The NBA's potential dynasty's that didn't end up happening.

[coastalmarker99]

Looking at this in Nba history some examples are

Wilt's 76ers were widely tipped to become a dynasty after winning in 67 before Injures in the 68 playoffs and Wilt leaving to La that same offseason killed that team's hope of a dynasty.


Wilt's Lakers from 1969 to 1973 were also tipped to become a dynasty with a big three of Wilt West and Baylor before losses to the Celtics and Knicks in back to back finals game sevens killed any dreams of a Wilt led Lakers dynasty.


Kareem's Bucks were also widely thought to become a dynasty after winning the title in dominant fashion in 1971 before crucial Injures to Oscar and others in future playoff runs after 71 killed that dream.


Walton's very young Blazers were also tipped to become a dynasty after winning in 77 before injuries killed that team's hopes of a dynasty


KG's Celtics looked to be on the brink of something special after winning in 2008 before a serious knee injury to Kg ruined the Celtics season in 2009 and may have cost them another title in 2010.

[Ainosterhaspie]

The Durant/Westbrook/Harden potential dynasty belongs on this list, as noted by another poster on a different forum in a thread on this topic.

[prolific passer]

The St. Louis hawks from 57-61. Couldn't get the coaching situation stabilized.
The sonics from 93-98. Mix of upsets, coaching mistakes and front office mistakes.
The Jazz from 88-98. Bad luck mostly going up against Magic, Hakeem, and Jordan in that span.

[Doctor MJ]

Good mentions.

Others:

Paul Arizin's Warriors - had he not been pulled away by military service.

Wilt's Warriors - an unreasonable expectation, nevertheless, I'd argue this expectation has quite a lot to do with why Wilt won the MVP as a rookie and didn't win again for a half decade.

Willis Reed's Knicks - while I think Walt Frazier deserves to rank higher on GOAT lists, the thought is certainly that if Reed had been able to recover from injury immediately that those Knicks would have been dynasty level. (Granted even that might not have been enough to stop the Bucks or the Lakers.)

Shaq's Magic - while they certainly seemed outclassed by the Jordan Bulls in '95-96, if Shaq had stayed - and Penny stayed healthy - what might have been.

Nash's Suns - remember that in their first season they had Stoudemire, Marion & Joe Johnson. The team could have easily won a title as was, and if the new ownership of Sarver had really looked to double down on Colangelo's vision here, look out.

LeBron's 1st Cavs - an unreasonable expectation, nevertheless, that's what they were judged against.

LeBron's 2nd Cavs - if Curry's Warriors didn't exist...

Harden's Rockets - if Curry's Warriors didn't exist...

[HeartBreakKid]

Good mentions.

Others:

Paul Arizin's Warriors - had he not been pulled away by military service.

Wilt's Warriors - an unreasonable expectation, nevertheless, I'd argue this expectation has quite a lot to do with why Wilt won the MVP as a rookie and didn't win again for a half decade.

Willis Reed's Knicks - while I think Walt Frazier deserves to rank higher on GOAT lists, the thought is certainly that if Reed had been able to recover from injury immediately that those Knicks would have been dynasty level. (Granted even that might not have been enough to stop the Bucks or the Lakers.)

Shaq's Magic - while they certainly seemed outclassed by the Jordan Bulls in '95-96, if Shaq had stayed - and Penny stayed healthy - what might have been.

Nash's Suns - remember that in their first season they had Stoudemire, Marion & Joe Johnson. The team could have easily won a title as was, and if the new ownership of Sarver had really looked to double down on Colangelo's vision here, look out.

LeBron's 1st Cavs - an unreasonable expectation, nevertheless, that's what they were judged against.

LeBron's 2nd Cavs - if Curry's Warriors didn't exist...

Harden's Rockets - if Curry's Warriors didn't exist...

A dynasty? Can you elaborate on that?

[homecourtloss]

Good mentions.

Others:

Paul Arizin's Warriors - had he not been pulled away by military service.

