The Chicago Blackhawks. A modern Dynasty?

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by JohnnySkittles

That would be the Oilers.

Nope you can thank Steve Smith for that

To each their own, but somewhere through time the line was moved back to include other teams...

For some reason the term powerforward was diluted to include Peter Forsberg. There's a need to label things and include ,but the term powerforward of old and the way it is used today are not the same. Dynasty and any other positive terms will not be immune to have the restrictions loosened to allow more in. Its a natural thing

[jayswin]

^^^^^^^

The NHL officially recognizes the 80's Oilers as a dynasty, and rightfully so.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by flameswin

^^^^^^^

The NHL officially recognizes the 80's Oilers as a dynasty, and rightfully so.

Doesn't change my point that somewhere along the line the term was diluted to include more...

There's advantages to the NHL to do so and they would be missing a chance to cash in on it if they didn't.

[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

I wouldn't call them a dynasty, the Islanders were that last one. I always remember it being 4 cups in 4 years but somewhere it's been diluted.

If people want to call them a dynasty, i understand the need to do so.

At the end of the day it's been and looks to be a dominant team for a long time, and that remains true regardless what label you choose or not choose to pin on it

Also the Habs and the Islanders had very little turnover and almost identical teams won all four Cups. The Oilers only had seven players win all five Cups. The Blackhawks have eight if you count Bickell-- who has his name engraved twice but played four games in 2010 playoffs.

[Hanna Sniper]

No other team has been considered a dynasty with only 3 cup victories regardless on ones stance on whether they need to be in consecutive years. 4 cups has always been a common belief until now that is

[dammage79]

So after reading this debate I get the sense that a true hockey Dynasty at Minimun should have 4 cup championships (consecutive or non-consecutive) in a decade to be considered.

I think I can wrap my head around that, save for the consecutive part. Thats the goal post I'd move for a modern Dynasty. in terms of comprimising with those that feel CHI is NOT a dynasty.

Still, the parity in this league is the closest it has ever been and with the cap what CHI has done is Dynasty worthy. The haven't lost a cup final in this run (3 for 3). But the road to the Finals will never be tougher. And is exponentially tougher than it has ever been in the past.

So I can see the oppositions parameters for a Dynasty and can possibly agree with it later on down the road. But Right now I still think CHI has earned Dynasty status given the added difficulty of getting to 3 cups in 6 years.

[Oil Stain]

Whether or not Chicago is ever officially recognized by the NHL as a dynasty (I'm not sure Bettman announcing it makes it official), they will certainly be remembered as the greatest post-lockout team of their generation.

Toews, Kane, Keith, Hossa, and the rest of the gang will be lionized, and celebrated in NHL history.

So in the end, it doesn't really matter if they are officially a true dynasty or not, as they are the gold standard for a modern hockey team to try and live up to, and will receive major amounts of praise.