The Chicago Blackhawks. A modern Dynasty?

[CroFlames]

The Hawks are the closest thing to a dynasty if they win 3 in 6. I don't think they are a dynasty, despite the fact there is no real definition of a dynasty. It's open for interpretation.

I will say that if Chicago wins 3 in 6 in the cap era, that is more impressive to me than the 3 in a row for the Leafs in the late 40s when in all likelihood, a lot of potential talent perished in the war, and folks were still recuperating. Chicago getting 3 in 6 would also beat out Montreal's 5 in a row in the 50s in the pre expansion era.

The 4 in a row by both MTL and NYI in the 70s and 80s is pretty darn impressive though and I think even if Chicago wins 3 in 6, it doesn't equal these generally accepted dynasties of the 70s and 80s. I reluctantly add the Oilers dynasty of the 80s in this category as well.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Does anyone consider the '97 - '02 Red Wings as a dynasty? 3 cups in 6 years. I've never heard anybody call that group a dynasty and nor should they.

If Chicago wins another cup, that will be 3 in 6 years. If you're going to call this group of Hawks a dynasty, then you'd better start calling those Red Wings a dynasty as well.

That DET team operated when there was no salary cap. Apples and oranges.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The NHL recognizes eight dynasties, and it would be pretty insulting to all of them to redefine the term to fit this Chicago squad into it at this point.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=31167

Yeah...but if there hasnt been a 'Dynasty' in 30 years without people recognizing that the league, the rules, the players and the sport overall have changed then you've either got to retire the term or move the goalposts.

The 1940s-era Leafs were a Dynasty? Because they won a lot? The other 5 teams must have sucked.

Theres no modern day Dynasties you say? It couldnt be because theres 5 times as many teams and so its much harder to win year after year after year?

[polak]

Salary cap or not doesn't change the definition of what a dynasty is.

They're simply not a dynasty.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by polak

Salary cap or not doesn't change the definition of what a dynasty is.

They're simply not a dynasty.

Why? There's no objective definition

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by polak

Salary cap or not doesn't change the definition of what a dynasty is.

They're simply not a dynasty.

The days of teams dominating the league are over, period. It's not happening anymore.

Plus, what is the real definition of dynasty?

People have different interpretations. 5 conference finals in 7 years, potentially 3 cups in 6 is pretty close. 6 conference finals & 4 cups might put them over the edge for me personally to consider them dynastic.

Best part about this, is I see a little bit of the Hawks framework being built in Calgary. So here's hoping we argue if the Flames are a dynasty 10 or 12 years from now

[Street Pharmacist]

"A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for an extraordinary length of time."


The term "extraordinary" changes with time as what is "ordinary" is definitely different now

[Resolute 14]

Except the Hawks haven't dominated the league. They may have been the best team for an arbitrary period of time, but that isn't the same.

[Jason14h]

They have finished 1st, 3rd, 4th, 1st, 3rd, 3rd in the Central last 6 years. They may win their 3rd cup in 6 years, but no one really thinks of Chicago as heads above the rest of the league.

That's what is required in a Dynasty.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Why? There's no objective definition

What would you call a dynasty then?

A team that wins sometimes but not really anymore than some of the other really good teams in the league?

I 100% agree that the parity in the league has made dynasties unlikely but that doesn't mean the standard for what a dynasty is should be lowered. Especially to the point where we consider teams who have won two cups in 5 years a dynasty when another team has done something similar during the same time.

Just cause we don't have them anymore doesn't mean we lower the bar for them.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Except the Hawks haven't dominated the league. They may have been the best team for an arbitrary period of time, but that isn't the same.

I agree with this statement, but I feel the Hawks are a modern-day Dynasty. I think this is likely as good as it can get in the modern day game.

They havent dominated the league, but thats a testament to the quality of the rest of the league.

The Edmonton Oilers aside, almost any team can win on any given night.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by troutman

That DET team operated when there was no salary cap. Apples and oranges.

Apples to apples.

Det had 3 cups in 6 years.

Chicago might have 3 cups in 6 years.

Are we not judging these teams on the cups they have won? As soon as you start throwing in other variables like cap, then you have to take a look at other variables for past dynasties. Things like expansion, less teams to play against, etc.


Merriam-Webster dictionary defines dynasty as:

: a family of rulers who rule over a country for a long period of time; also : the period of time when a particular dynasty is in power

: a family, team, etc., that is very powerful or successful for a long period of time

Now going by that definition, would that take into account the regular season? The official definition doesn't specify. Detroit was certainly a ''dynasty'' if so. If we are going by championships, then really the last team to fit that definition would be the Oilers with the 5 cups in 7 years.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Exactly, and plus, how many dynasties have there actually been in the NHL? Is it maybe a little bit of revisionist history by fans that think there always used to be dynasties when really there was only a few over the entire course of history?

Until between 1946 and 1990 there was almost always a dynasty around.



Personal opinions:
- I think it's okay to move to redefine a dynasty for the current era.
- I don't think the Blackhawks measure up even if they win (which I expect they will.)

I agree with whoever it was that said that the definition of a dynasty has to be such that there can be only one. As things are, if the Kings win next season they will have as many championships as the Chicago but in a shorter timeframe.

What ever the modern definition of a dynasty, I think it has to be
- More than a double championship (which in itself would be impressive)
- By definition something that only one team in a given timeframe could achieve.

Examples of modern dynasty could be making the finals 3 times in 4 years and winning at least twice or 3 championships in 5 years.

[CliffFletcher]

Someone who potted a mere 25 goals in 1987 would not have been called a sniper by anyone. Jim frickin' Peplinski managed it once. And yet score 25 goals today and you're a sniper. Probably get a sweet contract from your pure sniping ability. It's almost as though the term has evolved as the league has changed.

[Winsor_Pilates]

I wouldn't use the term dynasty but they are the closest the league has seen in a while.

[jayswin]

I'm not on board for redefining the term dynasty just so we can have a current dynasty, but if we were going to redefine it my bare minimum requirement would be 3 cups in 5 years and 2 of those cups would have to be in consecutive years.

Even those requirements are a huge change from past dynasties, but some of you guys are reaching way too far to try and crown a new dynasty, imo.

[jayswin]

I think if Chicago wins the cup this year and next year then you've got yourself a modern day dynasty. If they win this year, then don't win it again with this core?

Then you've just got yourself a really, really great modern era hockey team to look back on, and that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that.

[#-3]

3 in 6 years would be huge.

When you think back to teams that one 4 in 5 or 6 years there were 2/3rds of the teams.

Statistically its pretty much the same level of success, in the cap era.

If anything they are more of a dynasty than the Wings from the turn of the century, and on par with the Ilses/Oil of the 80's.

If they can keep this up for another 15 or 20 years than they might start to hit Habs level Dynasty.

[doctajones428]

Yes, if they win this Cup they are a dynasty.

Just because others teams have been as good as another it doesn't take away from what they accomplished.

The 86 Habs and 89 Flames didn't take away from the Oilers dynasty, nor did the 70/72 Bruins and 74/75 Flyers take away from the Habs dynasty.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

Yes, if they win this Cup they are a dynasty

They wouldn't be, no. Do you mean you'd like them to be considered a dynasty? I think that's what everyone is discussing, if we should change the parameters.