Wilt's Warriors - an unreasonable expectation, nevertheless, I'd argue this expectation has quite a lot to do with why Wilt won the MVP as a rookie and didn't win again for a half decade.

Willis Reed's Knicks - while I think Walt Frazier deserves to rank higher on GOAT lists, the thought is certainly that if Reed had been able to recover from injury immediately that those Knicks would have been dynasty level. (Granted even that might not have been enough to stop the Bucks or the Lakers.)

Shaq's Magic - while they certainly seemed outclassed by the Jordan Bulls in '95-96, if Shaq had stayed - and Penny stayed healthy - what might have been.

Nash's Suns - remember that in their first season they had Stoudemire, Marion & Joe Johnson. The team could have easily won a title as was, and if the new ownership of Sarver had really looked to double down on Colangelo's vision here, look out.

LeBron's 1st Cavs - an unreasonable expectation, nevertheless, that's what they were judged against.

LeBron's 2nd Cavs - if Curry's Warriors didn't exist...

Harden's Rockets - if Curry's Warriors didn't exist...

Sansterre’s list of 3 year dominant post season runs seems useful here.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2033037

30. 1968-70 Los Angeles Lakers
#29. 2010-12 Boston Celtics
#28. 1998-00 Indiana Pacers
#27. 1994-96 New York Knicks
#26. 2017-19 Houston Rockets
#25. 1993-95 Houston Rockets
#24. 1978-80 Philadelphia 76ers
#23. 2007-09 Cleveland Cavaliers
#22. 2008-10 Orlando Magic
#21. 2004-06 Detroit Pistons
#20. 2002-04 San Antonio Spurs
#19. 2005-07 Phoenix Suns
#18. 2015-17 San Antonio Spurs
#17. 2005-07 San Antonio Spurs
#16. 1964-66 Boston Celtics
#15. 1987-89 Los Angeles Lakers
#14. 1996-98 Utah Jazz
#13. 1987-89 Detroit Pistons
#12. 2011-13 Miami Heat
#11. 2008-10 Los Angeles Lakers
#10. 1984-86 Boston Celtics
#9. 1980-82 Boston Celtics
#8. 1959-61 Boston Celtics
#7. 1984-86 Los Angeles Lakers
#6. 2000-02 Los Angeles Lakers
#5. 1991-93 Chicago Bulls
#4. 2015-17 Cleveland Cavaliers
#3. 2012-14 San Antonio Spurs
#2. 1996-98 Chicago Bulls
#1. 2016-18 Golden State Warriors

And his revised version

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2033601

#57. 1999-01 Philadelphia 76ers
#56. 1979-81 Phoenix Suns
#55. 2012-14 Indiana Pacers
#54. 1986-88 Atlanta Hawks
#53. 2001-03 Dallas Mavericks
#52. 1997-99 Los Angeles Lakers
#51. 1978-80 Seattle SuperSonics
#50. 1961-63 Los Angeles Lakers
#49. 1998-00 New York Knicks
#48. 1976-78 Washington Bullets
#47. 1957-59 St. Louis Hawks
#46. 2002-04 New Jersey Nets
#45. 1993-95 Phoenix Suns
#44. 1996-98 Seattle SuperSonics
#43. 1992-94 New York Knicks
#42. 1982-84 Milwaukee Bucks
#41. 1967-69 Boston Celtics
#40. 2004-06 Miami Heat
#39. 1990-92 Portland Trail Blazers
#38. 1968-70 Los Angeles Lakers
#37. 2002-04 Sacramento Kings
#36. 1975-77 Golden State Warriors
#35. 1973-75 Boston Celtics
#34. 2018-20 Boston Celtics
#33. 2010-12 Boston Celtics
#32. 1998-00 Indiana Pacers
#31. 1995-97 New York Knicks
#30. 2017-19 Houston Rockets
#29. 2011-13 Oklahoma City Thunder
#28. 1971-73 Los Angeles Lakers
#27. 1978-80 Philadelphia 76ers
#26. 1993-95 Houston Rockets
#25. 2006-08 San Antonio Spurs
#24. 1989-91 Los Angeles Lakers
#23. 2007-09 Cleveland Cavaliers
#22. 2008-10 Orlando Magic
#21. 2004-06 Detroit Pistons
#20. 1981-83 Philadelphia 76ers
#19. 2005-07 Phoenix Suns
#18. 1982-84 Los Angeles Lakers
#17. 2003-05 San Antonio Spurs
#16. 1964-66 Boston Celtics
#15. 1996-98 Utah Jazz
#14. 1987-89 Detroit Pistons
#13. 2011-13 Miami Heat
#12. 1980-82 Boston Celtics
#11. 1984-86 Boston Celtics
#10. 2008-10 Los Angeles Lakers
#9. 1959-61 Boston Celtics
#8. 1970-72 Milwaukee Bucks
#7. 1991-93 Chicago Bulls
#6. 2015-17 Cleveland Cavaliers
#5. 2012-14 San Antonio Spurs
#4. 1985-87 Los Angeles Lakers
#3. 2000-02 Los Angeles Lakers
#2. 1996-98 Chicago Bulls
#1. 2016-18 Golden State Warriors

