Who Will Win The Stanley Cup?

[t-man403]

You heard it here first ........ LA, thats who!

[malito650]

Detroit Red Wings are the next Stanley Cup winners........

[Oss]

Why cant Stanley get it back 

Hockey on tv?  not so great

in person, now that is exciting

No dog in the fight this year

[wiggydotcom]

Terry...that's a pretty silly question.

The CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS!

[Rams]

Wait!   Stanley's missing his cup?     ???

[J.Mencalice]

Anaheim vs. Washington for the Cup.  Winner: Washington Capitals.

Four reasons this is their year:
Alex Ovechkin
Braden Holtby
Barry Trotz
Depth on the back line.

[Jess from VA]

I'm pulling for the Cleveland Indians.  I know...... it's a long-shot.

[old2soon]

Terry...that's a pretty silly question.

The CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS!

Gotta go with my ridin bud Russ on this one.  I got me outa Chicago BUT Chicago ain't outa me!    RIDE SAFE.

[Tato]

Gotta go with Washington, Braden Holtby is from Lloydminster!!!!!!!

[J.Mencalice]

Gotta go with Washington, Braden Holtby is from Lloydminster!!!!!!!

He'll win the Vezina this year.

[sutterhome]

go hawks

[Serk]

Are The Stars still in it? If so... Go Stars or something!

[The emperor has no clothes]

Are The Stars still in it? If so... Go Stars or something!

Watched them kick the crap out of the Wild last night. So yes your Homies are still in it. I've only watched half a dozen games this year, so I really have no idea who is good this year. But I'm going to pull for the Sharks. They were my son's favorite team growing up.

[J.Mencalice]

Are The Stars still in it? If so... Go Stars or something!

Watched them kick the crap out of the Wild last night. So yes your Homies are still in it. I've only watched half a dozen games this year, so I really have no idea who is good this year. But I'm going to pull for the Sharks. They were my son's favorite team growing up.

The Dallas Stars are the franchise of the original Minnesota North Stars; so in historical terms, Minnesota beat Minnesota.
Gump Worsley!  We loved ya' Gumper!!!!

[Bighead]

The team with the most goals in the final game

[Popeye]

The CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS!

[ataDude #62]

Stars. 

[DirtyDan]

before I started riding, not on digital

but I do have a picture of me with the Stanley Cup

dan

[The emperor has no clothes]

before I started riding, not on digital

but I do have a picture of me with the Stanley Cup

dan

With the Devils ?

[DirtyDan]

before I started riding, not on digital

but I do have a picture of me with the Stanley Cup

dan

With the Devils ?

Yes sir picture is with Ken Daneyko and the Stanley Cup 1995

dan

[t-man403]

before I started riding, not on digital

but I do have a picture of me with the Stanley Cup

dan

You could scan the picture!

[J.Mencalice]

Detroit Red Wings are the next Stanley Cup winners........

Picking up their golf clubs today.

[t-man403]

Quote from Drew Doughty!  

Doughty believes the Sharks have to be worried about blowing it again.

"You know they're thinking a little bit about it now, so we're right where we want to be,"  

[t-man403]

You heard it here first ........ LA, thats who!

What do I know...... 

[J.Mencalice]

Chicago...out...St. Louis...still in.
No dynasty for the Blackhawks.

[wiggydotcom]

Chicago...out...St. Louis...still in.
No dynasty for the Blackhawks.

The dynasty was already cemented with last year's Cup win...3 Cups in 6 yrs qualified in the minds of most "experts".

With that said, as a Blackhawk fan, I give all the credit to St Louis. I thought they outplayed the Hawks throughout the series. It was a GREAT series. I wouldn't be surprised if St Louis goes deep.

[J.Mencalice]

Chicago...out...St. Louis...still in.
No dynasty for the Blackhawks.

The dynasty was already cemented with last year's Cup win...3 Cups in 6 yrs qualified in the minds of most "experts".

With that said, as a Blackhawk fan, I give all the credit to St Louis. I thought they outplayed the Hawks throughout the series. It was a GREAT series. I wouldn't be surprised if St Louis goes deep.

