OT: Are the Spurs a cornerstone franchise?

[jStuNNa]

I haven't started a topic in quite some time, but a question crossed my mind. Are the Spurs a cornerstone franchise?

The NBA marquee teams, and some would say the pillars of the league, as we all know, are the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks and Bulls. But are the Spurs now in that group? After all, it wasn't until Michael came to the Bulls in the 80s, and then the dynasty years in the 90s, that the Bulls became part of this group. Before then, they were somewhat of a joke.

In my opinion, the Spurs represent everything the league should and hopes to be. Superb teamwork, Hall of Fame players and coaches, excellence and professionalism on and off the court. They've sustained this excellence for almost two decades now and have built a culture and identity that will most likely endure even longer.

Fine, they're not a major market team, but they have all the other qualifications IMO. I'm curious to know what the rest of you think.

[kulaz3000]

Hell to the yes.

[jStuNNa]

Will they receive such recognition after this current dynasty though? Like people always say it's great for the league if the Knicks are good or the Celtics and Lakers are good. It's great that there's a superstar in Chicago again, etc.

If the Spurs aren't a playoff team for a few years or become irrelevant as a title contender for the next decade, well people feel the same way as they do about the aforementioned teams -- that it's just a matter of time before they are contending again, that great players will end up there and that it's important to the league that they are relevant?

[transplant]

...that it's important to the league that they are relevant?

I think this is the best definition of a "cornerstone" franchise, and by this definition, I don't think the Spurs qualify.

[musiqsoulchild]

To me Spurs will have a place in history for showing small market teams how to run effectively.

Had anyone ever been to San Antonio and wondered "How does this puny place support an NBA franchise?"

Turns out, the Spurs are a vital part of the economy there and are run brilliantly. For me, they are as important a franchise as Chicago. While MJ made the game an internationally recognized sport, Spurs made the NBA recognizable as an option for several foreign players.

Just look at how many non-US players featured in last years title run.

[Jayme96]

No, they aren't. They're too boring. Those other franchises are all media darlings with a huge following. I don't think that many people really care that much about the Spurs. I've always thought they were ok, but nothing to get too crazy about. I'm referring clear back to the David Robinson days when I used to watch them more. I think they lose Duncan, and quit winning, and they'll go the way of teams like the Trail Blazers. Teams that were good at tone time, but once they were no longer good, they were no longer relevant. Like Cleveland with LeBron, or the Thunder with Durant. Take those guys off those teams, and they become average at best, and no one will even know they exist.

[micromonkey]

A better term may be model franchise.
Teams have and will continue to (try to) emulate them. The way they play, draft--the use of foreign players, coaching, rest, etc.

[Mech Engineer]

The tough thing is a lot of front offices/coaches trying to copy their success model and then failing. What happens after that? They will latch on to the newest business model.

That said, their model tweaked to a certain extent has a better chance of success. It is such a bad a business model to depend on MJ, Lebron to arrive in your franchise. You build a model where a few injuries, bad evaluations of players, bad decisions will not kill your franchise but also has logic, teamwork behind it.

We have seen with the Bulls how Derrick's injury impacted the franchise by building too much around him or Cleveland building around LeBron after he was drafted. Those models are much more risky even if it has had success in the past.