[70sFan]

I'd add 1975-77 Kentucky Colonels - after they won the title they lost Dan Issel and then they didn't make the NBA unfortunately. Peak Kentucky squad could make serious noise in the late 1970s NBA.

[Cavsfansince84]

The St. Louis hawks from 57-61. Couldn't get the coaching situation stabilized.
The sonics from 93-98. Mix of upsets, coaching mistakes and front office mistakes.
The Jazz from 88-98. Bad luck mostly going up against Magic, Hakeem, and Jordan in that span.

I don't know about any of these. I mean these to me are more along the lines of very good teams that made a finals or two(outside of the Hawks which won 1 title while Russell was injured). The Sonics just weren't good enough imo and the Jazz made two finals in that 11 year period with a lot of 1st rd exits mixed in. So I don't think they truly belong in a discussion of potential dynasties.

[Doctor MJ]

Good mentions.

Others:

Paul Arizin's Warriors - had he not been pulled away by military service.

Wilt's Warriors - an unreasonable expectation, nevertheless, I'd argue this expectation has quite a lot to do with why Wilt won the MVP as a rookie and didn't win again for a half decade.

Willis Reed's Knicks - while I think Walt Frazier deserves to rank higher on GOAT lists, the thought is certainly that if Reed had been able to recover from injury immediately that those Knicks would have been dynasty level. (Granted even that might not have been enough to stop the Bucks or the Lakers.)

Shaq's Magic - while they certainly seemed outclassed by the Jordan Bulls in '95-96, if Shaq had stayed - and Penny stayed healthy - what might have been.

Nash's Suns - remember that in their first season they had Stoudemire, Marion & Joe Johnson. The team could have easily won a title as was, and if the new ownership of Sarver had really looked to double down on Colangelo's vision here, look out.

LeBron's 1st Cavs - an unreasonable expectation, nevertheless, that's what they were judged against.

LeBron's 2nd Cavs - if Curry's Warriors didn't exist...

Harden's Rockets - if Curry's Warriors didn't exist...

A dynasty? Can you elaborate on that?

First, after Jordan, a dynasty for a GOAT candidate was the gold standard.

Second, in the '08-09 season, the Cavs weren't just the best regular season team, but easily the best looking team through the first two rounds. At that point, the question really wasn't whether those Cavs would win a title, but how many they'd win.

I'll add further, that I really think that they weren't far from winning a title. I think the Magic series was largely horrible bad luck, and the Celtics were an incredible team at their best. I don't think that those Cavs should be looked at as if they were worse than the '06 Heat, for example.

