I'm going to throw out an interesting observation and a question to see what you guys think. It involves two different categories of "championship teams." Specifically, there are a couple of characteristics of dynastic teams that I find interesting.
On one hand, you have the type of team that is clearly a well-built and exceptional team that will win through the years, but has to fight and scratch and claw year in and year out. In a given season, when things start to align, they might be guilty of taking their talent for granted. But by and large, they don't simply "assume" that they will be champions. They fight for it. Some years they make it. Some years they don't. A couple of teams that fit this mold are the Duncan-era Spurs and the Kobe/Shaq Lakers.
On the other hand, you have teams that are flat-out dominant, so much so that they, their fans, and the league expect them to be in the mix for the championship every single year. The consequence is that, during the regular season, a team like this can lack focus and look bored, biding their time for the playoffs. The regular season just feels like a "dress rehearsal." They know they can beat anybody, and so they sometimes lack the focus to actually do it. The Warriors and Jordan-era Bulls fit this mold.
Obviously, there aren't "black-and-white" delineations of when a team is one or the other. And there are other "types" of teams as well. I'm simply making the observation. So my question is: which type do you think makes a "better" team? "Better" can be any criteria you like, but I'm interested in thoughts on this, whatever they may be.