Well to be fair, the NHL has been a pretty "dynasty driven" league even since the initial expansion. I mean if we look at the sports track record, pretty much every decade (besides the 2000's) featured at least one or two mini to dominant dynasties.Hockey's always going to be the weakest link in any market with teams in all four leagues. It's the only sport that has parity enforced with a hard salary cap - yes, every year, there are a handful of teams that aren't going to make it to the playoffs, and a handful that seem shoo-ins. But even once you get to the playoffs, even with a best-of-seven format, upsets can still happen. I mean, look at last year - did ANYONE see the Golden Knights winning 3 rounds before the season started? The Stanley Cup is the closest of the four trophies to rolling a 30- (or 31- or 32-) sided die.
So...yeah, we've got a chance to win the next two major championships. A better than average chance for each one, obviously, given that both teams are currently in position to at least MAKE the playoffs in the first place. But it's still up for grabs - MoneyPuck puts the Bruins at about 5.8% now to win - basically, a little worse than an average team that makes the playoffs, which seems about right. And given that the NBA still seems to be heavily supporting dynastic teams, the Celtics are outsiders at best.
In the 70's, it was the Habs who dominated throughout, with the Bruins and Flyers winning a couple championships as well
In the 80's, the first half was all about the Isles, while the second half was owned by the Oilers with the Great One
In the 90's, the early years were dominated by Pittsburgh, while the late 90's/early 2000's were dominated by Detroit, New Jersey and Colorado
And over the last 10 years, Pittsburgh and Chicago have been alpha-dogs of the league, with the Kings winning a couple along the way
Of course, hockey still provides more parity than many other sports, but dynasties and dominant teams have still always been present in the sport
Last edited: