Cap Era Dynasties

[Taze em]

What if Chicago loses this year and LA wins next year? Wouldn't the 2010's then belong to the Kings?

My post was unclear. I'm taking IF the Hawks win the Cup this year, this is the "Hawks era". Whether it's a dynasty or whatever I don't care.

 

[ObeyPerry]

No one wants to consider that, everyone wants to write LA off already...I mean, the Blackhawks didn't lose in the first round in consecutive years or anything, so LA is long gone with one year of failure, obviously.

I think even if the league came out with a "cap era dynasty", it would probably at minimum require that a team make the playoffs every year during said dynasty, which would actually eliminate the Kings this year.

 

[Classicnamesup]

How can it be the "Hawks era" if LAK has been as successful during the same time. It is Hawks/Kings if anything. Winning one more cup won't change that.

 

[kaner23]

How can it be the "Hawks era" if LAK has been as successful during the same time. It is Hawks/Kings if anything. Winning one more cup won't change that.

The Kings had 3 straight WCF with two cups, Hawks have 5/7 WCF and two cups with a decent shot at a third this year and LA missed the playoffs, the number of cups is the same but I don't think they've been as successful with missing the PO's this years

 

[KingPuckChoo]

yyeyy! jynx thread!

 

[DarthYenik]

Anything short of three consecutive championship is not a dynasty. I'm not being uptight with the usage of that word. I actually think some people are trying to loosen up the usage and devalue the word so they can use it more often.

Not saying the Hawks aren't good, or trying to discredit them.

 

[Classicnamesup]

The Kings had 3 straight WCF with two cups, Hawks have 5/7 WCF and two cups with a decent shot at a third this year and LA missed the playoffs, the number of cups is the same but I don't think they've been as successful with missing the PO's this years

Right but you cannot ignore the team who won 2 SC's and been a top team in the league for multiple years by calling it the Hawks era. You will always have a little buddy next to your name, sorry.

 

[TOGuy14]

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?

It will be interesting to see how Chicago navigates the cap now that their big guys are on big deals.

It seemed like a good recipe for success, but as Pittsburgh has shown it is tough to navigate in the tight space once you get there.

 

[kaner23]

Right but you cannot ignore the team who won 2 SC's and been a top team in the league for multiple years by calling it the Hawks era. You will always have a little buddy next to your name, sorry.

True, but as long as this era ends with the Kings being referred to as our "little buddies" I'll be happy

 

[NeedleInTheHay]

I personally enjoy watching Chicago more than L.A. but I think this talk is a little premature. The Kings look to have a long window with their best players still in their 20's.

 

[icekoob]

Best team of this era. Really proud to be a fan.

That said, not a dynasty. One day, maybe. Up until now, no. Widow is far open however.

Lots of mutal respect between la and Hawks fans. Personally don't hate sharing the top.

 

[icekoob]

I personally enjoy watching Chicago more than L.A. but I think this talk is a little premature. The Kings look to have a long window with their best players still in their 20's.

OT but love your avy btw.

 

[Brainiac]

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.

That.

It's not about static definitions. You just can't use a certain standard in a 6 teams league with no salary cap and then pretend the same standard should apply in a 30 teams league with a salary cap.

What the Hawks have done recently is as impressive as what some of the past dynasties have done. Period.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Red wings up until '10
Hawks are a dynasty thats still going

Pittsburgh was never really a dynasty, They shouldnt have won that 09 cup, and after that they didnt do anything, Not really anything before the 08 season either, where they lost in the cup.

Kings were a dynasty, But they cant even make the playoffs. So they should NOT be labeled a dynasty.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

How can it be the "Hawks era" if LAK has been as successful during the same time. It is Hawks/Kings if anything. Winning one more cup won't change that.

You shouldnt be called a Dynasty if you cant even make the playoffs. Or barley make it in.

 

[8LX7psQ]

Red wings up until '10
Hawks are a dynasty thats still going

Pittsburgh was never really a dynasty, They shouldnt have won that 09 cup, and after that they didnt do anything, Not really anything before the 08 season either, where they lost in the cup.

Kings were a dynasty, But they cant even make the playoffs. So they should NOT be labeled a dynasty.

WTF is going on in this thread?

Edit: I really should have just bolded the entire quote.

All that comes to mind is a gif of Oprah "You're a dynasty, you're a dynasty, everyone is a dynasty !!!"

 

[Dotter]

Didn't Blackhawks back into the playoffs just a few years ago?

Dynasty? Hardly. Lol

 

[EbonyRaptor]

It will be interesting to see how Chicago navigates the cap now that their big guys are on big deals.

It seemed like a good recipe for success, but as Pittsburgh has shown it is tough to navigate in the tight space once you get there.

