@Young:
Agreed, however the way Montreal Canadien and New York Yankee players get measured must change with the times. Back in the day a dynasty was 4 Championships within 5 years, these days a dynasty is 2 championships within 3 years.
I don’t know… I would argue the fact that the LA Kings qualify as a dynasty. Their success has been pretty rapid in the past 3-4 years. And even though they have won championships, they have never been truly dominant (something I take into account for a dynasty). Dynasty also has a connotation of length (greater than 2 championships out of 3). As you said, in today’s NHL it would be next to impossible for a team to win 4 Cups in 5 seasons, but a string of unbroken success, competitiveness at the top of the league and, of course, championships should all factor in.
Under the 2/3 rule, the Kings are a dynasty, yet they didn’t even make the playoffs the year after they won the Cup. In my book Chicago is much closer to a dynasty than LA, and I am sure if the Hawks win this year people will throw that title at them and hope it sticks. A three year sample size is just a little too short to call LA a dynasty in my opinion.
Dynasties may in fact be a thing of the past, at least if we are going to define them by consecutive or near-consecutive championships. The balance of the league is just so much better than it was when the Canadiens, Oilers or Islanders won multiples in a row. I really don’t think it can be done anymore.