Chicago Blackhawks a dynasty?

[Pappy13]

Congratulations to the Chicago Blackhawks on their 3rd Stanley Cup Championship in 6 years. A truly amazing accomplishment.

So do the Blackhawks qualify as a dynasty?

Some numbers in the past 6 years for the Blackhawks.
3 Stanley cups.
4 trips to the Western Conference Finals.
1 Presidents Trophy. (Given to the team with best regular season record)
3 Different Conn Smythe Trophy Winners. (Given to the playoff MVP)

I say yes, but I'm biased. If you think they still need to do more, what do they need to do to be called a dynasty? Win back to back? At least another Stanley cup finals appearance? Stay relevant for another couple years?

[Brian Fein]

Not to be dismissive, I like the topic.  But - who cares?  Why do we - the media specifically - feel the need to label things? 

You'll know whether or not they were a dynasty ten years from now when you think back and remember that time when the Blackhawks were so dominant.  Like the Cowboys in the 90's. 

I feel like this "dynasty" conversation is just a talking head topic, similar to "do you think so-and-so is an elite QB" or "Lebron or Jordan." 

Congrats to the Blackhawks, but I was rooting against them.  The Bolts put up a good showing, and I'm happy for their progress.  I'm also glad that the guy that built that Blackhawks team is now the GM for the Florida Panthers.  We'll see if he can do it twice...   

[Fau Teixeira]

is that new ? .. did the panthers get a new GM recently or has it been a few years now ?

[MikeO]

To be a dynasty you have to have at least one "back-to-back" championship, they don't.

Hence, NOT a dynasty! Team of the decade, on a nice little run, but without the back-to-back they aren't a dynasty!

[Spider-Dan]

So Bird's Celtics, who went to 4 Finals in a row and won 3 in 7 years, are not a dynasty, then?  And neither are the Spurs, who haven't won any of their 5 titles with Tim Duncan in back-to-back years?

Back-to-back is a silly criteria to me.  I'd say you should look at titles and title appearances.

[MikeO]

So Bird's Celtics, who went to 4 Finals in a row and won 3 total, are not a dynasty, then?

If you went 4 years in a row and won 3...you had to win back-to-back championships? But I believe those Celtics only won 2 and not 3....and yes since they weren't back to back they aren't a dynasty. Coming in 2nd place is nice but it isn't winning a championship. Dynasty's are built on CHAMPIONSHIPS. Going to the final game and losing doesn't build your resume

[MikeO]

So Bird's Celtics, who went to 4 Finals in a row and won 3 in 7 years, are not a dynasty, then?  And neither are the Spurs, who haven't won any of their 5 titles with Tim Duncan in back-to-back years?

Correct 3 in 7 years isn't a dynasty if none were back to back, and the Spurs were never a dynasty either. Just like the current run the SF Giants are on in baseball isn't a Dynasty either!! You can't have 2 dynasty's at once, during that Celtics run the Lakers were actually WINNING championships, they were the dynasty!!

Jordan's Bulls-Dynasty
Yankees of late 90's-Dynasty
Cowboys of early 90's-Dynasty
Lakers mid 80's--Dynasty

Winning a championship every couple years....isn't a dynasty. Not knocking it, but it isn't a dynasty when you don't have a back-to-back

[Spider-Dan]

Bird's Celtics won in '81, '84, and '86.  They lost in '85 and '87 (so the 4 straight were '84-'87).

The Aikman Cowboys won the same number of championships as the Bird Celtics, but were less competitive during the '90s than the Celtics were during the '80s.  The idea that the most important part of being a "dynasty" is determined by a two-year period is silly to me.

[MikeO]

Bird's Celtics won in '81, '84, and '86.  They lost in '85 and '87 (so the 4 straight were '84-'87).

During that same time the Lakers WON in 80, 82, 85, 87, 88...and they lost in 83, 84, 89, 91

THAT was the dynasty of the era, not the Celtics! Can't have 2 dynasty's in one era, the Lakers were the dynasty as they won more and had a back-to-back championship.

[Tenshot13]

Booooo Blackhawks!

[Brian Fein]

This thread illustrates why I think this conversation is ridiculous.

is that new ? .. did the panthers get a new GM recently or has it been a few years now ?

Not new, the Panthers hired him before the 2010-11 season, and immediately won their division and returned to the playoffs in 2011-12. HE was nominated for GM of the year that season.  Since then, he has drafted a rookie of the year winner, and has another rookie of the year candidate this year (some say, the favorite to win).  He brought in a top tier goaltender and recruited several useful veterans in free agency.  He has loaded the team and minor league affiliates with tons of youth and prospects, and its just a matter of seeing if the team comes together.

[Sunstroke]

Yes, the Blackhawks are currently a hockey Dynasty. So were the Spurs. If anyone wants to convince me otherwise, please post a link to the official sports dictionary, rather than just saying "I don't think so..."

[MikeO]

Yes, the Blackhawks are currently a hockey Dynasty. So were the Spurs. If anyone wants to convince me otherwise, please post a link to the official sports dictionary, rather than just saying "I don't think so..."

Nobody in their right mind considers the Spurs a dynasty. Hell Phil Jackson even went public with it last year and said they weren't
 http://www.si.com/si-wire/2014/04/23/phil-jackson-spurs-dynasty

If the Blackhawks win next year they are a dynasty, until t hen they are just a team on the verge of a dynasty but without the consecutive/back-to-back championships they aren't

[Spider-Dan]

Nobody in their right mind!  Except, you know, Google.

Hell Phil Jackson even went public with it last year and said they weren't

In related news, Kobe Bryant doesn't think Tim Duncan is a better player than he is.  Authoritative!

[MikeO]

5 titles in 15 years is now the criteria? Win one every 3 years or so and that's now a dynasty? That's a friggin joke!!!

Sorry, not a dynasty. Too long of a time-span with too few titles. Win 4 in a row like the Islanders. UCLA in college basketball. Yankees in the 50's and late 90's. Montreal Canadians int he NHL multiple times. Pittsburgh Steelers, New England Patriots, Dallas Cowboys....those are real dynasty's.

The Spurs and Blackhawks not even close.