The same thing was said after the 2010 season when Toews, Kane and Keith all were re-signed with big raises. The Hawks had to purge a lot of good players - Ladd, Byfuglien, Versteeg, Brouwer, Niemi, Campbell and a few others. And yet they kept their core together - Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Keith, Seabrook and Hjalmarsson - and won again in 2013. This time they will probably have to get rid of one of their core players - Sharp - and a few other non-core guys, but they have Saad who has already taken the place of Sharp on the top line and they have Teravainen and now Panarin to take top-6 spots in the next year of two.

The window won't stay open forever, but I think it will be open for at least the next 4-5 years unless the Salary Cap stagnates or goes down.

 

[SimpleJack]

Right but you cannot ignore the team who won 2 SC's and been a top team in the league for multiple years by calling it the Hawks era. You will always have a little buddy next to your name, sorry.

Hey, at least you admit that you're inferior. Hawks own the era, Kings are a clear 2nd....and that gap might grow larger if the Hawks win this Cup and beyond. Suddenly their cap issues aren't looking as bad anymore with Panarin and Darling looking like incredibly cheap and yet incredibly effective replacements for big $$ players. LA on the other hand...what on earth are they gonna do? Brown? Richards? Williams? Now add the issues with Stoll....what a nightmare....good luck, GKG!

 

[Bhay99]

You shouldnt be called a Dynasty if you cant even make the playoffs. Or barley make it in.

Hawks needed the Wild to bail them out in 2011 so that's not a good argument.

 

[insomniac]

I have a very strict definition of a dynasty:

1 - A dynasty must begin by winning a Stanley Cup. Even losing Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals in overtime doesn't count. It must start with a championship.
2 - The dynasty must win a total of at least four Stanley Cups, in any span, as long as they make the Playoffs every year of that span. They cannot miss even once.
3 - The final year of the dynasty is the team's most recent championship.

For example, the only current dynasty is the Detroit Red Wings - from 1997 to present. The Red Wings have made the Playoffs every year since their first recent championship, in 1997, and have won four in this span. But if they missed the Playoffs next year, in 2016, their dynasty would be said to have ended in 2008, when they won their most recent championship.

1997 - 3rd in Conference, 5th in League - Stanley Cup Champions
1998 - 2nd in Conference, 3rd in League - Stanley Cup Champions
1999 - 3rd in Conference, 6th in League - Lost in Conference Semi-Finals (Colorado)
2000 - 2nd in Conference, 2nd in League - Lost in Conference Semi-Finals (Colorado)
2001 - 2nd in Conference, 2nd in League - Lost in Conference Quarter-Finals (Los Angeles)
2002 - 1st in Conference, 1st in League - Stanley Cup Champions
2003 - 2nd in Conference, 3rd in League - Lost in Conference Quarter-Finals (Anaheim)
2004 - 1st in Conference, 1st in League - Lost in Conference Semi-Finals (Calgary)
2005 - Season cancelled (lockout)
2006 - 1st in Conference, 1st in League - Lost in Conference Quarter-Finals (Edmonton)
2007 - 1st in Conference, 2nd in League - Lost in Conference Finals (Anaheim [won Cup])
2008 - 1st in Conference, 1st in League - Stanley Cup Champions
2009 - 2nd in Conference, 3rd in League - Lost in Stanley Cup Finals (Game 7 - Pittsburgh)
2010 - 5th in Conference, 7th in League - Lost in Conference Semi-Finals (San Jose)
2011 - 3rd in Conference, 6th in League - Lost in Conference Semi-Finals (San Jose)
2012 - 5th in Conference, 10th in League - Lost in Conference Quarter-Finals (Nashville)
2013 - 7th in Conference, 13th in League - Lost in Conference Semi-Finals (Chicago [won Cup])
2014 - 8th in Conference, 15th in League - Lost in Conference Quarter-Finals (Boston)
2015 - 6th in Conference, 12th in League - Lost in Conference Quarter-Finals (Tampa Bay)

Members: (must have won at least three Stanley Cups with team during dynasty reign, and not played for another NHL club during the span of those three Cups)
Kris Draper - 1997, 1998, 2002, 2008
Tomas Holmstrom - 1997, 1998, 2002, 2008
Nicklas Lidstrom - 1997, 1998, 2002, 2008
Kirk Maltby - 1997, 1998, 2002, 2008
---
Mathieu Dandenault - 1997, 1998, 2002
Sergei Fedorov - 1997, 1998, 2002
Brendan Shanahan - 1997, 1998, 2002
Steve Yzerman - 1997, 1998, 2002

 

[SotasicA]

Anything short of three consecutive championship is not a dynasty. I'm not being uptight with the usage of that word. I actually think some people are trying to loosen up the usage and devalue the word so they can use it more often.

So the 80's Oilers don't count?

 

[The Bad Guy]

What if the Hawks win this year and the Kings win next year beating the Hawks in the Conference Finals again?



(I don't care about Dynasties or Eras of whatever, I just want to erase the late 90s and early 2000's from my memory with 5 total Hawks Cups in my life....)