Official list of dynasties by the National Hockey League and the Hockey Hall of Fame:

    Ottawa Senators of 1919–27 (4 championships in 8 years) 1920, 1921, 1923, 1927
    Toronto Maple Leafs of 1946–51 (4 championships in 5 years) 1947, 1948, 1949, 1951
    Detroit Red Wings of 1949–55 (4 championships in 6 years) 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955
    Montreal Canadiens of 1955–60 (5 consecutive championships) 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960
    Toronto Maple Leafs of 1962–67 (4 championships in 6 years) 1962, 1963, 1964, 1967
    Montreal Canadiens of 1964–69 (4 championships in 5 years) 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969
    Montreal Canadiens of 1975–79 (4 consecutive championships)
    New York Islanders of 1980–83 (4 consecutive championships)
    Edmonton Oilers of 1983–90 (5 championships in 7 years) 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990

Chicago still has a ways to go to measure up to the above standards from the true experts (not sportswriters).
They do have the potential, but it's tough in such a big league anymore to dominate over time if you can't keep a team intact for at least five years these days.
So, I'll have to say that they have a semi-dynasty at this time and better luck next year.

[wiggydotcom]

Chicago...out...St. Louis...still in.
No dynasty for the Blackhawks.

The dynasty was already cemented with last year's Cup win...3 Cups in 6 yrs qualified in the minds of most "experts".

With that said, as a Blackhawk fan, I give all the credit to St Louis. I thought they outplayed the Hawks throughout the series. It was a GREAT series. I wouldn't be surprised if St Louis goes deep.

Official list of dynasties by the National Hockey League and the Hockey Hall of Fame:

   Ottawa Senators of 1919–27 (4 championships in 8 years) 1920, 1921, 1923, 1927
   Toronto Maple Leafs of 1946–51 (4 championships in 5 years) 1947, 1948, 1949, 1951
   Detroit Red Wings of 1949–55 (4 championships in 6 years) 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955
   Montreal Canadiens of 1955–60 (5 consecutive championships) 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960
   Toronto Maple Leafs of 1962–67 (4 championships in 6 years) 1962, 1963, 1964, 1967
   Montreal Canadiens of 1964–69 (4 championships in 5 years) 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969
   Montreal Canadiens of 1975–79 (4 consecutive championships)
   New York Islanders of 1980–83 (4 consecutive championships)
   Edmonton Oilers of 1983–90 (5 championships in 7 years) 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990

Chicago still has a ways to go to measure up to the above standards from the true experts (not sportswriters).
They do have the potential, but it's tough in such a big league anymore to dominate over time if you can't keep a team intact for at least five years these days.
So, I'll have to say that they have a semi-dynasty at this time and better luck next year.

True Experts? Really? Let's break down your list of "Dynasties".

The Ottawa Senators from 1919 to 1927 that won a whopping 4 Championships in 8 yrs----won their first 3 Championships in a 4 team league. The 1927 Championship was against a whopping 10 teams--with 6 of the 10 being 3 yrs old or less. Laughing my ass off over that one!

The Toronto Maple Leafs of 1946-1951(four Championships in 5 yrs) won in an NHL with only 5 other teams involved. Whoopee.

The Detroit Red Wings of 1949-1955 that won 4 championships in 6 yrs once again did it against FIVE other teams.

The Canadiens of 55-60 Five consecutive Cups was impressive by any standards, but yet that was against only 5 other teams in the NHL.

The Maple Leafs from 1962-1967 teams won 4 Championships in 6 yrs---against FIVE other teams!


The Canadiens from 1964-1969 won 4 Championships in 5 yrs.. The first two were won in a 6 team league---the last two in a 12 team league, with 6 of those 12 teams having been in the league only 2 years.

According to your list of "Official" dynasties, there haven't been any since 1991? Hmmm, why is that? Could it be because there have been a minimum of 22 teams in the league in 91 which expanded to the present day 30 teams?

So, to recap, a dynasty is a team that wins 4 championships in 8 yrs against 3 other teams?
Or one that wins 4 championships in 6 yrs against 5 other teams?

But not the Blackhawks, who won 3 Cups in 6 yrs against TWENTY NINE other teams?

