This is just for question’s sake: so think for what if purposes, though it’s very possible. Let’s just say the Phillies manage to go back-to-back and repeat as World Series Champion, something that hasn’t been done by a National League team since the 1970s Reds ‘Big Red Machine’ Teams, does this make the Phillies a Dynasty in today’s current state of baseball, where free agency and major market deals almost inherently prevent this from happening.
Or do you feel a team has to win more then two, despite the fact that due to ridiculous open market contracts/free agency that this is highly unlikely to ever happen again.
This will be a short answer but yes I would consider the Phillies a dynasty.
Being in a tough National League as you said where free agency and major market deals prevent dynasties from happening to win back to back titles would be a dynasty in my mind.
Many considered the Red Sox a dynasty after winning in 2004 and 2007 which was 2 times in a 4 year span.
If the Phillies win back to back titles there’s no reason they shouldn’t be called a dynasty in my view.
Winning back to back is impressive in this day and age where we’ve had a large variety of different Champions this decade
You could make a good argument for or against the ":Phillies Dynasty":. As well as the Red Sox, winning 2 WS in 4 years.
The Reds were a Dynasty, the Yankees were. You could make several arguments among others. It depend what your defination of a dynasty is. World Series titles? League championships?
I would like to point out how rare a World Series win is. Some teams don’t have one. Even the oldest teams, such as the Braves and Reds, only have a few. The Braves having 3, and the Red having 5. Thats 8 between 2 of the older teams in Major League Baseball.
The Yankees won 4 times in 5 years under the current conditions. That’s a dynasty. 2 wins is impressive, even over a span of 4 or 5 years like the Red Sox or Marlins, but it does not a dynasty make.
The Yankees are the only team to win more than twice since they added the 3rd round to the post-season and expanded to 30 teams and have made it to the post-season every year but once in that time, even during the rebuilding years when their pitching was crap.
No. I would say in order for any team to be a dynasty they must at least win 3 or more championships or be in contention for a championship in a 5 year span.
The Oakland A’s of the early 70s and late 80s
The Reds ":Big Red Machine":
The Yankees of the late 90s
The Orioles of the late 60s
This is baseball and everything is viewed in decades not yrs. There are only two Dynasties in baseball, 1. The Yankees and 2. The St. Louis Cardinals. These are the only two teams that have maintained excellence over the last 90 years and by definition this is what dynasties are.
when someone is asked about the Yankee dynasty have you ever heard them say which one? Of course not because it encompasses the entire history of the franchise.
No! Two years is not a dynasty.
15 Pennants and 10 WS wins in 18 years is a dynasty. (1947-64 Yankees). You can argue whether 6 pennants and 4 WS titles in 7 years is a dynasty.
I suppose one could in this day and age. The thing about such a word is that it is best applied in the post tense. That is, after the team has shown what it could do for the ages.