Cap Era Dynasties

[gnarls barkley]

Calling the Hawks a dynasty (a great team in this era to be sure) is a slap in the face to actual dynasties such as the Bulls of the 90s.

Highly likely we won't see a dynasty in the NHL during this salary cap era.

 

[Brainiac]

You forgot to add a Salary cap on the Roulette

You're actually 100% right.

The die is slightly weighted towards 1 or 2 numbers and the roulette is fair.

 

[Holocene]

The rangers.




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

Those are "New York fans" not "Ranger fans".

 

[Sleepy]

The last officially recognized dynasty was the Oilers and that isn't going to change anytime soon.

They have 4 cups in 8 years for Ottawa. Back in 1919. When there were only 4 teams. If that's a dynasty, Chicago Winning 3 cups in 6 years among 30 teams in a cap world with the same core would definitely be a damn dynasty.

And if the NHL disagrees with that they are wrong.

 

[Osprey]

A dynasty is continual rule. You're not a dynasty if you gain power one year, lose it the next, get it back the next, then lose it again. What that is is a power struggle, which is what the Hawks and Kings have had going on. If either team had not existed, the other might have just about established a dynasty by now, but they both do exist and have been trading blows and seats on the throne. There might be a more technical term for that, but "dynasty" isn't it.

If the league ever has a real dynasty again, you'll know it when you see it. You won't have to look up definitions and split hairs to determine if it qualifies.

 

[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

No love for this method?

 

[Eric Sachs]

No love for this method?

fine with it until you allow for a team's dynasty to continue on forever as long as they make the playoffs

making the playoffs in this league isn't that big of accomplishment when more than half the teams in the league get in every year

for me:
Dynasties must win a majority of the Cups in any 5+ year period (i.e. 3 cups in 5 years, 4 cups in 7 years, 5 cups in 8 years, etc.).

That's it. I don't care what they do otherwise. The goal is winning Stanley Cups, not making the playoffs or losing in the Finals. Dynasty starts and ends with that time span.

That's what a dynasty means to me, completely dominating the league such that they won more Cups than EVERYONE ELSE combined over a fairly significant span of time.

 

[cbh]

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)

Going by that method.......
the Montreal Canadiens dynasty of the 1950s (6 team league, save for last 2) lasted 17 years (won Cup in 1952-53, won 10 overall, last one in 1968-69, made the playoffs other 7 years)

the Canadiens dynasty of the 1970s (14-24 team league) lasted 23 years (won Cup in 1970-71, won 8 overall, last one in 1992-93, made the playoffs other 15 years)

fine with it until you allow for a team's dynasty to continue on forever as long as they make the playoffs

making the playoffs in this league isn't that big of accomplishment when more than half the teams in the league get in every year


I don't care what they do otherwise. The goal is winning Stanley Cups, not making the playoffs or losing in the Finals. Dynasty starts and ends with that time span.

That's what a dynasty means to me, completely dominating the league such that they won more Cups than EVERYONE ELSE combined over a fairly significant span of time.

Yup...pretty much.

 

[Rorschach]

fine with it until you allow for a team's dynasty to continue on forever as long as they make the playoffs

making the playoffs in this league isn't that big of accomplishment when more than half the teams in the league get in every year

for me:
Dynasties must win a majority of the Cups in any 5+ year period (i.e. 3 cups in 5 years, 4 cups in 7 years, 5 cups in 8 years, etc.).

That's it. I don't care what they do otherwise. The goal is winning Stanley Cups, not making the playoffs or losing in the Finals. Dynasty starts and ends with that time span.

That's what a dynasty means to me, completely dominating the league such that they won more Cups than EVERYONE ELSE combined over a fairly significant span of time.

I think we need a new definition due to the cap and the number of teams. The bolded part above is a good place to start.

 

[Church of Toews*]

No love for this method?

lol dat gap

 

[Nemesis Prime]

A dynasty is continual rule. You're not a dynasty if you gain power one year, lose it the next, get it back the next, then lose it again. What that is is a power struggle, which is what the Hawks and Kings have had going on. If either team had not existed, the other might have just about established a dynasty by now, but they both do exist and have been trading blows and seats on the throne. There might be a more technical term for that, but "dynasty" isn't it.

If the league ever has a real dynasty again, you'll know it when you see it. You won't have to look up definitions and split hairs to determine if it qualifies.

This.

Chicago is not a dynasty and changing definition just to fit your argument that they are is asinine.

 

[LarKing]

We're never going to see a dynasty again with that ridiculous set of standards. Too much parity and luck in the league for a team to win like 4 cups in 5 years or something ridiculous like that.

 

[kingsfan28]

There will probably have to be a new definition of dynasty in the modern era. We'll likely never see a team rip off multiple cups in a row like in the 80's , too many good teams.I 'd say you'd have to win at least 3 over say 5 or 6 years, and right now it a race to 3 between LA and CHI.

 

[Eisen]

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.

There is not a whole lot of difference though between not making it or losing in the first round.

 

[Any Colour You Like]

Hawks with 5 Conference Finals in 7 seasons is as close as you're gonna get. In the cap era there's not much more you can realistically do.

 

[ashenhigh]

Hawks with 5 Conference Finals in 7 seasons is as close as you're gonna get. In the cap era there's not much more you can realistically do.

We've only had 10 seasons of the cap era.... give it time. Also consider that the draft picks used the create the current core of the Blackhawks were obtained basically during the years of 2002-2007. Just sit back, and lets see what happens over the next few years with newly rebuilt teams using draft picks in the 2010s, all completely done in a cap era.

 

[icekoob]

Hawks - Kings co-dynasty. Book it.

 

[icekoob]

Best part is Toews/Kane are just entering prime. Believe it can happen, if anyone does it.

 

[Bleedred]

When did the Capitals ever have a dynasty?

 

[Kirikanoir]

They have 4 cups in 8 years for Ottawa. Back in 1919. When there were only 4 teams. If that's a dynasty, Chicago Winning 3 cups in 6 years among 30 teams in a cap world with the same core would definitely be a damn dynasty.

And if the NHL disagrees with that they are wrong.

Ottawa also made the final 8 times in 9 years.

 

[who_me?]

When did the Capitals ever have a dynasty?

Southeast division champs.

Winter classic champs.

 

[Bleedred]

Southeast division champs.

Winter classic champs.

Blowing 2 game series leads in playoffs champs too.

Game 7 loser champs too.