Rite of Spring '15: exhume our idols! bury our friends!

[Sport]

Now, while I would like to see Chicago win, it needs to be noted that, if they do, they are not a dynasty. A "quasi-dynasty"? Sure. An "as-close-as-you-can-realistically-come-to-a-dynasty-in-the-salary-cap-world" success story? Yup. But a true dynasty? No chance. The '80s Oilers, '40s Leafs, and '60s Habs were all true dynasties. But the 2010s Hawks? Don't get me wrong, winning three Cups in six years would be very impressive, but it's nowhere near those historical precedents.

It's important to remember, though, that the 40's Leafs and 60's Habs only had 5 other teams to deal with. Even the 80's Oilers (plus 1990) were only working in a 21 team league with no salary cap. Fact is, winning the cup was easier back then. It's not too ridiculous to stretch the definition of dynasty to match where the league is in terms of size now.

If the Blackhawks win their third cup in 6 years I'll give them the dynasty label, this will be the Blackhawks era, and place them on the same level as the late 90's/early 2000's Red Wings who also won 3 cups in a 6 year stretch.

[Still MIGHTY]

Yeah, they'll be a dynasty. It's not just the Cups. It's the consistent run of competition. It's not like say the San Francisco Giants run of 3 in 5 where they missed the playoffs when not winning it and before that. There's really no way to try and label what they've done as flukes. The run started with making the West Final in 2009, winning the Cup in 2010, a small lull with almost completing the 3-0 comeback in that epic Canucks series in 2011 and the aberration of the Coyotes series in 2012, then winning the Cup in 2013, losing in OT of Game 7 of the West Final last year. Now if they get past the Ducks and make the Cup Fin- OH GOD ING DAMN IT.

They've either won the Cup or been legitimate threats for the Cup. Despite the kvetching of some of the Blackhawks fans, this has been a great run of excellence. We all know about the impending cap problems and what not, but still, with Toews and Kane in tow, they are still going to be good. They're still going to be the team others, especially in the West, will measure themselves against.

So yes, in the modern interpretation of it, the Blackhawks are a dynasty.

[youcan'tseeme]

Now, while I would like to see Chicago win, it needs to be noted that, if they do, they are not a dynasty. A "quasi-dynasty"? Sure. An "as-close-as-you-can-realistically-come-to-a-dynasty-in-the-salary-cap-world" success story? Yup. But a true dynasty? No chance. The '80s Oilers, '40s Leafs, and '60s Habs were all true dynasties. But the 2010s Hawks? Don't get me wrong, winning three Cups in six years would be very impressive, but it's nowhere near those historical precedents.

It's important to remember, though, that the 40's Leafs and 60's Habs only had 5 other teams to deal with. Even the 80's Oilers (plus 1990) were only working in a 21 team league with no salary cap. Fact is, winning the cup was easier back then. It's not too ridiculous to stretch the definition of dynasty to match where the league is in terms of size now.

If the Blackhawks win their third cup in 6 years I'll give them the dynasty label, this will be the Blackhawks era, and place them on the same level as the late 90's/early 2000's Red Wings who also won 3 cups in a 6 year stretch.

While I agree with the 2nd half of the post, the first half of the post does not support it. Less teams does not equal it being easier. Latvia will never win an Olympic Gold Medal in mens hockey so long as the NHL is participating. Less teams equals more talent per team and thus better teams. If we made 6 All-Star teams now, though you'd have 1 in 6 odds technically, the work required to actually defeat one of those 6 teams would be far greater than any team assembled today.

[HedleyLamarr]

The talent should be spread out more evenly amongst six teams, but player transactions aren't like what they are now. Not really much of a free agency or draft in the Original Six era. Every team wasn't on equal terms.

[infrared41]

Now, while I would like to see Chicago win, it needs to be noted that, if they do, they are not a dynasty. A "quasi-dynasty"? Sure. An "as-close-as-you-can-realistically-come-to-a-dynasty-in-the-salary-cap-world" success story? Yup. But a true dynasty? No chance. The '80s Oilers, '40s Leafs, and '60s Habs were all true dynasties. But the 2010s Hawks? Don't get me wrong, winning three Cups in six years would be very impressive, but it's nowhere near those historical precedents.

