Former Astros executive's bizarre claim overlooks SF Giants championship run

What constitutes a dynasty? That is a matter of debate. However, former Houston Astros general manager Jeff Luhnow recently made a bizarre claim about there only being one dynasty in the 21st century, and it completely overlooks the SF Giants' championship run.

Former Astros executive's bizarre claim overlooks SF Giants championship run

Luhnow joined the Crush City Territory Podcast to discuss his tenure as an executive with the Astros. Co-host Chandler Rome asked him about his role in constructing the Astros' dynasty, and the answer is surprising:

"I am very proud of the fact that there is no other dynasty in the 21st century that comes close at this point. I know I wasn't there for the whole thing. I was just there from the beginning, but put them on a good course and very happy about what happened."

Jeff Luhnow

Firstly, Rome's question was a leading question. It is presumptuous. Nevertheless, Luhnow served as general manager for the Astros' championship run in 2017. However, that championship came into question following the sign-stealing scandal that rose to the surface in 2019.

No player was suspended for their role in this, despite it being largely a player-led scandal. However, both Luhnow and A.J. Hinch, who was the Astros' manager at the time, were suspended for the 2020 season. The Astros let go of both Luhnow and Hinch shortly after the penalties were announced.

While the 2017 title was never vacated, a lot of people just view it with an asterisk. The Astros did win the World Series in 2022, with Dusty Baker as the manager. Baker was brought in to clean up the mess that came with the sign-stealing scandal.

That said, Luhnow's comments do paint an interesting picture of his take of what a dynasty is. Even if you count the 2017 title, winning two titles in six years does not normally constitute a dynasty. By that same standard, the Boston Red Sox had two, separate dynasties in this century alone.

That is neither here nor there. Lunhnow's comments seem to overlook what the Giants accomplished in the early 2010's. A dynasty in sports is not necessarily winning every year, but winning a lot of titles in a short span does build a strong case.

The Giants won three titles in five years beginning in 2010. If you are looking strictly at championships, that would signal a dynasty. However, many people have added qualifiers that they were not necessarily a powerhouse team during that stretch. This is where the definition gets stretched to fit someone's narrative.

At the end of the day, they have three titles to their ledger, with a core that remained relatively unchanged during that time. If the Giants are not considered a dynasty, then there just has been no dynasty in this century.