The End of the Blackhawks Dynasty

[COHawk]

It's been a while since we've had a good ol' discussion on what represents a decade, on HF. 2000-2009 or 2001-2010, pick your side !

2001-2010 should be the answer, cause that actually includes the season that starts in 2000. The other one would include the latter half of 1999.

 

[Brownies]

2001-2010 should be the answer, cause that actually includes the season that starts in 2000. The other one would include the latter half of 1999.

Was Jesus born in a negative decade, I'm deeply troubled by all this.

 

[Joe Sakic]

The biggest issue they face is their current depth.

I also worry about that Seabrook contract, but he might re-bound.

 

[COHawk]

Was Jesus born in a negative decade, I'm deeply troubled by all this.

No, but because a hockey season occurs over the span of two calendar years and we as a fanbase refer to a specific season as the second year, then I don't believe the definition of a decade in the NHL should include a season that partially includes a year (1999) that nobody will dispute is definitely a different decade than the one being discussed. Hence resulting in 2000-2009 being the wrong answer.

 

[Megahab]

No, but because a hockey season occurs over the span of two calendar years and we as a fanbase refer to a specific season as the second year, then I don't believe the definition of a decade in the NHL should include a season that partially includes a year (1999) that nobody will dispute is definitely a different decade than the one being discussed. Hence resulting in 2000-2009 being the wrong answer.

I don't know what side but if we are talking about the 90s for example, then 1991-2000 includes a partial year that that is in a different decade as well.

 

[COHawk]

I don't know what side but if we are talking about the 90s for example, then 1991-2000 includes a partial year that that is in a different decade as well.

A decade is 10 years though, correct? So that would be 1-10. Not so weird to include 2000. But yes, you're right. 2000 could be considered a different decade. It's definitely a weird question.

 

[Megahab]

A decade is 10 years though, correct? So that would be 1-10. Not so weird to include 2000. But yes, you're right. 2000 could be considered a different decade. It's definitely a weird question.

Yeah I just mean I can see both sides. Either way, you're going to have a partial year that's not apart of that decade, whether it's at the beginning or end.

2010 is in a different decade than 2000, so I'm not sure if I agree with the 1-10 logic. But I also am thinking we are overanalyzing a very minor issue.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

They missed this year.

What if they win the Cup next year? Is that a new dynasty?

You kids and your god damn trigger happy fingers.

*something happens or doesn't happen*

I MUST PRONOUNCE MYSELF IN THE MOST DEFINITIVE MANNER RIGHT THE **** NOW

Settle down would you? Let things happen for more than once before saying it's a trend. This is basic math/stats.

 

[The Roy Of Ottawa]

 

[StLHokie]

Crazy how fast a team falls off when they have to start paying actual market value contracts for supserstars instead of the cap circumventing ones they had before.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Bowman had the keys to a Ferrari and traded it in for a beat up Mustang.

 

[hawksrule]

I always found it weird how obsessively people got caught up in the word ‘dynasty’. They had a great run that speaks for itself. I can’t imagine anything less consequential than the adjectives others use to describe it.

 

[Dread Clawz]

They could be back with a force in a couple years if they re-tool properly. Kane, DeBrincat, Dach, Boqvist, Maata, potential top 5 pick in 2020...they have some nice pieces.

 

[Three On Zero]

Bettman labeled them a dynasty, it’s unfortunate to see it come to and end but as a fan of a western team. It also makes me smile

 

[illpucks]

Bowman had the keys to a Ferrari and traded it in for a beat up Mustang.

Panarin for Saad was bad

 

[ALLCAPSALLTHETIME]

Crazy how fast a team falls off when they have to start paying actual market value contracts for supserstars instead of the cap circumventing ones they had before.

The Chicago Cap Circumventers?

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

Crazy how fast a team falls off when they have to start paying actual market value contracts for supserstars instead of the cap circumventing ones they had before.

I hope you're referring to Pittsburgh. Imagine if they had to pay Malkin and Crosby 12.5M.
Toews and Kane never were on backdiving contracts, unlike Crosby and Ovechkin.
Did Keith and Hossa help? Yeah. But not nearly as much as Crosby and Ovechkin's deals help the Penguins and Capitals.

 

[traparatus]

I hope you're referring to Pittsburgh. Imagine if they had to pay Malkin and Crosby 12.5M.
Toews and Kane never were on backdiving contracts, unlike Crosby and Ovechkin.
Did Keith and Hossa help? Yeah. But not nearly as much as Crosby and Ovechkin's deals help the Penguins and Capitals.

You should look up Ovechkin's 'backdiving' contract.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

You should look up Ovechkin's 'backdiving' contract.

Regardless if Ovechkin has an actual backdiving contract or not, having Ovechkin at a 9.6M caphit really helps when comparable players are being paid $2M more. IIRC Ovechkin signed his contract years ago and they're reaping the benefits now.
The reason the Capitals and Penguins won cups in 2016,17 and 18 is that Ovi/Crosby/Malkin had deals that finally became a bargain.
If you look up multiple cup winners they all have star players on bargain contracts.

 

[traparatus]

Regardless if Ovechkin has an actual backdiving contract or not, having Ovechkin at a 9.6M caphit really helps when comparable players are being paid $2M more. IIRC Ovechkin signed his contract years ago and they're reaping the benefits now.
The reason the Capitals and Penguins won cups in 2016,17 and 18 is that Ovi/Crosby/Malkin had deals that finally became a bargain.
If you look up multiple cup winners they all have star players on bargain contracts.

OK, man. Rock on.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

OK, man. Rock on.

Backstrom being paid 6.7M through this year is also an insane bargain.

At the time they were signed, the Backstrom/Ovi and Crosby/Malkin contracts were cap punitive enough that both teams couldn't compete with teams that had better depth players. They later became bargains and that's why they won.

It's almost come to the point where having a bargain contract for a star is necessary to win.

Watch the Avs the next few years with MacKinnon.

 

[traparatus]

Backstrom being paid 6.7M through this year is also an insane bargain.

At the time they were signed, the Backstrom/Ovi and Crosby/Malkin contracts were cap punitive enough that both teams couldn't compete with teams that had better depth players. They later became bargains and that's why they won.

It's almost come to the point where having a bargain contract for a star is necessary to win.

Watch the Avs the next few years with MacKinnon.

Sounds great. Signing players to good contracts is beneficial to the team, everything checks out. I don't know what this has to do with Chicago signing Hossa to a bull*** backdiving deal that clearly centered around the player never fulfilling his contract.

I guess when Kane was getting paid ~$6m while winning Stanley Cups, your team was not benefiting from it

 

[Romang67]

They're not pinin'! They're passed on! This dynasty is no more! It has ceased to be! They've expired and gone to meet their maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed them to the perch they'd be pushing up the daisies! Their metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-DYNASTY!!

Don't bump year old threads.