The Chicago Blackhawks. A modern Dynasty?

[GreenLantern2814]

They have to win it all again. But if they cash in three, they're a dynasty.

If the Kings pull it together and win next year, they're a dynasty too. The term needs redefining anyway - the reality in which teams operate isn't remotely similar to dynasties passed.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

They have to win it all again. But if they cash in three, they're a dynasty.

If the Kings pull it together and win next year, they're a dynasty too. The term needs redefining anyway - the reality in which teams operate isn't remotely similar to dynasties passed.

It doesn't need redefining, then it becomes like the term generational talent, where the goalposts keeping getting widened simply so fans and media are able to use the term more often because claiming and discussing things is fun!

[driveway]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

They have to win it all again. But if they cash in three, they're a dynasty.

If the Kings pull it together and win next year, they're a dynasty too. The term needs redefining anyway - the reality in which teams operate isn't remotely similar to dynasties passed.

Nope they won't be. The absolute minimum is being a repeat Champion. It is possible we will never see repeat champions again, in which case we will not see a Dynasty.

[CliffFletcher]

If there's a general recognition that dynasties in the traditional sense are more or less impossible today, then we can either:

A) Change the definition of dynasty to recognize the qualities of an elite team today.

or

B) Come up with a new term for a team that is elite for a prolonged period of time (more than three years).

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by driveway

Nope they won't be. The absolute minimum is being a repeat Champion. It is possible we will never see repeat champions again, in which case we will not see a Dynasty.

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?

[Jables16]

Originally Posted by 4X4

This is your year! Cubs finally win the World Series. Against Miami?

Gotta put some money on the Cubbies!

[Resolute 14]

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?

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

[Resolute 14]

And as far as redefining 'dynasty' goes, that is like trying to put 30 in 50 on the same level as 50 in 50. If dynasties are a thing of the past, leave them in the past.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And as far as redefining 'dynasty' goes, that is like trying to put 30 in 50 on the same level as 50 in 50. If dynasties are a thing of the past, leave them in the past.

I disagree. Redefining 50 in 50 is requiring scaling objective measures with differing context that isn't inherent in them themselves.

By it's nature a sports dynasty is fluent and context is central to the idea. It's a subjective opinion and doesn't need to have a definition change

[thefoss1957]

Dynasty Schminesty...as long as Vancouver is No good, Edmonton is No good, and Detroit Sucks...all is well in the world!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1BFfTf8MNE

[CliffFletcher]

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.

Isn't it insulting to the top teams today that because of the dramatic expansion of the number of teams in the league and the imposition of a salary cap they will never be regarded as among the best teams in history, even if they show sustained excellence among their peers?

Changing our definition of dynasty is no different from how we've changed our perceptions of who is an elite scorer. Getting 30 goals used to a not especially impressive achievement in the 80s. Second line wingers on average teams managed it routinely. Now, it's much harder. We make a way bigger deal of 30 and 40 goal scorers than we used to. Is it insulting to Mark Hunter that Flames fans made such a big deal out of Monahan's 22 goals last season, when Hunter scored 22 goals for the Flames in '89 with no fanfare?

[Red Menace]

They are as much a dynasty as the teams of the past, who did it in 6 team leagues, or 21 team leagues without a salary cap.
Very impressive results, the best franchise of the salary cap era.

[normtwofinger]

Just call them an elite modern day team. Dynasty should be reserved for 3 in a row Cup winners, as it has been since forever.

[Poe969]

The hawks are elite, they're a perennial contender and have one of the best captains in Toews, defensemen in Keith, game-breakers in Kane and they're constantly getting good young talent.

I wouldn't call them a dynasty just because they don't dominate the league like those past dynasty teams used to. Because of parody in the league and the fact that hockey has become a popular sport across North America, you're seeing more good players come into the league and every year it seems that 10 or so teams draft a star player. The cap also makes it hard to buy all the talent.

All that being said, the whole "dynasty" meaning has changed in today's sport and I think the hawks are the closest thing to being a dynasty in the NHL.

[FlamesAddiction]

In that case, since fighting is on the way out, let's redefine what a fight means. Any time a player pushes another player, it should be considered a fight.

A "goon" is now a player that is over 215lbs and has at least 75 penalty minutes.

[Poe969]

wow... I'm not saying to change the definition. By definition, I don't think the NHL will see another dynasty. I guess that's the short answer. No, the hawks aren't a dynasty but they're the closest thing the league has seen in a while.

Seems like someone's got a case of the Moon-Days...

[ForeverFlameFan]

I think the definition of dynasty has to be tweaked since we are in a salary cap era now.

The Hawks are arguably the only team that you can consider a dynasty in this era since they've been in 5 of 7 conference finals now.

[troutman]

I would say so. The SF Giants are considered by some to be a dynasty with 3 wins in 5 years.

[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.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

As soon as "dynasty" has to be qualified, it is not a dynasty.

There is also a bit of absurdity in the attempts to redefine it (and I'm not picking on you OP, others have proposed the same) in that if the Kings reach the finals next year, we would have two "modern dynasties" overlapping.

Agreed.

If you have to explain why it should be considered a dynasty with a bunch of caveats then it's not a dynasty.

A dynasty has to be the unquestioned best team in the entire league for a period of 3 or 4 years at least. LA has been just as good as Chicago up until this year and Chicago hasn't even won the cup this year yet.

They're a very very good team and I'm happy for their fans and the NHL as having a strong team in a market like Chicago is just great for hockey overall. But I would not call them a dynasty. Not even remotely close actually.