Top-perennial-playoff-contenders - Any Dynasties?

[hf101]

These are the top 11 playoff contenders since the 2004-5 Lockout.  Brian Costello defined a dynasty as winning 3 Stanley Cups in 5 years, yet when you look at the success of the top 10 teams in an era of growing parity throughout the league some might define a dynasty differently.    

 

How many of them would you define as a successful dynasty?

 

1. Detroit Red Wings – 20 playoff rounds, 1 Stanley Cup

2. Pittsburgh Penguins – 18 playoff rounds, 1 Stanley Cup

3. Chicago Blackhawks – 16 playoff rounds (so far), 2 Stanley Cups

4. Boston Bruins – 16 playoff rounds, 1 Stanley Cup

5. San Jose Sharks – 17 playoff rounds

6. New York Rangers – 16 playoff rounds (including this year’s upcoming final)

7. Anaheim Ducks – 14 playoff rounds, 1 Stanley Cup

8. Philadelphia Flyers – 14 playoff rounds

9. Los Angeles Kings – 12 playoff rounds (so far), 1 Stanley Cup

10. Montreal Canadiens – 12 playoff rounds

10. Vancouver Canucks – 12 playoff rounds

 

The Toronto Maple Leafs, Florida Panthers and Winnipeg Jets/Atlanta Thrashers franchises, each have one playoff round since 2005.

 

source

[radoran]

No one is a "dynasty" right now. Los Angeles has a chance to join Chicago as two teams that have a realistic chance of fulfilling the criteria Costello defines.

[Polaris922]

If Chicago had gone on this year I'd have given them the title. But I don't see it yet. Just like my Pens... Yay for playoff rounds, but it's Cups that define the champions, not playoff rounds.

[Vanflyer]

No one is a "dynasty" right now. Los Angeles has a chance to join Chicago as two teams that have a realistic chance of fulfilling the criteria Costello defines.

 

I agree. I would add that Boston could be on the doorstep as well- if only they did not have to play those pesky rivals Habitants every year. 

[yave1964]

If Chicago had gone on this year I'd have given them the title. But I don't see it yet. Just like my Pens... Yay for playoff rounds, but it's Cups that define the champions, not playoff rounds.

Agreed. I told the wife if the Hawks won they were a dynasty, if not then no.

Now if the Kings win, they will have 2 cups in 3 years, not quite a dynasty but if they manage to win next year as well then yep, they are certainly one. You could even make the case for the Hawks if they win next year as well.

  But right now there is not a dynasty in the game.

[fanaticV3.0]

If you don't have at least one Cup you shouldn't even be involved in the discussion. We're not talking about good teams, we're talking about great ones. The closest thing to a dynasty right now is Chicago. Then LA. Boston below that because they've been in two, but they're out if they don't win another one.  

[J0e Th0rnton]

3 wins in 5 years is pretty standard for a dynasty. We just don't have any right now.

The red wings of days past came close. Chicago is still close

[yave1964]

3 wins in 5 years is pretty standard for a dynasty. We just don't have any right now.

The red wings of days past came close. Chicago is still close

IMHO the Wings of 97,98, and 02 were a Dynasty. Three cups in that time as well as losing in the finals in 95, and losing the conference finals to eventual cup winner Colorado in both 96 and 99 makes the club a true dynasty. I consider the cup win of 08 and the cup loss of 09 to be another era.

  I am also going to lose my Wings fan Man Card for saying this but IMHO the Avalanche club of that time period (96 to 01) deserves serious consideration.

Another team often forgotten about is the Devils of that era. Man were they tough and always seemed to be in it.

 

  Over the past decade, no team really stands out. Chicago has 2 cups in that time, if they had won this year, absolutely they deserve to be considered a dynasty. A win next year, same thing. If the Kings win this year, 2 in 3 years has to be considered but my opinion is it takes 3 cups to qualify.

[sarsippius]

Absolutely agree, the definition of a dynasty right there. Won multiple Cups in a short window, were right there multiple other times but were beaten by quality Cup champion teams.

 

The Hawks and Kings may be diliuting each other's chances at being called a dynasty right now.

 

IMHO the Wings of 97,98, and 02 were a Dynasty. Three cups in that time as well as losing in the finals in 95, and losing the conference finals to eventual cup winner Colorado in both 96 and 99 makes the club a true dynasty.

[Vanflyer]

If the Kings win this year, 2 in 3 years has to be considered but my opinion is it takes 3 cups to qualify.

 

Agree. 

 

When I think dynasty, I think Wings, Islanders, Canadiens. At least post expansion era (67). Could probably put the Devils in there, but they did not meet the aforementioned criteria. 3 cups has to be the minimum to say "dynasty" (imo). 

[Old School Hockey]

After next year Chicago has only 10 players under contract. They are heading toward some tough decisions. Toews and Kane currently at 6.3m and will be looking for a raise. In 2 years a much different Chicago team will be on the ice. Their window is closing.