Just my opinion, but I think every dynasty should be judged against nothing more than the era in which it took place. Talent level, conditioning, labor agreements, travel, and a whole bunch of other stuff plays a role in every era and any dynasty of that era. Based on the current...era, I guess, if the Blackhawks win their 3rd Cup since 2010, that's a dynasty in my book.

[Sport]

Now, while I would like to see Chicago win, it needs to be noted that, if they do, they are not a dynasty. A "quasi-dynasty"? Sure. An "as-close-as-you-can-realistically-come-to-a-dynasty-in-the-salary-cap-world" success story? Yup. But a true dynasty? No chance. The '80s Oilers, '40s Leafs, and '60s Habs were all true dynasties. But the 2010s Hawks? Don't get me wrong, winning three Cups in six years would be very impressive, but it's nowhere near those historical precedents.

It's important to remember, though, that the 40's Leafs and 60's Habs only had 5 other teams to deal with. Even the 80's Oilers (plus 1990) were only working in a 21 team league with no salary cap. Fact is, winning the cup was easier back then. It's not too ridiculous to stretch the definition of dynasty to match where the league is in terms of size now.

If the Blackhawks win their third cup in 6 years I'll give them the dynasty label, this will be the Blackhawks era, and place them on the same level as the late 90's/early 2000's Red Wings who also won 3 cups in a 6 year stretch.

While I agree with the 2nd half of the post, the first half of the post does not support it. Less teams does not equal it being easier. Latvia will never win an Olympic Gold Medal in mens hockey so long as the NHL is participating. Less teams equals more talent per team and thus better teams. If we made 6 All-Star teams now, though you'd have 1 in 6 odds technically, the work required to actually defeat one of those 6 teams would be far greater than any team assembled today.

I've only ever seen O6 fans make the argument that fewer teams makes it harder to win and it makes no sense.

Fewer teams absolutely makes things easier. If there were 30 teams back in 1960 there's no way the Canadiens would've won as many cups as they did because they would've had 6 times as many opponents with the opportunity to knock them off.

If there's only 6 teams each team's level of talent would be better, but everything is relative so that means your team's level of talent is also better so that's completely irrelevant to the discussion. With a 6 team league versus a 30 team league there's only 5 other teams to out-manage, out-draft, out-skill, out-work, out-play as opposed to 29 other teams. It was more likely in a given year that you'd find the right combination of all those elements to beat your opponent if there's only 5 of them. That's just math.

Edit: Also, only 2 playoff series to win, which means a 4th place team, a bottom half team, could squeak in, get hot, go 8-6, and take home a stanley cup. There were way fewer landmines.

[The_Admiral]

The NHL celebrates only having six teams until 1967 like it was an achievement when it was actually an embarrassment.

[Crabcake]

I think that it might be a little early to call the Hawks a dynasty just yet. First of all, they haven't even won this year's Cup. And second of all, people seem to be forgetting that the LA Kings won the same amount of Cups as the Hawks have in this decade, but the Kings did it in one less year. Often times, a team is referred to as a dynasty in terms of a decade (1980's 49ers, 1960's Celtics, 1990's Bulls). But I think that the 2010's in hockey has a very real chance of being shared between the Kings and the Hawks. In that sense, I'm waiting until the end of the decade to declare anyone a dynasty, and if any team is the dynasty at this point, it might be the Kings.

[CS85]

Would anyone consider the Braves of the 90's a dynasty? Or the Bills 4 Super Bowl runs? 1 championship between the two of them, but the Blackhawks have put together a 6 year long run of fielding competitive teams that are often successful in spite of salary crunches. Many are speculating that this is basically the last year of their run, but I'm guessing they're still gonna have another 2-3 years of (likely very stressful and non-dominant) playoff runs before age becomes a liability in contract negotiations with their biggest stars.

