Cap Era Dynasties

[Nicklin3011*]

Clearly Chicago is a current dynasty in the salary cap era. No, it's like the Oilers or Islanders, Canadiens, ect, but it's still very very impressive in this era.

2 Cups (Very well could have been 3 if it weren't for a unlucky bounce vs LA in OT) Rivaling the run Detroit was on and will give them a run for their money with 1 more cup in the next year or two.

5 Conference Finals to date

As long as they have Kane/Toews/Keith they will continue to be able to build around these guys and reload as they have proved (IE. Saad, Teravainen,TVR, and all the small pieces they seem to find either in Free Agency or through the draft, so the "End of Days Part 2" people can probably back off in regards to Chicago falling off the map. Especially with the cap incrementally going up moving forward.

But besides Chicago who else could be considered a cap era dynasty? LA? 2 Cups, but not as much success other then that? Is this the new type of "Dynasty"? Do you think we will ever see a dynasty like the past?

Click to read more...

 

[tempofound]

Clearly Chicago is a current dynasty in the salary cap era. No, it's like the Oilers or Islanders, Canadiens, ect, but it's still very very impressive in this era.

2 Cups (Very well could have been 3 if it weren't for a unlucky bounce vs LA in OT) Rivaling the run Detroit was on and will give them a run for their money with 1 more cup in the next year or two.

5 Conference Finals to date

As long as they have Kane/Toews/Keith they will continue to be able to build around these guys and reload as they have proved (IE. Saad, Teravainen,TVR, and all the small pieces they seem to find either in Free Agency or through the draft, so the "End of Days Part 2" people can probably back off in regards to Chicago falling off the map. Especially with the cap incrementally going up moving forward.

But besides Chicago who else could be considered a cap era dynasty? LA? 2 Cups, but not as much success other then that? Is this the new type of "Dynasty"? Do you think we will ever see a dynasty like the past?

I don't think we'll ever see a real dynasty in a salary cap league.

I wouldn't call the Hawks or the Kings dynasites either. What they've done, especially the Hawks, is extremely impressive but there's no point in drawing historical parallells when the context has changed as much as it has.

The fact alone that you are talking about two contemporaneous dynasties sort of proves the point. A dynasty is a dominant team, you can't have two dominant teams at the same time.

 

[Evergreen]

I agree that Chicago is as close to a dynasty as we are going to get in the cap era. It's incredible what these guys have done. I have a feeling they will win the Cup this year.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Do you think we will ever see a dynasty like the past?

Players have too much freedom for that to happen. It's not so much the cap that keeps teams from being what would be a traditionally defined dynasty, it's free agency. If guys were still RFA's through 30 or 31, it would be easier to keep a team together. They're able to leave at 27 or 7 years of service of whatever it is though, so that 2nd contract players get is huge. If you don't get those contracts right, it gets tougher to compete.

The more freedom players have to pit one GM with money against another, the less you'll see the Canadien, Oiler, or Islander type teams.

But what Chicago has been able to do is part good timing, and part good management. They won when Kane and Toews were still in their early 20's, and then had a cap crunch. However, because Kane and Toews were still so young, they had time to re-stock the team. They lost in the 1st round in 2011 and 2012, but it wasn't the end of the world for them. It looks like they might have another situation coming up this summer, but if they win the Cup again, who cares.

 

[SotasicA]

LA? 2 Cups, but not as much success other then that?

Kings also had a deep run in 2013, when they were beat in the conference finals. By the Hawks. So Kings would be #2. Agreed it's been on a smaller scale, 3 years, and it could have ended already for all we know. Hawks had 7 years (5 x conference finals), and running.

After those two it's the Bruins (2xcup finals), Crosby&Malkin-era Penguins (2x Cup finals + 2 other conf.finals appearances). But those are hardly dynasties. Just success.

 

[Jedgi]

Kings also had a deep run in 2013, when they were beat in the conference finals. By the Hawks. So Kings would be #2. Agreed it's been on a smaller scale, 3 years, and it could have ended already for all we know. Hawks had 7 years (5 x conference finals), and running.

After those two it's the Bruins (2xcup finals), Crosby&Malkin-era Penguins (2x Cup finals + 2 other conf.finals appearances). But those are hardly dynasties. Just success.

Red Wings fit that 2nd category as well.

 

[SotasicA]

Yeah, those would be the 5 teams. Only 3/5 in the playoffs though, and only 1 team went past round one. So that's what a "dynasty" gets you these days...

