "just win baby!!!" over the puljose, the trouts the entire dodgers and yankees lineup. This franchise has sealed the deal. When you win 3 championships you're a freaking dynasty. I would put them with the yankees of the 90's, patriots/lakers early 2000s.
Whatya think?
First, agreed--that Royals team deserves all the credit in the world. That was a great series that could have/almost did go the other way. If the Giants had lost, I'd have had no (okay, few) complaints, and been happy for KC (granted, it's easy to be gracious when it's all hypothetical).
ReplyDeleteDynasty talk seems similar to talk about whether players are elite--a made up conversation so talking heads on ESPN can argue. That being said, their arguments against (that you mention above) are stupid, and so I'll indulge in the argument. This is a league that has created parity--it doesn't matter if a team wins the championship every year (or hell, in this case, even makes the playoffs in consecutive seasons). A team that consistently emerges from that mass undoubtedly sits in the upper echelons. The Giants may not exhibit the regular-season dominance that some of those 90s Yankees and 2000s Lakers/Patriots team did, but they've been consistently good enough to get into the post-season, and have constructed teams that take advantage of the completely different dynamics of the postseason (like having your own DH-ready guy, Michael Morse, sitting on the bench, and starters who can turn into long relievers). They seem not to be built to dominate across 162 games, but in ways that allow them to dominate (well, win) in 5 and 7 game chunks. Some of that is because they have signed great role players, and parted ways with them later, so of course there's turnover. My take is that dynasties have to span generations--if there isn't turnover, if the core group is the same, it's not a dynasty, it's a dominant team. There can be some continuity/overlap, obviously. But the key for the Giants has been that they have leaned on a series of home-grown players brought up through a system run by the same GM and manager. In other words, there is a form of dynastic succession operating inside a stable institutional framework. Sounds like a dynasty to me.