[TheOldRoman]

Obviously the dynasty discussion would be entirely different if they would have finished off LA last year instead of dicking around games 2-4 and then blowing game 7 three times over. Going for a three-peat and four out of six? No question that's a dynasty. I think having (to date) not won in consecutive years dampens the "dynasty" a bit. You have to appreciate the era the team is playing in, but at the end of the day, if you look back twenty years from now and say "Oh, the Hawks won in 2010 , 2013 and 2015; half-assed it in the regular season, snuck into the playoffs and lost in the first round in 2011 and 2012, blew a winnable WCF and a sure Cup in 2014, and fell short from 2016-2019," I don't know that people would think of it as a dynasty. I mean, does anybody speak of the Devils as a dynasty?

[infrared41]

Would anyone consider the Braves of the 90's a dynasty? Or the Bills 4 Super Bowl runs? 1 championship between the two of them, but the Blackhawks have put together a 6 year long run of fielding competitive teams that are often successful in spite of salary crunches. Many are speculating that this is basically the last year of their run, but I'm guessing they're still gonna have another 2-3 years of (likely very stressful and non-dominant) playoff runs before age becomes a liability in contract negotiations with their biggest stars.

Sort of, I guess? I suppose one could argue that the Braves were an NL dynasty. Same with the Bills and the AFC. Were those teams dynasties in the same way the 80's Oilers and Islanders or the current Hawks (should they win the Cup) are dynasties? Nope.

Obviously the dynasty discussion would be entirely different if they would have finished off LA last year instead of dicking around games 2-4 and then blowing game 7 three times over. Going for a three-peat and four out of six? No question that's a dynasty. I think having (to date) not won in consecutive years dampens the "dynasty" a bit. You have to appreciate the era the team is playing in, but at the end of the day, if you look back twenty years from now and say "Oh, the Hawks won in 2010 , 2013 and 2015; half-assed it in the regular season, snuck into the playoffs and lost in the first round in 2011 and 2012, blew a winnable WCF and a sure Cup in 2014, and fell short from 2016-2019," I don't know that people would think of it as a dynasty. I mean, does anybody speak of the Devils as a dynasty?

Fair point.

[CS85]

The Devils, sadly, are probably remembered more for mastering the style of play that ultimately nearly killed the NHL.

[NJTank]

Small minded people think the Devils nearly kileld hockey, people who think the Devils killed hockey are the same people who killed Sports Highlight shows. Whammy Whammy Whammy

[CS85]

Small minded people think the Devils nearly kileld hockey, people who think the Devils killed hockey are the same people who killed Sports Highlight shows. Whammy Whammy Whammy

[NJTank]

Seriously not every highlight has to be a great catch a slam dunk or a home run. People who hated the Devils dynasty only want to see slam dunks home runs and touchdowns no other highlights. Whammy Highlights in other words

[infrared41]

Small minded people think the Devils nearly kileld hockey,

No, fans of hockey games that had any sort of...you know...flow in the game think that the Devils nearly kileld hockey. Watching that neutral zone trap was about as exciting as watching soccer.

[Still MIGHTY]

Maybe if Brodeur hit more home runs or if Elias caught more touchdowns, this wouldn't be a problem.... Oh wait, they can't do that.

I'm sorry, Tnak. But Devils hockey was deathly boring hockey. The trap was godawful. Sure play up good defense and goaltending and yes they won titles, but the trap suffocated the sport.

[NJTank]

It was great strategy and fans were just upset that a team from Jersey had won and not the loser Rangers. If the Rangers did the neutral zone trap it would be hailed as genius, but New Jersey cant ever be given credit for any thing.

[Still MIGHTY]

Sigh... Yes Tank

Here's the thing: the trap was GARBAGE. Like I said, sure it worked and you can call it good strategy, but it was awful to watch as a fan. Nothing to do with New Jersey. It killed what people love about hockey: nonstop action and flow. The trap was designed to kill that flow. It worked, and we were all the worse for it. The obstruction allowed at the time made it even more soul sucking.

[wildwing64]

Devils dynasty

I wouldn't exactly call three Cups in eight years a "dynasty".