I'm sure you also realize the Blackhawks did lose more than a few good players during this stretch due to salary cap issues, which is something your list of dynasty teams didn't even have to deal with.
Thanks for submitting the Official NHL list. It points out that the Blackhawks definitely qualify!


Maybe your "Standards" AND definition of "true experts" are what need redefining!!      

[Hooter]

Still, who is going to wear it?

[wiggydotcom]

Still, who is going to wear it?

Well, I no longer have a dog in the fight but I won't be surprised if St Louis wins.  I know the favorite is Washington but one never knows. Most of the Champs have come out of the West lately.

[old2soon]

Still, who is going to wear it?

That be the WHY of them playin the game(s). After watching the Blackhawks tie up the Blues at home Saturday I wuz hopin some.  But THOSE hopes were dashed in St. Louis.  Upset? Hell Yeah.  BUT the Blackhawks HAVE been way better than the cubs and bears combined!  RIDE SAFE.

[wiggydotcom]

Still, who is going to wear it?

That be the WHY of them playin the game(s). After watching the Blackhawks tie up the Blues at home Saturday I wuz hopin some.  But THOSE hopes were dashed in St. Louis.  Upset? Hell Yeah.  BUT the Blackhawks HAVE been way better than the cubs and bears combined!  RIDE SAFE.

Way better than the Cubs and Bears combined?? I'm gonna give you that one, Dennis. And we can throw in the White Sox to boot-even though I'm a White Sox fan.

[t-man403]

I'm glad Chicago is done!
Is ST. Lou good enough ....... maybe, after all they did knock off Chicago but I'm thinking they're not.
The way San Jose handled LA., I'd be looking out for them.
I'm really disappointed in Minnesota ...... some great players there that are going to go out with nothing. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm glad Chicago is done!
Is ST. Lou good enough ....... maybe, after all they did knock off Chicago but I'm thinking they're not.
The way San Jose handled LA., I'd be looking out for them.
I'm really disappointed in Minnesota ...... some great players there that are going to go out with nothing. 

I think you are right. But when you get to this stage anything can happen. An injury here or there,a bad bounce here or there and who knows. I sure did enjoy that series between St.Louis and Chicago. 

[J.Mencalice]

Chicago...out...St. Louis...still in.
No dynasty for the Blackhawks.

The dynasty was already cemented with last year's Cup win...3 Cups in 6 yrs qualified in the minds of most "experts".

With that said, as a Blackhawk fan, I give all the credit to St Louis. I thought they outplayed the Hawks throughout the series. It was a GREAT series. I wouldn't be surprised if St Louis goes deep.

Official list of dynasties by the National Hockey League and the Hockey Hall of Fame:

   Ottawa Senators of 1919–27 (4 championships in 8 years) 1920, 1921, 1923, 1927
   Toronto Maple Leafs of 1946–51 (4 championships in 5 years) 1947, 1948, 1949, 1951
   Detroit Red Wings of 1949–55 (4 championships in 6 years) 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955
   Montreal Canadiens of 1955–60 (5 consecutive championships) 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960
   Toronto Maple Leafs of 1962–67 (4 championships in 6 years) 1962, 1963, 1964, 1967
   Montreal Canadiens of 1964–69 (4 championships in 5 years) 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969
   Montreal Canadiens of 1975–79 (4 consecutive championships)
   New York Islanders of 1980–83 (4 consecutive championships)
   Edmonton Oilers of 1983–90 (5 championships in 7 years) 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990

Chicago still has a ways to go to measure up to the above standards from the true experts (not sportswriters).
They do have the potential, but it's tough in such a big league anymore to dominate over time if you can't keep a team intact for at least five years these days.
So, I'll have to say that they have a semi-dynasty at this time and better luck next year.

True Experts? Really? Let's break down your list of "Dynasties".

The Ottawa Senators from 1919 to 1927 that won a whopping 4 Championships in 8 yrs----won their first 3 Championships in a 4 team league. The 1927 Championship was against a whopping 10 teams--with 6 of the 10 being 3 yrs old or less. Laughing my ass off over that one!

The Toronto Maple Leafs of 1946-1951(four Championships in 5 yrs) won in an NHL with only 5 other teams involved. Whoopee.

