Which Avs players/prospects will benefit the most from this offseason?

[Sea Eagles]

I typically think a dynasty has to have B2B Cup wins at minimum. I think the Pens have a good shout at being considered one and I know that the Hawks didn’t have a B2B but I could be convinced because 3 in 5 is incredibly impressive.

Well Kings won in 2012 and 2014 (I think those were the years, don't quote me, too lazy to research hahaha), but their inconsistency to me leads me to feel they weren't a dynasty, plus their highs and lows in the standings. One year, it was actually a shock they won it all.

I guess it's a culmination of many and various things, and at the end of the day, comes down to opinion.

It's pretty exciting that we are debating the potential of our club entering a dynasty era. I remember not long ago, people were debating what we'd get with our 1st overall draft choice, and whether Greg Zanon should play right or left D over Matt Hunwick, while Mark Olver & Tomas Vincour were going to be our call-ups. Not sure if you remember this player, but I used to get excited about the potential of Aaron Palushaj.....wow has Joe Sakic ever changed the face of this organization.

Love it how the media, and hockey world calls us terms like Benchmark, heavyweights, cup contenders and things.

Life is good as an Avs fan right now.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Well Kings won in 2012 and 2014 (I think those were the years, don't quote me, too lazy to research hahaha), but their inconsistency to me leads me to feel they weren't a dynasty, plus their highs and lows in the standings. One year, it was actually a shock they won it all.

I guess it's a culmination of many and various things, and at the end of the day, comes down to opinion.

It's pretty exciting that we are debating the potential of our club entering a dynasty era. I remember not long ago, people were debating what we'd get with our 1st overall draft choice, and whether Greg Zanon should play right or left D over Matt Hunwick, while Mark Olver & Tomas Vincour were going to be our call-ups. Not sure if you remember this player, but I used to get excited about the potential of Aaron Palushaj.....wow has Joe Sakic ever changed the face of this organization.

Love it how the media, and hockey world calls us terms like Benchmark, heavyweights, cup contenders and things.

Life is good as an Avs fan right now.

Yeah I don’t think the kings were good enough long enough to be a contender. The Hawks and Pens are the only ones who could be imo.

 

[Balthazar]

Back to back cups wouldn't cut it (it has to be over a long period of time). I do believe that the Hawks should be considered a dynasty under some updated standards that'd fit today's reality (salary cap and 30+ teams in the league).

 

[The Abusement Park]

Back to back cups wouldn't cut it (it has to be over a long period of time). I do believe that the Hawks should be considered a dynasty under some updated standards that'd fit today's reality (salary cap and 30+ teams in the league).

Like I said it’d have to be minimum B2B. But also with how the league is now with a salary cap I don’t think you’ll be getting any dynasties of old.

 

[McMetal]

Nobody will ever again win 5 cups in 7 years. You simply can't build a dominant team that lasts that long under the salary cap. So we do have a redefine "dynasty" downwards for the modern era. At a minimum, though, you'd need at least two cups with the same core to be considered something like a modern dynasty, and that's a really tall order considering how many good teams (and great players) are going to be knocking at that door any given year.

 

[S E P H]

Blackhawks for me is absolutely a dynasty, Kings were on the cusp but if they won one more in the same time-frame as the Hawks then I think they should be classified as one. I don't think the Penguins are one either, sure they are known as a winning team and have won a lot but they had a lot of fortunate aspects that lead to their back-to-back Cups like an injured Johansen and a Suisse cheese Rinne (Penguins Cups are just too far apart from each other as well). I suggest that Penguins wins are closer to the Avs in organisation than the 90s Red Wings which were another dynasty to me as they won 3 in 6 years.

 

[henchman21]

Blackhawks for me is absolutely a dynasty, Kings were on the cusp but if they won one more in the same time-frame as the Hawks then I think they should be classified as one. I don't think the Penguins are one either, sure they are known as a winning team and have won a lot but they had a lot of fortunate aspects that lead to their back-to-back Cups like an injured Johansen and a Suisse cheese Rinne (Penguins Cups are just too far apart from each other as well). I suggest that Penguins wins are closer to the Avs in organisation than the 90s Red Wings which were another dynasty to me as they won 3 in 6 years.

I'd probably consider the Pens a dynasty... but they are a lower level one compared to the Hawks. 3 in 6 is pretty damn solid. Pens did 3 in 9, but the stretch between 1-2 wasn't really close so I'd get a debate they aren't a dynasty. The Kings weren't a dynasty as they just didn't win enough titles.

 

[Islay1989]

You can't be a dynasty winning 33% of the Cups in a decade. And no the Hawks are not a dynasty. You need at least to have a back to back title.

 

[henchman21]

You can't be a dynasty winning 33% of the Cups in a decade. And no the Hawks are not a dynasty. You need at least to have a back to back title.

So a team could in theory, win 5 of 10 in a decade and not be a dynasty in your eyes?

 

[McMetal]

You can't be a dynasty winning 33% of the Cups in a decade. And no the Hawks are not a dynasty. You need at least to have a back to back title.

That wouldn't constitute a dynasty in the old days, but in the salary cap world, even two Cups with the same core is a pretty remarkable feat given how many things have to line up perfectly for you to win even one. Three in a decade is incredible under those circumstances. Most Cup windows only last a few years for teams before they slam shut.

 

[The Abusement Park]

You can't be a dynasty winning 33% of the Cups in a decade. And no the Hawks are not a dynasty. You need at least to have a back to back title.

So you could win 5 in a decade alternating years and it wouldn’t be a dynasty to you?

 

[Balthazar]

So you could win 5 in a decade alternating years and it wouldn’t be a dynasty to you?

The 2 cups in a row is BS but in your example it would only be a dynasty if the team kept the same core for the whole decade.

 

[The Abusement Park]

The 2 cups in a row is BS but in your example it would only be a dynasty if the team kept the same core for the whole decade.

Why? So if the 80’s Islanders traded Potvin and Bossy for Gretzky and Bourque after the 2nd cup that wouldn’t count as a dynasty?

 

[McMetal]

The 2 cups in a row is BS but in your example it would only be a dynasty if the team kept the same core for the whole decade.

I think you're talking to me. I'm using "the same core" as a stand-in for one generation of a team. Generally, if you win Cups with a core guy you tend to keep them. The Hawks moved out a bunch of supporting pieces over those years to stay under the cap, but Toews, Kane, Hossa, Keith, and Seabrook always stayed. Bowman knew who was expendable and who was not, and it wasn't until the inevitable legacy contracts for the core kicked in that things started to go downhill and their window closed

I mean, if you want to get technical about it, sure you could swap cores, win again, and you could still call it a dynasty. But I can't think of any instance where a team just moved out a bunch of core guys in lateral moves for other core guys, much less winning a championship that way. It just doesn't happen.