>>63123667If you miss the playoffs frequently you aren't a dynasty.
If the Giants would actually make the playoffs in years they didn't win it all they would be a dynasty. Three rings in five years is very impressive but dynasty teams don't have years they finish last in their division. There is no baseball dynasty right now, and only three teams can even be in the debate:
Red Sox: 3 rings since 2004. 3 pennants since 2004. Miss playoffs and finish last too frequently.
Cardinals: 2 rings since 2006. 4 pennants since 2004. Make the playoffs fairly frequently and have only had one season with a losing record this millenium. Easily the most consistent team out of the three in contention for dynasty status, a key attribute that the Pats and Spurs dynasties have. Unfortunately, 2-for-4 is very good but not quite dynasty material. If they win another next season they are a dynasty, otherwise the clock resets.
Giants: 3 rings since 2010. 3 pennants since 2010. Like the red sox, miss the playoffs far too frequently to be considered a dynasty. They finished bottom of the division in 2013; dynasty teams don't do that.
Red Sox dynasty window is all but closed. Cardinals need another ring or two by 2020 to be a dynasty. Giants need to make the playoffs every season from here until 2020 and get at least one more ring to be a dynasty.