Hence, while I think in retrospect the idea of those Cavs without further reinforcements being a dynasty is unrealistic, they were see as a potential dynasty that didn't end up happening, and this played into why people had their knives out for LeBron in the years that followed.

[Owly]

The St. Louis hawks from 57-61. Couldn't get the coaching situation stabilized.
The sonics from 93-98. Mix of upsets, coaching mistakes and front office mistakes.
The Jazz from 88-98. Bad luck mostly going up against Magic, Hakeem, and Jordan in that span.

I don't know about any of these. I mean these to me are more along the lines of very good teams that made a finals or two(outside of the Hawks which won 1 title while Russell was injured). The Sonics just weren't good enough imo and the Jazz made two finals in that 11 year period with a lot of 1st rd exits mixed in. So I don't think they truly belong in a discussion of potential dynasties.

Supersonics had an SRS north of 6 each season for 93-98 (the George Karl era). They matched up well with a two-time champion in that peroid and played the most dominant Bulls team -otoh- perhaps as well as anyone in the finals did despite an injury to an underrated valuable cog (McMillan). They just messed up their best window in the playoffs getting eliminated in the best of 5 series (some luck there with shorter series), especially '94 their best team on paper where they outscored Denver and lost 2 in Denver (altitude? the general notion is teams normally get in in time to adapt for playoff games). They comfortably outscored the Lakers too, just lost close games.

It depends on what the bar (e.g. in terms of say, actual titles) is to disqualify a team from the conversation but those Sonics winning more than 1 title doesn't seem implausible.

[Cavsfansince84]

Supersonics had an SRS north of 6 each season for 93-98 (the George Karl era). They matched up well with a two-time champion in that peroid and played the most dominant Bulls team -otoh- perhaps as well as anyone in the finals did despite an injury to an underrated valuable cog (McMillan). They just messed up their best window in the playoffs getting eliminated in the best of 5 series (some luck there with shorter series), especially '94 their best team on paper where they outscored Denver and lost 2 in Denver (altitude? the general notion is teams normally get in in time to adapt for playoff games). They comfortably outscored the Lakers too, just lost close games.

It depends on what the bar (e.g. in terms of say, actual titles) is to disqualify a team from the conversation but those Sonics winning more than 1 title doesn't seem implausible.

I get all of that but to me they were just 1 among 4-5 very good teams in the west in most of those years and never really came that close to winning 1 title much less 3 which I would say would constitute a legitimate nba dynasty. I mean obviously they had to deal with some injuries but I feel like they lacked the superstar level player that most any dynasty needs to be built around. It's not like the late 70's Blazers which had that player and showed they could win a title but probably only fell short of a dynasty level run because that player fell apart.

[Owly]

Supersonics had an SRS north of 6 each season for 93-98 (the George Karl era). They matched up well with a two-time champion in that peroid and played the most dominant Bulls team -otoh- perhaps as well as anyone in the finals did despite an injury to an underrated valuable cog (McMillan). They just messed up their best window in the playoffs getting eliminated in the best of 5 series (some luck there with shorter series), especially '94 their best team on paper where they outscored Denver and lost 2 in Denver (altitude? the general notion is teams normally get in in time to adapt for playoff games). They comfortably outscored the Lakers too, just lost close games.

It depends on what the bar (e.g. in terms of say, actual titles) is to disqualify a team from the conversation but those Sonics winning more than 1 title doesn't seem implausible.

I get all of that but to me they were just 1 among 4-5 very good teams in the west in most of those years and never really came that close to winning 1 title much less 3 which I would say would constitute a legitimate nba dynasty. I mean obviously they had to deal with some injuries but I feel like they lacked the superstar level player that most any dynasty needs to be built around. It's not like the late 70's Blazers which had that player and showed they could win a title but probably only fell short of a dynasty level run because that player fell apart.

As far as teams with without a title, within 2 games (in a 29 team league, 16 team playoffs) is pretty close. But fwiw, and in line with the above I'm thinking team quality wise, rerun those playoffs.

