The Chicago Blackhawks. A modern Dynasty?

[FlamesAddiction]

Bettman was probably just itching to be able to use it because it has marketing potential.

In my mind, it isn't quite a dynasty, but whatever.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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.



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

Don't forget Andrew Ladd and Dustin Byfuglien.

Pretty amazing what Stan Bowman did in replacing thse players and still having an elite hockey team.

[dino7c]

salary cap and more teams...its harder to win 3 of 5 these days than it was to win 3 plus back in the day if you ask me

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by 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.

sure but no salary cap and 16 of 21 teams made the playoffs

[Wedge]

I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but if the Kings win a cup in the next two years are they a dynasty as well? Especially with so much overlap in terms of years with the Hawks.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Wedge

I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but if the Kings win a cup in the next two years are they a dynasty as well? Especially with so much overlap in terms of years with the Hawks.

I don't know.

Duration - Hawks way longer
Regular season - Hawks way better record and haven't missed the playoffs
Post season - Hawks gave way more wins
Individuals - Way more individual accomplishments


Even if LA wins another, it's not close

[NiklasSundblad]

Man, it wasn't that long ago when the Hawks were a complete joke, with local TV blackouts and an insane ownership- If this isn't a dynasty it's an example of a perfectly executed rebuild.

[jessnuts]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

jessnuts, I love your passion.

Thank you! Not sure what you meant by this (considering my semi-ambiguous comment), but I'm glad you noticed I'm all heart lol

[Hockey_Ninja]

I wouldn't call them a dynasty, but I think this is as close as we'll get in this era.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

I wouldn't call them a dynasty, but I think this is as close as we'll get in this era.

Another cup in the next 2 seasons would end the debate. It would not shock me if the Blackhawks could do it.

[Red Menace]

Let's just remember that the term "dynasty" is an arbitrary label that people are assigning to this achievement. There is no definition as to what it is, people are just making it up.
What is clear is that the Hawks achievement over the past 6 years is as statistically impressive as the so called dynasties of the 80s and before, considering the number of teams in the league and the salary cap restrictions in place.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by dino7c

sure but no salary cap and 16 of 21 teams made the playoffs

So?

21 teams or 30, 16 still make the playoffs, and well constructed teams consistently so. That the Hawks are well constructed doesn't make them a dynasty.

[Northendzone]

Bettman called it last night - they are a dynasty

[troutman]

Brady = Posey = Toews

Very similar career starts. Discuss.

[codynw]

In a few years when the Flames are a legitimate dynasty everyone who said the Hawks are "as close as we're ever gonna get in this era" is going to look pretty ridiculous.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

Bettman called it last night - they are a dynasty

Thank goodness the New York lawyer weighed in on it.


Seabrook also said that Chicago has the best fans in the world. I guess that is settled too.

Using the term "dynasty" carries a lot of potential marketing power. That is Bettman's primary motive.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Thank goodness the New York lawyer weighed in on it.


Seabrook also said that Chicago has the best fans in the world. I guess that is settled too.

Using the term "dynasty" carries a lot of potential marketing power. That is Bettman's primary motive.

The commissioner of the league you mean.


It's a dynasty. Deal with it

[CroFlames]

I don't think they are a dynasty. They are the dominant franchise of this era, but not a dynasty.

I think you at least need back-to-back Cups, sprinkled in with a one or two more, but not necessarily repeats. If Hawks repeat next year, they will be a dynasty.

One thing is certain, it is a treat as a hockey fan (especially as a Canadian) to watch Mr Toews go to work. What a gem is all I can say. Reminds me of watching Sakic or Yzerman in their primes.

And Stan Bowman for constructing such a great team with so many great parts.

[Joborule]

3 cups in 6 seasons. How difficult is that to accomplish in the environment of not just the NHL, but professional sports leagues in general these days?

They deserve the credentials of a dynasty. No one team in the league has been as consistently successful as they've been for the past several seasons.

[polak]

They have lost as much as they won in those 6 years.

You are not a dynasty if you win 50% of the time...

Very very very very good team though but they still haven't shown the ability to completely dominate the league so they're not a dynasty.