The Detroit Red Wings of 1949-1955 that won 4 championships in 6 yrs once again did it against FIVE other teams.

The Canadiens of 55-60 Five consecutive Cups was impressive by any standards, but yet that was against only 5 other teams in the NHL.

The Maple Leafs from 1962-1967 teams won 4 Championships in 6 yrs---against FIVE other teams!


The Canadiens from 1964-1969 won 4 Championships in 5 yrs.. The first two were won in a 6 team league---the last two in a 12 team league, with 6 of those 12 teams having been in the league only 2 years.

According to your list of "Official" dynasties, there haven't been any since 1991? Hmmm, why is that? Could it be because there have been a minimum of 22 teams in the league in 91 which expanded to the present day 30 teams?

So, to recap, a dynasty is a team that wins 4 championships in 8 yrs against 3 other teams?
Or one that wins 4 championships in 6 yrs against 5 other teams?

But not the Blackhawks, who won 3 Cups in 6 yrs against TWENTY NINE other teams?

I'm sure you also realize the Blackhawks did lose more than a few good players during this stretch due to salary cap issues, which is something your list of dynasty teams didn't even have to deal with.
Thanks for submitting the Official NHL list. It points out that the Blackhawks definitely qualify!


Maybe your "Standards" AND definition of "true experts" are what need redefining!!      

Please note the following addresses:

Hockey Hall of Fame
30 Yonge Street
Toronto, ON M5E 1X8
Canada

National Hockey League
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

Perhaps a letter to each organization to let them know what you know and what they don't know about the history of hockey would certainly clear up any misgivings about the subject that they have. I'm sure that they'd welcome any wisdom that you could impart about a team that had a 49 year drought between Cups.   After receiving all your pertinent information, I'm confident that they'll consider a position on the list for your Hawks..or not.  Now, if Chicago happens to win a couple more Cups down the pike in the next three years (whether there are 30 or 32 teams) at that time, then just maybe the hockey gods will smile upon Chicago Blackhawks and their faithful.

A true and knowledgeable fan of the game knows it doesn't matter what era or how many teams a player had to face or what conditions the games were played under; they still had to lace'em up and face an opponent, just like today.  Don't put down the pioneers, those were tough men.
That's why it's always been about the best beating the best.

This year Chicago's best wasn't good enough in the playoffs; better luck next year.

[wiggydotcom]

Chicago...out...St. Louis...still in.
No dynasty for the Blackhawks.

The dynasty was already cemented with last year's Cup win...3 Cups in 6 yrs qualified in the minds of most "experts".

With that said, as a Blackhawk fan, I give all the credit to St Louis. I thought they outplayed the Hawks throughout the series. It was a GREAT series. I wouldn't be surprised if St Louis goes deep.

Official list of dynasties by the National Hockey League and the Hockey Hall of Fame:

   Ottawa Senators of 1919–27 (4 championships in 8 years) 1920, 1921, 1923, 1927
   Toronto Maple Leafs of 1946–51 (4 championships in 5 years) 1947, 1948, 1949, 1951
   Detroit Red Wings of 1949–55 (4 championships in 6 years) 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955
   Montreal Canadiens of 1955–60 (5 consecutive championships) 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960
   Toronto Maple Leafs of 1962–67 (4 championships in 6 years) 1962, 1963, 1964, 1967
   Montreal Canadiens of 1964–69 (4 championships in 5 years) 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969
   Montreal Canadiens of 1975–79 (4 consecutive championships)
   New York Islanders of 1980–83 (4 consecutive championships)
   Edmonton Oilers of 1983–90 (5 championships in 7 years) 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990

Chicago still has a ways to go to measure up to the above standards from the true experts (not sportswriters).
They do have the potential, but it's tough in such a big league anymore to dominate over time if you can't keep a team intact for at least five years these days.
So, I'll have to say that they have a semi-dynasty at this time and better luck next year.

True Experts? Really? Let's break down your list of "Dynasties".

The Ottawa Senators from 1919 to 1927 that won a whopping 4 Championships in 8 yrs----won their first 3 Championships in a 4 team league. The 1927 Championship was against a whopping 10 teams--with 6 of the 10 being 3 yrs old or less. Laughing my ass off over that one!