 

[HawkinMI]

It's close. Another Cup would really help seal it, but I agree that there's really never going to be a dynasty in the same light as the 80s Oilers/Islanders or the Canadiens.

Honestly, I think the amount of parity in the league today makes the Hawks' run even more impressive. Back then there were really only 2-3 teams competing for the Cup and a bunch of other teams that could only hope to nip at one of the giants' heels until they tripped. The salary cap is such a positive thing in sports, I think the modern NHL is one of if not the greatest era of NHL hockey yet (I know I'm mostly alone on that)

 

[5 Minute Major]

If the Hawks win it, this year or in the next couple, yeah, to me that is a dynasty. Impressive to say the least.

I love watching them.

 

[RedBaronIndian]

Can we cool off on the dynasty talk? Even as a Hawks fan I think they are no where close. Just because we are in salary cap era, the definition of dynasty need not be diluted. Dynasty requires at-least one back-to-back championships. LA have the same amount of cups as the Hawks and Conference finals in the last 4 years.

 

[ChiGuySez]

In the immortal words of Vince Lombardi, winning is everything. Almost equally interesting for me is how the Hawks continually reload on the fly almost every year.

 

[Daishi]

The reason the Hawks keep winning and the Bruins are on a downward spiral to become the Toronto Maple Leafs, is because they realised early that you should keep and pay your superstar talented core, and replace the supporting cast around them whenever they become too expensive. Chiarelli on the other hand let Seguin go despite the off-ice issues being much lesser than what Patrick Kane's had, and instead tied his hands and overpaid the supporting cast that would've been easily replaceable. Now the Hawks are winning and will continue to win, while the Bruins aren't in the playoffs and look to be even worse than they are now in the future. Well done Hawks management.

 

[tony d]

Yeah, Chicago's as close as it gets to a dynasty these days. To me they're the team to beat now.

 

[BrooklynCapsFan]

Yup. Chicago is a cap era dynasty because they have Hossa and Keith for $10 and change. Screw that.

 

[Canovin]

If they win the cup this year and another within 2-3 years. They would be considered a dynasty.

 

[Flair Hay]

No such thing

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Stop watering down what a "dynasty" means. 2 Cups in 6 years so far, is not a dynasty.

 

[Bennett Brauer]

Chicago's a close to it as you can get, I don't think anyone else really comes close. They just do everything right, on and off the ice. More teams should follow what they do. What they did may seem easy but it wasn't, there was a lot of luck involved with were they are today. Made some bold moves, had good talent fall right into their laps over the years.

It all paid off.

 

[BLONG7]

The Hawks have been awesome, and the Kings are right there also, but not sure if we will ever see a dynasty type of team in the Cap era...the parity in the league is insane...proof is this years Kings didn't even make the playoffs....

 

[Microsens]

I agree that Chicago is as close to a dynasty as we are going to get in the cap era. It's incredible what these guys have done. I have a feeling they will win the Cup this year.

Got lucky by sucking for a while? I have much more respect for teams like Montreal, NYR, Detroit, Boston..

 

[sharks9]

Chicago is not a dynasty right now, they need a Cup this year and even then it would be a stretch to call them one without ever having won back-to-back Cups

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Well, had we won last year, I think that would've been as far as most would be willing to go to call the team an actual dynasty. 3 titles in 5 seasons would've been the usual minimum number of championships most people consider to be worthy of the word "dynasty" and in a time frame where the Hawks would've been more successful than the 29 other teams in the league combined. I know plenty would disagree with that due to the two year gap, but I think that most fans, the media, and the league would call the team that.

If the Hawks could almost do it (all due respect to the Rangers, but the Hawks would've been prohibitive favorites last year just like the Kings were), I won't discount the possibility of a team ever going 3 in 5 (or better) again. And if the Hawks win this year to be 3 in 6, I'll be extremely happy, but would consider that to be just on the outside looking in when it comes to dynasty-talk.

 

[Moops]

Chicago is not a dynasty right now, they need a Cup this year and even then it would be a stretch to call them one without ever having won back-to-back Cups

Three Cups is three Cups, why does it matter what order they came in?

 

[Jgboys1]

The rangers.




At least that is what all the ranger fans here in new York are telling me.

 

[Marina]

Got lucky by sucking for a while? I have much more respect for teams like Montreal, NYR, Detroit, Boston..

Yup, got nothing to do with good management or good depth players. First overall pick = instant success.