The Chicago Blackhawks. A modern Dynasty?

[D as in David]

So if a future team winds up winning 3 or more cups in a row, do we re-define dynasty again? Just because we can't imagine it happening based upon what we currently see in the league doesn't mean that it won't happen. Never is a long time.

I understand that there is no clear definition of what a dynasty is (as evidenced by this thread) but moving the goalposts by adding into consideration extenuating factors, results in a debate that can never clearly be ended. Edit: I guess that's why we have threads that exceed one page.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

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.

Not sure why you're referencing the '86 Habs and '89 Flames; as far as I know, no one has ever considered them a dynasty. I think I'm probably not understanding your point here.

People aren't arguing that other cup winners are taking away from previous dynasties; they're arguing that people are taking away from the term "dynasty" and what it takes to be considered one.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Not sure why you're referencing the '86 Habs and '89 Flames; as far as I know, no one has ever considered them a dynasty. I think I'm probably not understanding your point here.

People aren't arguing that other cup winners are taking away from previous dynasties; they're arguing that people are taking away from the term "dynasty" and what it takes to be considered one.

Unfortunately you did misunderstand his point. Those '86 Habs and '89 Flames disrupted The Oilers Dynasty.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by flameswin

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.

What are these agreed upon define parameters?

Prolonged Elite level success with the same core group of players.
Check.

Ability to replace "role" players without missing a beat.
Check.

Multiple championships in a short period of time.
(this is my personal judgement call, they need to win this series)

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Unfortunately you did misunderstand his point. Those '86 Habs and '89 Flames disrupted The Oilers Dynasty.

Thanks for the clarification! I was a Winnipeg resident (and Jets fan) back in those days so I had successfully removed all details of both Alberta NHL teams' success in that era from my memory. Only since moving here in '95 and eventually adopting the Flames have I added back their memories. All I can remember about the Oilers is that they are no good. I suspect that is forever unforgettable.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

IMO a dynasty is 4 cups in a row, this was pretty widely accepted prior to the dead puck era and the most recent expansion. There hasn't been a dynasty since the Islanders of the early 80s and that's okay, it being rare is what makes it special. The Oilers were almost a dynasty but choked in epic and hilarious fashion in 1986. They are the closest thing we've seen to a dynasty since the Isles. We may never see another again, and there's nothing wrong with that. There's no need to dilute the meaning of the word to make a modern team fit the definition.

What if a team does win 4 in a row again? It's entirely possible given enough time. It will look pretty silly to be calling teams like Chicago, LA and Detroit "dynasties" when a real one comes along. Those are all great team, amazing even... but dynasties they are not.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

IMO a dynasty is 4 cups in a row, this was pretty widely accepted prior to the dead puck era and the most recent expansion. There hasn't been a dynasty since the Islanders of the early 80s and that's okay, it being rare is what makes it special. The Oilers were almost a dynasty but choked in epic and hilarious fashion in 1986. They are the closest thing we've seen to a dynasty since the Isles. We may never see another again, and there's nothing wrong with that. There's no need to dilute the meaning of the word to make a modern team fit the definition.

What if a team does win 4 in a row again? It's entirely possible given enough time. It will look pretty silly to be calling teams like Chicago, LA and Detroit "dynasties" when a real one comes along. Those are all great team, amazing even... but dynasties they are not.

I agree with your overall point however the Oilers are officially recognized as a dynasty by the NHL and they should be. They're the most recent.

[White Out 403]

80's Oilers are certainly a dynasty, Phoenix.

[driveway]

Here are the requirements for being a dynasty, regardless of sport or era.

1. Only championships matter. Regular season success is meaningless.

2. Must win 3 or more Championships.

3. Must repeat as Champions at least once.

4. Must have significant continuity in personel, and both players and coaches can be considered. This is the only area open to interpretation or debate. More weight should be given to star players and head coaches.

A team meets those requirements and they're in, they don't and they're not. The SF Giants are not a dynasty, neither are the Blackhawks or Kings, nor are the Spurs or Heat.

Edmonton was the last NHL dynasty (gross).

In MLB it was the 1996-2000 Yankees.

In football it was the 2002-2005 Patriots.

