Cap Era Dynasties

[8LX7psQ]

Stop trying to make a dynasty happen. We haven't seen one since the late 80's and we're not likely to see one ever again. Get over it.

 

[ChiGuySez]

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

Edmonton.

 

[Bending and Tending]

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.

I would consider 4/5 cup wins as two dominant teams over the past 5 years. An NHL definition of dynasty should change as the game changes. It's tough to win every year, but 2/4 and 2/3 is dominant for today's game.

 

[Moops]

Stop trying to make a dynasty happen. We haven't seen one since the late 80's and we're not likely to see one ever again. Get over it.

The Detroit Red Wings were absolutely a dynasty.

 

[sharks9]

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

But it'd be 3 Cups across 6 years, the only NHL-recognized dynasty with only 3 Cups won all 3 in a row.

 

[8LX7psQ]

The Detroit Red Wings were absolutely a dynasty.

No they weren't. A very successful team? Yes. Dynasty? no. The last officially recognized dynasty was the Oilers and that isn't going to change anytime soon.

 

[Honey Bear]

Yeah... no.

The Hawks won't be a dynasty unless they win 3 cups in a row. Frankly, I don't see that happening in this era. Too competitive, cap really doesn't allow it, and several other reasons including getting lucky with injuries 3 years in a row is really hard to do.

 

[The Red Line]

2 cups three years apart is a dynasty now?

 

[Sleepy]

I say 3 cups with the same core is a dynasty. It doesn't have to be "in a row". Kane/Toews/Keith/Hossa 3 cups = dynasty IMO. Let's see if they can do it.

3 Titles in a 5-10 year span is generally the mark of a dynasty in most sports. Basketball, Football, Hockey, etc.

 

[McClane]

When did the salary cap start?

 

[Your Reality Check]

I agree with bluegreen. I love dynasties and would love to see another one in the NHL, especially my beloved Blackhawks but they're not a dynasty and nor were the Red Wings.

You need to win 3 in a row or do what the Oilers did with 4 in 5 years to be a real dynasty.

To try and re-define it into something less with "cap era dynasty" is silly.

 

[mattef]

If anything, I feel like refusing to adapt the word "dynasty" to the modern times is what is in fact watering down it's meaning.

The more we will look back, the more we will think it must have been easy back then because you could keep all your players, because there was less teams, less parity etc.

Back then, winning multiple Stanley Cups and be labeled a dynasty was incredibly hard. Today, making the Conference Finals 5 years out of 7, are taking 2 cups in the process is incredibly hard.

To me it's like saying nobody should win the Rocket Richard trophy unless they score 92+ goals.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

If anything, I feel like refusing to adapt the word "dynasty" to the modern times is what is in fact watering down it's meaning.

The more we will look back, the more we will think it must have been easy back then because you could keep all your players, because there was less teams, less parity etc.

Back then, winning multiple Stanley Cups and be labeled a dynasty was incredibly hard. Today, making the Conference Finals 5 years out of 7, are taking 2 cups in the process is incredibly hard.

To me it's like saying nobody should win the Rocket Richard trophy unless they score 92+ goals.

The Rocket is a hard stat trophy. There's no ambiguity.

Just from this thread alone, people think the Hawks are a dynasty. Right now, the Hawks are in the same league as the Avalanche from 96-01. Do we consider those teams dynasties? No.

If Chicago wins this year, it's still 3 Cups in 6 years. Equal to the 97-02 Wings. They're not considered a dynasty.

Phil Jackson, when asked if he considered the Spurs a dynasty, said "I wouldn’t call San Antonio a dynasty — a force, a great force. They haven’t been able to win consecutive championships but they’ve always been there."

I'd look at Chicago the same way.

 

[Stuzchuk]

When did the salary cap start?

Seriously? 2005 after the lockout

 

[EbonyRaptor]

Jeez-a-loo ... let's see if the Hawks can get by Ducks/Flames and then beat the ECF winner before we bring out the "D" word - and even if they win the Cup this season, which isn't a given by a long shot, it would require a redefinition of the word "dynasty" from a historical perspective - or a qualification such as "cap era dynasty".

I think the Hawks have a good shot to win the Cup this year, as would every team that makes the final four, but that Ducks team scares me and I'm not assuming anything at this point.