The Toronto Maple Leafs of 1946-1951(four Championships in 5 yrs) won in an NHL with only 5 other teams involved. Whoopee.

The Detroit Red Wings of 1949-1955 that won 4 championships in 6 yrs once again did it against FIVE other teams.

The Canadiens of 55-60 Five consecutive Cups was impressive by any standards, but yet that was against only 5 other teams in the NHL.

The Maple Leafs from 1962-1967 teams won 4 Championships in 6 yrs---against FIVE other teams!


The Canadiens from 1964-1969 won 4 Championships in 5 yrs.. The first two were won in a 6 team league---the last two in a 12 team league, with 6 of those 12 teams having been in the league only 2 years.

According to your list of "Official" dynasties, there haven't been any since 1991? Hmmm, why is that? Could it be because there have been a minimum of 22 teams in the league in 91 which expanded to the present day 30 teams?

So, to recap, a dynasty is a team that wins 4 championships in 8 yrs against 3 other teams?
Or one that wins 4 championships in 6 yrs against 5 other teams?

But not the Blackhawks, who won 3 Cups in 6 yrs against TWENTY NINE other teams?

I'm sure you also realize the Blackhawks did lose more than a few good players during this stretch due to salary cap issues, which is something your list of dynasty teams didn't even have to deal with.
Thanks for submitting the Official NHL list. It points out that the Blackhawks definitely qualify!


Maybe your "Standards" AND definition of "true experts" are what need redefining!!      

Please note the following addresses:

Hockey Hall of Fame
30 Yonge Street
Toronto, ON M5E 1X8
Canada

National Hockey League
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

Perhaps a letter to each organization to let them know what you know and what they don't know about the history of hockey would certainly clear up any misgivings about the subject that they have. I'm sure that they'd welcome any wisdom that you could impart about a team that had a 49 year drought between Cups.  After receiving all your pertinent information, I'm confident that they'll consider a position on the list for your Hawks..or not.  Now, if Chicago happens to win a couple more Cups down the pike in the next three years (whether there are 30 or 32 teams) at that time, then just maybe the hockey gods will smile upon Chicago Blackhawks and their faithful.

A true and knowledgeable fan of the game knows it doesn't matter what era or how many teams a player had to face or what conditions the games were played under; they still had to lace'em up and face an opponent, just like today.  Don't put down the pioneers, those were tough men.
That's why it's always been about the best beating the best.

This year Chicago's best wasn't good enough in the playoffs; better luck next year.

Really?  Are you mad because your Avalanche couldn't even make the playoffs?

It's funny you seem to delight in posting when other's teams get eliminated---when your's performed so poorly they couldn't even get to the first round.

You contradict yourself by saying quote, "Chicago still has a ways to go to measure up to the above standards from the true experts(not sportswriters)." Well, who do you think votes in the Hall of Fame members. Hint---it's a panel consisting of Hall of Famers(who were voted in by the press) AND members of the media. Wouldn't that make them true experts?

A 49 yr drought has nothing to do with the conversation or whether their recent teams comprise a dynasty... please enlighten me on that.

And a true fan of any sport doesn't necessarily subscribe to the argument that Commissioners of these Sports are without fault nor supreme beings. Gary Bettman is not a popular Commissioner just like Roger Goodell isn't universally liked.  So unlike you, I'm sorry I don't necessarily take everything that comes out of their offices as Gospel.


I already exposed some of the NHL's "dynasties" as no more of an accomplishment than what the Hawks have done. How many series did the Ottawa Senators of 1919 have to win? How about the Maple Leafs of 47-51? How many series did they have to win? How about the Red Wings of 50-55?

It certainly was easier to win Championships 80 yrs ago and it was easier 50 yrs ago.  Up until 1967, a team only had to win 2 playoff series to be Champion.
To win their 3 Cups, the Hawks had to win FOUR series each year. So the Hawks beat 12 other opponents to win their 3 Cups vs only 8 series---or less, for most on your "dynasty" list.



Maybe next year your Avalanche can move up a spot or two and you won't be so bitter.

[J.Mencalice]

Chicago...out...St. Louis...still in.
No dynasty for the Blackhawks.