The centerpiece of Portland's would be dynasty was known to be brittle at the time. They had a young core, so were perceived as a potential dynasty. Portland have their title but in terms of "showed they could win a title" I can easily see flipping game 1 versus Denver (perhaps Denver shoot better from the stripe) and then it's close to a coin toss. They were good so they won a title but for me I don't think that they won makes them a better underlying level of team.

[DirtyDez]

[Cavsfansince84]

First, after Jordan, a dynasty for a GOAT candidate was the gold standard.

Second, in the '08-09 season, the Cavs weren't just the best regular season team, but easily the best looking team through the first two rounds. At that point, the question really wasn't whether those Cavs would win a title, but how many they'd win.

I'll add further, that I really think that they weren't far from winning a title. I think the Magic series was largely horrible bad luck, and the Celtics were an incredible team at their best. I don't think that those Cavs should be looked at as if they were worse than the '06 Heat, for example.

Hence, while I think in retrospect the idea of those Cavs without further reinforcements being a dynasty is unrealistic, they were see as a potential dynasty that didn't end up happening, and this played into why people had their knives out for LeBron in the years that followed.

As a Cavs fan who was closely following that team and the league at that time idk if I fully share some of these opinions you stated. I mean we're all just going off our own recollections and views that we may have had at the time. In my mind though, I don't think it was really seen as being all that much of a foregone conclusion that the 09 Cavs would win the title that year despite the 66 win season and sweeping the first two rounds in the east and a few people in the media acting like we would. I as a Cavs fan wasn't that confident. Mainly due to knowing what a championship roster should look like and knowing what that Cavs roster was like along with Mike Brown as our hc. I had zero confidence in Mike Brown as a guy who could lead a team to a title. More so, I knew he was a huge weakness for us and that we would need LeBron playing at an insanely high level in order to win it all. Which he did, statistically having the best playoff run of all time , and we still didn't even make it to the finals. I would say we needed another all star caliber player at the least to have been a real contender that year. Mo just didn't cut it as a legit #2 on a title team.

[coastalmarker99]

Another team that deserves to get mentioned is the late 1980's rockets who with a frontcourt of ralph and Hakeem beat the showtime Lakers and fought the Celtics in a tough finals series.


Before injuries and drugs then ruined the teams hopes of becoming a future dynasty

[Dr Positivity]

I think late 60s Sixers and 70s Bucks are two of the best ones cause all anyone had know is a center winning everything in Russell/Mikan. So it would have had a "Ah sh*t, here we go again..." feeling

While they were still a dynasty, I think mid 2000s Spurs had potential for an more historic run. 2006 was wide open and they had the best team on paper in my opinion, so they could have ripped off a 3peat and 4 out of 5 with 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

[coastalmarker99]

The mid-2000's Pistons could have been a dynasty had they drafted Melo, Wade, or Bosh with the second pick in 03. That would've extended their time at the top. As any of those players would've been a great fit, especially with Billiups being the leader that he is and coach Larry Brown who was a excellent coach.

[PistolPeteJR]

Surprised no one’s mentioned the early ‘10s Heatles.
If Wade doesn’t decline as quickly and drastically as he did, that team has a chance to be a dynasty.

[penbeast0]

Michael Jordan tipped the Webber, Howard, Strickland Wizards as the next NBA dynasty after playing (and sweeping) them in the 97 playoffs. OF course, the immaturity of Webber and Strickland, the crippling economic effect of paying Juwan Howard as a top 3 NBA player, and the general mediocrity of the Wizards organization made that a fantasy at best.

[penbeast0]

The mid-2000's Pistons could have been a dynasty had they drafted Melo, Wade, or Bosh with the second pick in 03. That would've extended their time at the top. As any of those players would've been a great fit, especially with Billiups being the leader that he is and coach Larry Brown who was a excellent coach.

You think Brown would have stayed? I loved him as a coach but that was certainly not his track record.