 

[RedBaronIndian]

Jeez-a-loo ... let's see if the Hawks can get by Ducks/Flames and then beat the ECF winner before we bring out the "D" word - and even if they win the Cup this season, which isn't a given by a long shot, it would require a redefinition of the word "dynasty" from a historical perspective - or a qualification such as "cap era dynasty".

I think the Hawks have a good shot to win the Cup this year, as would every team that makes the final four, but that Ducks team scares me and I'm not assuming anything at this point.

Yup. This is all so premature. There was a similar thread last and we all know how that turned out with Hawks bowing out to LA.

 

[McClane]

Seriously? 2005 after the lockout

Thanks. Yeah, seriously, I just started following hockey some five years ago and don't really study the history of the sport or anything.

 

[FlyerFaithful17]

Thanks. Yeah, seriously, I just started following hockey some five years ago and don't really study the history of the sport or anything.

Don't worry about it. Glad to have you on board!

 

[Kirikanoir]

I say 3 cups with the same core is a dynasty. It doesn't have to be "in a row". Kane/Toews/Keith/Hossa 3 cups = dynasty IMO. Let's see if they can do it.

Clearly you have a very liberal definition of what makes a dynasty. Chicago, LA Kings have been very good in recent years, but being very good is not the same as being a dynasty team. A dynasty team should absolutely dominate the league during it`s run, and be clearly better than any other team during that time, and yes part of that is winning some "in a row". Can you really say LA or Chicago have done that.

These are the reasons teams like Montreal in the 50s and 70s, the NY Islanders in the 80s, and the Edmonton Oilers after them are considered special, and are called dynasties, they were the most dominate team in the league during their era. Again as good as both Chicago and LA have been you can not say the same about them.

3 Titles in a 5-10 year span is generally the mark of a dynasty in most sports. Basketball, Football, Hockey, etc.

Three championships in 5 years is the outside limit of what would be the generally accepted definition of a dynasty. And without at least one back to back championship even that is a stretch.

If we use your definition of a dynasty then New Jersey Devils (3-9 seasons), Oakland/LA Raiders (3-8) Washington Redskins (3-10) would all have to be considered dynasties. Now outside of perhaps their own fans I doubt many would consider any of these teams dynasties.

 

[Brainiac]

Some constipated purists don't like it when we use words differently, but times change. If we go by the strict definition of 4-5 consecutive cups, forget it. You might as well remove the word 'dynasty' from the hockey vocabulary, because it won't be needed anymore.

There's a salary cap and it's a 30 teams league. Just not the same beast as it was for the Habs, Oilers and Islanders back in the days. We won't see 4-5 cups in a row in these conditions. Impossible.

So yeah, if Chicago wins it this year, I say they're a modern day dynasty. No doubt about it.

My threshold would be 3 cups within 5-6 years and sustained PO appearance and success. And Chicago is doing exactly that.

 

[End on a Hinote]

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

I think we won't and a reason that's just as big as the salary cap is that there is simply more teams in the league now.

 

[Benedict Kovalchuk]

Not a dynasty, and not one even if they won the cup this year. That said they are about as close as it gets. A cup this year and next would bring them probably to dynasty status.

 

[Stuzchuk]

Thanks. Yeah, seriously, I just started following hockey some five years ago and don't really study the history of the sport or anything.

it's ok, new fans are always welcome but you're not allowed to support that team

 

[Eowin]

Dynasty. Hmmm.

That Hawks team in '10 was a dynasty waiting to happen. If the cap didn't force the breakup, I think we might be looking at a 5th consecutive cup right now. The Hawks could certainly afford that team as they make buckets of money.

Obviously, nothing cam be proven, but if you gave the current Hawks team ('11-'15) , Ladd, Buf, Leddy, Campbell, Versteeg and Brouwer, I will argue the point.

Even if the Hawks win this year, that's 3 in 6. No telling, but they can still win multiple more cups over the next 5 years.

Plus, an OT goal, at home, in game 7, prevented the cup last year. My feeling is that is the Hawks win that game, they take the cup. That would have been 3 in 5 + this year.

If this isn't a dynasty I don't think the NHL will ever have another one.

 

[committedindian86]

Dynasty or not, it's the golden age of Blackhawks hockey. No offense to the Golden Jet, Stash, or Tony O.