Mad Brills*
Guest
IF the hawks win the cup this season, they will be a cap era "dynasty". Rather call them a great team.
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.
So the 80's Oilers don't count?
I don't think the Hawks can be a dynasty in the typical sense, but in the cap era, yes they are. In seven years, 14 series wins and counting. But consecutive first round losses disqualifies them as a true dynasty IMO.
There is no such thing as a cap era dynasty. It's either a dynasty or not. Oilers were the last one.
A cup in 2010 and one in 2013 doesn't even get a sniff at the word Dynasty for me. Two back to back cups this year as well as next, then we can at least discuss it.
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!
It's almost as if the Blackhawks didn't have the same issues after 2010 and Tallon forgot how to work a fax machine. Good thing those pesky Hawks were destroyed by the cap and weren't able to retool to become a good team again!
problem is the players on the 2010 Hawks actually had value its gonna take a lot for a team to take the contract of Richards 6.5 mil for 6 more years and Browns contract of 5+ for 6 years is not looking to great either. its gonna take allot of convincing and retained salary to move those two guys. With Stoll and Williams likely not being resigned Kings are gonna have to hope younger guys in the system can fill the holes
All this talk about the definition of the word dynasty is pretty dumb, IMO.
Think about it for a second.
What is more impressive?
1-Rolling a die 4 times and geting the same number every time
2-Throwing the ball at the roulette and getting the same number 3 times out of 6 (assume a 30 slots roulette just for the sake of argument).
Just calculate the odds on that and you'll see.
There is no such thing as a cap era dynasty. It's either a dynasty or not. Oilers were the last one.
A cup in 2010 and one in 2013 doesn't even get a sniff at the word Dynasty for me. Two back to back cups this year as well as next, then we can at least discuss it.
Chicago hasn't even been able to repeat as champions. Nor has been able to return to the finals the next season. Same goes for LA.
If the Red Wings still aren't considered a modern day dynasty after winning four(including a repeat) in the span of what...10-11 years?, then the same goes for those two until further notice.
Chicago hasn't even been able to repeat as champions. Nor has been able to return to the finals the next season. Same goes for LA.
If the Red Wings still aren't considered a modern day dynasty after winning four(including a repeat) in the span of what...10-11 years?, then the same goes for those two until further notice.
Chicago hasn't even been able to repeat as champions. Nor has been able to return to the finals the next season. Same goes for LA.
If the Red Wings still aren't considered a modern day dynasty after winning four(including a repeat) in the span of what...10-11 years?, then the same goes for those two until further notice.
You shouldnt be called a Dynasty if you cant even make the playoffs. Or barley make it in.
You shouldnt be called a Dynasty if you cant even make the playoffs. Or barley make it in.