 

[flashy]

I was reading through this thread and saw that there was a lot of disagreement of what a dynasty was and how it could be applied to the modern cap era. I decided to first look at what the HHOF defines as a dynasty. They do not not provide a time frame or amount of cups won requirement so I'll post some key notes I got from their webpage on dynasties.

(The asterisks (*) below means the team won at least 3 cups in a row)

Via Rail Stanley Cup Dynasties, unveiled in conjunction with NHL Zone, includes reverent displays to the rosters of nine franchises which lorded over the NHL for extended periods of time, giving these clubs the singular honour of being considered "Dynasties".

The Ottawa Senators of 1919-20 to 1926-27 are considered the NHL's first dynasty. Winning four Stanley Cup championships in eight years

4/8

The Toronto Maple Leafs of 1946-47 to 1950-51 were the first team to win the Stanley Cup three times in succession and, in fact, won the big prize four out of five seasons

4*/5

The Detroit Red Wings of 1949-50 to 1954-55 featured all-time greats Gordie Howe, Ted Lindsay and Terry Sawchuk, and won the Stanley Cup four times over a six year stretch.

4/6

The Montreal Canadiens of 1955-56 to 1959-60 are, arguably, the greatest team in NHL history as they are the only team to capture the Stanley Cup on five consecutive occasions

5/5

The Toronto Maple Leafs of 1961-62 to 1966-67, like the Maple Leafs of twenty years prior, won the Stanley Cup an astounding three times in a row. With an all-star cast including Johnny Bower, Tim Horton and Frank Mahovlich, the Leafs added a surprising Cup victory over the heavily-favoured Montreal Canadiens In 1967, their fourth championship in six years.

4*/6

The Montreal Canadiens of 1964-65 to 1968-69, while often overshadowed by the great Canadiens' teams of the 1950s and 1970s, still managed to reel off an amazing four Stanley Cup championships in five seasons

4*/5

The Montreal Canadiens of 1975-76 to 1978-79 boast a winning percentage of .786 over that period and hoisted the Stanley Cup four years in a row.

4/4

The New York Islanders of 1979-80 to 1982-83 became the first American-based team to win hockey's most coveted prize in four consecutive seasons.

4/4

The Edmonton Oilers of 1983-84 to 1989-90. A collection of young stars formed the nucleus of hockey's most recent dynasty. Strong draft choices Mark Messier, Jari Kurri and Paul Coffey complemented hockey's greatest scorer, Wayne Gretzky. The Oilers won five Stanley Cup championships in seven years

5/7


Averaging out what the Hockey Hall of Fame calls dynasties, it works out to about 4/5 or 0.7941. So a team should be winning 4 cups in 5 years on average to be considered a dynasty by their "metrics". Just for fun I took out the Ottawa dynasty outlier and this increased the average to 5 cups in 6 seasons. However, the HHOF's current dynasties only mention 5 cups in 2 of the 9 dynasties. 4 cups appears to be the minimum standard in what makes a dynasty according to the HHOF because winning a total of 4 cups is mentioned in 7/9 dynasties

Since we are debating whether there is a dynasty now and no teams have won cups consecutively I took out the dynasties that won all their cups in a row. These 6 spaced dynasties worked out to 0.6912 or just over 2 cups every 3 seasons. Since the HHOF standard is 4 cups (and they haven't called any team that won 2 cups in 3 years a dynasty) the 2/3 would need to be doubled to 4/6.

On one end of the spectrum you have 4 cups in 8 years and on the other end you have a teams winning at least 4 consecutive cups. Since I can't read the mind of the HHOF people I decided to make my own judgement on what they would refer to as a dynasty in the future.

1. 4 Stanley Cups is the key. All teams listed as dynasties have won at least four cups in their respective time frames.
2. However, the language on the website makes it seem that there might be an exception to the four cup rule. It appears that winning at least 3 cups in a row has value in being called a dynasty. Lumping in the the two Toronto dynasties teams and Montreal 1975-1979 team makes 6/9 teams that won at least 3 cups in a row. With this in mind a team that wins 3 cups in a row in todays hockey era could very well be labelled a dynasty.

Currently, if Chicago wins this year that would give them 3 in 6 seasons which still would not be good enough to be a dynasty. They have already missed 8/9 dynasty requirements. However, going by the Ottawa standard, they would have to win a cup on top of this year (or win the next two cups) to be labelled a dynasty by the lowest standards.

I would strongly be against the HHOF going below the 50% cup win ratio in calling a team a dynasty at the 4 cup threshold. In my opinion a dynasty is something that is and should be rare. Even in a cap era, I don't see the point in diluting its meaning. We are currently in our longest dynasty drought at 25 years but its not unheard of. there was a 20 year difference between the first two dynasties in the NHL. The term dynasty should be reserved for those teams that truly were the pinnacle of the NHL by winning at least 4 cups in 8 seasons (minimum) or winning 3 cups in a row.

 

[slappipappi]

Why should the definition change?

Actually, the definition has not changed.

People are creating a new one, called the Cap-Dynasty.

Why this is getting all those panties in a knot is beyond me.