In the NBA it was the 2000-2002 Lakers.

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by flameswin

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.

What are the parameters? The only common theme I can see in all the 8 recognized NHL Dynasty (9 if you count the 19'-27' Senators like the HHOF does) is... nothing.

It's not two cups in a row, because the 91/92 Penguins and 74/75 Flyers aren't recognized as dynasties.

It's not four cups in a row, because 5 recognized dynasties didn't do it.

It's not dominate the regular season and the playoffs, because teams like the Bruins, Flyers, Flames and Blues were as good, if not better than some of the dynasty teams in the regular season.

So what are they?

[driveway]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

What are the parameters? The only common theme I can see in all the 8 recognized NHL Dynasty (9 if you count the 19'-27' Senators like the HHOF does) is... nothing.

It's not two cups in a row, because the 91/92 Penguins and 74/75 Flyers aren't recognized as dynasties.

It's not four cups in a row, because 5 recognized dynasties didn't do it.

It's not dominate the regular season and the playoffs, because teams like the Bruins, Flyers, Flames and Blues were as good, if not better than some of the dynasty teams in the regular season.

So what are they?

Dude, I just listed them and they're right above your post.

[Itse]

A simple definition of "at least 3 cups in 4 years" would also cover all previous dynasties.

I think extending that to "at least 3 cups in 5 years" due to increased parity and the number of teams is not too crazy.

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by driveway

Dude, I just listed them and they're right above your post.

Dude, you listed them while I was still working on my post.

Also, your consecutive cup rule doesn't work. Detroit won consecutive Cups in 97 and 98, then won their third in 02 and they aren't recognized as a dynasty. So what's the rule you haven't thought up yet?

Edit: As I didn't read Itse's post until after I posted, 3 cups in 4 years sounds like a perfect rule to kill any and all debates

If the 98-02 Wings aren't a dynasty, then the 10-15 Hawks have zero chance at becoming a dynasty, unless they win this years AND next years cups

[doctajones428]

Double post nm

[Caged Great]

I think 4 wins in 7 years would make a team a dynasty. 3/6, while very very good, isn't spectacular.

[Robbob]

Makes you wonder what could have been if they didn't have to get rid of players like Ladd and Buff.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

If the 98-02 Wings aren't a dynasty, then the 10-15 Hawks have zero chance at becoming a dynasty, unless they win this years AND next years cups

But the biggest rationale for changing the definition of a dynasty is the salary cap. Those Wings teams were pre-cap, and there's no way they would have fit under a cap.

Originally Posted by Robbob

Makes you wonder what could have been if they didn't have to get rid of players like Ladd and Buff.

And Campbell, and Bolland. Brouwer. Leddy. Pretty good odds they have another Cup or two if there's no cap.

[FlamesAddiction]

Loosening the definition for what a dynasty is just because it is harder to achieve now would be changing hat tricks to being 2 goals in a game instead of 3 just because scoring is lower now than it was the last time dynasties were around.

Chicago's sustained success may very well be more impressive than some of the past dynasties, but that doesn't mean it is a dynasty.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Loosening the definition for what a dynasty is just because it is harder to achieve now would be changing hat tricks to being 2 goals in a game instead of 3 just because scoring is lower now than it was the last time dynasties were around.

Chicago's sustained success may very well be more impressive than some of the past dynasties, but that doesn't mean it is a dynasty.

People have differing opinions on whether 'dynasty' has a concrete, fixed meaning like the term 'hat-trick', of if it's a more flexible concept, like 'sniper' (which has changed dramatically in the last 30 years).

James Mirtle at the Globe and Mail chimes in:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...ticle24715839/

"If being clearly better than everyone else, over a sustained stretch, is a dynasty, they are it – especially if they win again here.

Or as close as we’re likely to get."

[polak]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

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

Yes. That's exactly what it does. How can there be two potential dynasties at the same time?

How can you even argue that a team that has actually LOST more than they won, championship wise in their time frame, is a dynasty? It makes no sense. Even if they win this year and are at 3/6 they still LOST as much as they won. Not a dynasty.

4/7 we're getting there as that creates a repeat and two more cups.