Cap Era Dynasties

[kingdok]

The term ''dynasty'' died with the Oilers in 1990.

 

[Brainiac]

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.

No way. Kings were unstoppable in 2012.

 

[Eowin]

No way. Kings were unstoppable in 2012.

Disagree. The Hawks dynasty I described would have treated the '12 Kings as a speed bump.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

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

I didn't realize Keith (2nd round pick), Hossa (signed in free agency), Sharp (trade) and Seabrook (mid-1st round pick) were the result of the Hawks "sucking for a while."

Really, they got two current core players due to "sucking for a while", which isn't enough to guarantee anything. Pens: one cup, three top-5 picks; Caps: no cups, two top-5 picks; Lightning: no cups, three top-5 picks; Oilers: no cups, four top-5 picks; Panthers: no cups, four top-5 picks.

And don't forget that Price (Mtl) was a top 5 pick and Kessel (Bos, traded for what became Seguin/Hamilton) was a top 5 pick, so it's not like their success was all great drafting/trades and development.

 

[Trottier]

My, how we lower standards to make ourselves feel better about our times.

If Chicago or LA are dynasties, then Justin Bieber deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles.

 

[Marina]

Idk why everyone is working themselves into a tizzy about the past, OP clearly stated he wasn't comparing the Hawks to old dynasty teams.

 

[flashy]

I think the term "dynasty" implies winning a bunch of cups in a row.

Even the oilers who won 4 in 5 years is a stretch to call a dynasty.

The last unquestionable one would be the islanders.

 

[Trottier]

Idk why everyone is working themselves into a tizzy about the past, OP clearly stated he wasn't comparing the Hawks to old dynasty teams.

No tizzy here. And you are correct, no need for one.

An equally fair question would be: why do some work themselves into a tizzy trying to futily shoehorn teams into the dynasty category...when it is clear that they don't belong?

That is, by any respectable measure.

No need to lower standards simply to feel good. You can't claim that this is an age of glorious parity and simultaneously an age where two teams are one Cup away from being dynasties. Is that absurd contradiction not apparent?

 

[groov2]

I think the Hawks are an incredible team; one of my favourite to watch. Winning the way they have has been quite amazing, but I would certainly not put them in the category of Dynasty. A dynasty is the Islanders winning the cup four years in a row, the Oilers winning four cups in five years, or the Canadiens winning four in four. I think you really need to be the most dominant team year after year to be considered a dynasty.

I think the closest thing we have to a current dynasty in the NHL is the Oilers winning the first overall pick four times in six years.

 

[fsanford]

I think the Hawks are an incredible team; one of my favourite to watch. Winning the way they have has been quite amazing, but I would certainly not put them in the category of Dynasty. A dynasty is the Islanders winning the cup four years in a row, the Oilers winning four cups in five years, or the Canadiens winning four in four. I think you really need to be the most dominant team year after year to be considered a dynasty.

[B]I think the closest thing we have to a current dynasty in the NHL is the Oilers winning the first overall pick four times in six years.

[/B]

Well played, I would agree.

 

[flashy]

I think the Hawks are an incredible team; one of my favourite to watch. Winning the way they have has been quite amazing, but I would certainly not put them in the category of Dynasty. A dynasty is the Islanders winning the cup four years in a row, the Oilers winning four cups in five years, or the Canadiens winning four in four. I think you really need to be the most dominant team year after year to be considered a dynasty.

I think the closest thing we have to a current dynasty in the NHL is the Oilers winning the first overall pick four times in six years.

and then we'll be the next dynasty

 

[Church of Toews*]

From 2009-today the Hawks have made it to at least the WCF 5 times for the 7 times since they first made the playoffs in 09. 5 times for a cap team is something else. La was also solid from 2012-2014 with 3 WCF appearances in a row but them missing out on the playoffs this year and the Hawks having been dominant for a longer period of time gives them the edge. In the Cap world no team has had as much suscess as the Hawks have

since the salary cap was initiated

Hawks 2 cups, 3 WCF appearances (09, 14, and 15 for now)

La 2 cups and 1 WCF appearance (2013)

Pens 1 cup 1 finals appearance and an ECF appearance (2013)

Detroit 1 cup 1 finals appearance and an WCF appearance in (2007)

Boston 1 cup 1 finals appearance

Anaheim 1 cup and an WCF appearance (from 2006-2007)


no matter how you look at it the Hawks are currently head and shoulders above other cup winning teams in terms of dominance in the post season.

 

[mattef]

My, how we lower standards to make ourselves feel better about our times.

If Chicago or LA are dynasties, then Justin Bieber deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles.

I think its the other way around. You value the past way too much, and to you, no matter what, the present will never be as good as the good old days.

You probably are the kind who thinks that today's music can't be good just because it's not the one you grew up with.

People value the term "dynasty" way too much. If you expect it to mean "a team that has won 5 cups in a row", than yes, we probably won't see that ever again. But if we can accept that it might just mean, a team more dominant than any other in their time frame, then yes I think the Blackhawks should be considered a "mordern dynasty"

 

[Brainiac]

I think its the other way around. You value the past way too much, and to you, no matter what, the present will never be as good as the good old days.

You probably are the kind who thinks that today's music can't be good just because it's not the one you grew up with.

People value the term "dynasty" way too much. If you expect it to mean "a team that has won 5 cups in a row", than yes, we probably won't see that ever again. But if we can accept that it might just mean, a team more dominant than any other in their time frame, then yes I think the Blackhawks should be considered a "mordern dynasty"

Agreed 100%. People are too fond of the past.

Winning 3 cups in 5-6 years in a 30 teams league with salary cap is much more impressive than winning 5 in a row in a 6 teams league with no cap. And it's a Habs fan saying it.

 

[Classicnamesup]

I think its the other way around. You value the past way too much, and to you, no matter what, the present will never be as good as the good old days.

You probably are the kind who thinks that today's music can't be good just because it's not the one you grew up with.

People value the term "dynasty" way too much. If you expect it to mean "a team that has won 5 cups in a row", than yes, we probably won't see that ever again. But if we can accept that it might just mean, a team more dominant than any other in their time frame, then yes I think the Blackhawks should be considered a "mordern dynasty"

A team more dominant than any other is a dynasty? so last night Montreal had a mini dynasty.

Dynasty has a definition and that isn't it.

 

[Trottier]

I think its the other way around. You value the past way too much, and to you, no matter what, the present will never be as good as the good old days.

Let's dissect, shall we?

I make an observation about a single issue - dynasties...and from that you extrapolate that I "value the past too much"...and go on about my musical tastes.

Generalize much? Have you read my posts? There are many. I often talk about others who boorishly cling to the past as "being the greatest", just as there are those like you who consider evvvvverything that has happened since "I was born!" to be superior.

Newsflash: hockey was great in the past, it is great now. Might want to gain a bit of curiosity and find out about the past.

You don't know me and never will (that I can assure you). Best you not make broad judgements about those you do not know simply because their opinion on a single issue (horrors! ) differs - and their frame of reference is much deeper and informed than your own.

 

[Marina]

No tizzy here. And you are correct, no need for one.

An equally fair question would be: why do some work themselves into a tizzy trying to futily shoehorn teams into the dynasty category...when it is clear that they don't belong?

That is, by any respectable measure.

No need to lower standards simply to feel good. You can't claim that this is an age of glorious parity and simultaneously an age where two teams are one Cup away from being dynasties. Is that absurd contradiction not apparent?

Because it's obvious we aren't going to see a team as dominant as any in the past and it makes perfect sense to wonder what would be considered a salary cap era dynasty? People put way too much emphasis on the word dynasty. If in the past dynasty teams were those who dominated the league it's not ridiculous to wonder if the Hawks could be considered a modern-day one if they win another Cup considering it would be their third in six years and the fifth time in seven years they've made the WCF. That's pretty dominant.

But honestly doesn't really matter what they're called except hopefully Stanley Cup Champs.

 

[Anglesmith]

I think the Hawks are an incredible team; one of my favourite to watch. Winning the way they have has been quite amazing, but I would certainly not put them in the category of Dynasty. A dynasty is the Islanders winning the cup four years in a row, the Oilers winning four cups in five years, or the Canadiens winning four in four. I think you really need to be the most dominant team year after year to be considered a dynasty.

I think the closest thing we have to a current dynasty in the NHL is the Oilers winning the first overall pick four times in six years.

It's sad when you see a thread, think of a funny thing you can say in said thread, go into said thread, and see that said comment has already been made.

Nicely said.

 

[tempofound]

Idk why everyone is working themselves into a tizzy about the past, OP clearly stated he wasn't comparing the Hawks to old dynasty teams.

By calling them a dynasty he's making the comparison. There's no point in calling a team a dynasty besides comparing them to some of the greatest teams of the past. If he doesn't want to make the comparison, he could just call them "the greatest team of the half-decade" or whatever.

 

[tempofound]

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.

You're not a dominant team if there is another team just as "dominant".

Why should the definition change?

I think everybody understands it's tough to win every year in a 30-team, salary cap league, much harder than it ever was in the 70s and the 80s. But that's just an explanation of why we don't have dynasties today, not a reason to lower the bar on what counts as a dynasty.

 

[Trottier]

Because it's obvious we aren't going to see a team as dominant as any in the past and it makes perfect sense to wonder what would be considered a salary cap era dynasty?

Likewise, dinosaurs are extinct, and we know that. I don't see anyone today wondering whether a cow should be considered a pterodactyl.

I mean, suppose we enter an era where no team wins more than one Cup over a ten year period. Do we brand the first team to win two in 11 years a "modern day dynasty"?

Best to simply accept that we'll never see a dynasty ever again. As opposed to trying to "create" one. At least that's my opinion.

Look, what it comes down to is that some of us witnessed teams that dominated and simply do not view today's great teams - and the Hawks are a great team - quite on that level.

Regardless, friendly harmless disagreement.

 

[EricRealm]

Lets put the semantics aside and have a discussion about where this very special team ranks amoung the other dominant ones. Ofc we have to put them behind the official dynasties(habs, isles, oils) but where do they rank in the next tier (det, nj, col)? I think if they win the sc this year you have to consider them the forth greatest hockey team of all time. And as far as labels how about a compromise; they're a Tynasty

 

[SotasicA]

I don't know how old you guys are, but dynasties are ****ing boring anyway.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Likewise, dinosaurs are extinct, and we know that. I don't see anyone today wondering whether a cow should be considered a pterodactyl.

To take your analogy another way, Forbes used to publish a list of people worth over $10 million. Now, it is over $1 billion. Times change, standards change.

I mean, suppose we enter an era where no team wins more than one Cup over a ten year period. Do we brand the first team to win two in 11 years a "modern day dynasty"?

I think we should get over the obsession with labels. This Chicago team is a very good team. But if they win the next five cups, unless the team suddenly gets a lot better, I still wouldn't say they were as great a team as the Canadiens in the 70s or the Islanders/Oilers of the 80s. More accomplished, perhaps, but I'd still take those three other teams over today's Chicago team (just IMO).

 

[bigbuffalo313]

List of official NHL dynasties:
Ottawa Senators: 1920-27
Toronto Maple Leafs: 1947-51
Detroit Red Wings: 1950-55
Montreal Canadiens: 1956-60
Toronto Maple Leafs: 1962-67
Montreal Canadiens: 1965-69
Montreal Canadiens: 1975-79
New York Islanders: 1980-83
Edmonton Oilers: 1984-90

Chicago is a great team, but they are not in the same level as these teams. They are a pseudo dynasty with Colorado, Detroit, and New Jersey of the late 90s-early 2000s