The dynasty was already cemented with last year's Cup win...3 Cups in 6 yrs qualified in the minds of most "experts".

With that said, as a Blackhawk fan, I give all the credit to St Louis. I thought they outplayed the Hawks throughout the series. It was a GREAT series. I wouldn't be surprised if St Louis goes deep.

Official list of dynasties by the National Hockey League and the Hockey Hall of Fame:

   Ottawa Senators of 1919–27 (4 championships in 8 years) 1920, 1921, 1923, 1927
   Toronto Maple Leafs of 1946–51 (4 championships in 5 years) 1947, 1948, 1949, 1951
   Detroit Red Wings of 1949–55 (4 championships in 6 years) 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955
   Montreal Canadiens of 1955–60 (5 consecutive championships) 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960
   Toronto Maple Leafs of 1962–67 (4 championships in 6 years) 1962, 1963, 1964, 1967
   Montreal Canadiens of 1964–69 (4 championships in 5 years) 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969
   Montreal Canadiens of 1975–79 (4 consecutive championships)
   New York Islanders of 1980–83 (4 consecutive championships)
   Edmonton Oilers of 1983–90 (5 championships in 7 years) 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990

Chicago still has a ways to go to measure up to the above standards from the true experts (not sportswriters).
They do have the potential, but it's tough in such a big league anymore to dominate over time if you can't keep a team intact for at least five years these days.
So, I'll have to say that they have a semi-dynasty at this time and better luck next year.

True Experts? Really? Let's break down your list of "Dynasties".

The Ottawa Senators from 1919 to 1927 that won a whopping 4 Championships in 8 yrs----won their first 3 Championships in a 4 team league. The 1927 Championship was against a whopping 10 teams--with 6 of the 10 being 3 yrs old or less. Laughing my ass off over that one!

The Toronto Maple Leafs of 1946-1951(four Championships in 5 yrs) won in an NHL with only 5 other teams involved. Whoopee.

The Detroit Red Wings of 1949-1955 that won 4 championships in 6 yrs once again did it against FIVE other teams.

The Canadiens of 55-60 Five consecutive Cups was impressive by any standards, but yet that was against only 5 other teams in the NHL.

The Maple Leafs from 1962-1967 teams won 4 Championships in 6 yrs---against FIVE other teams!


The Canadiens from 1964-1969 won 4 Championships in 5 yrs.. The first two were won in a 6 team league---the last two in a 12 team league, with 6 of those 12 teams having been in the league only 2 years.

According to your list of "Official" dynasties, there haven't been any since 1991? Hmmm, why is that? Could it be because there have been a minimum of 22 teams in the league in 91 which expanded to the present day 30 teams?

So, to recap, a dynasty is a team that wins 4 championships in 8 yrs against 3 other teams?
Or one that wins 4 championships in 6 yrs against 5 other teams?

But not the Blackhawks, who won 3 Cups in 6 yrs against TWENTY NINE other teams?

I'm sure you also realize the Blackhawks did lose more than a few good players during this stretch due to salary cap issues, which is something your list of dynasty teams didn't even have to deal with.
Thanks for submitting the Official NHL list. It points out that the Blackhawks definitely qualify!


Maybe your "Standards" AND definition of "true experts" are what need redefining!!      

Please note the following addresses:

Hockey Hall of Fame
30 Yonge Street
Toronto, ON M5E 1X8
Canada

National Hockey League
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

Perhaps a letter to each organization to let them know what you know and what they don't know about the history of hockey would certainly clear up any misgivings about the subject that they have. I'm sure that they'd welcome any wisdom that you could impart about a team that had a 49 year drought between Cups.  After receiving all your pertinent information, I'm confident that they'll consider a position on the list for your Hawks..or not.  Now, if Chicago happens to win a couple more Cups down the pike in the next three years (whether there are 30 or 32 teams) at that time, then just maybe the hockey gods will smile upon Chicago Blackhawks and their faithful.

A true and knowledgeable fan of the game knows it doesn't matter what era or how many teams a player had to face or what conditions the games were played under; they still had to lace'em up and face an opponent, just like today.  Don't put down the pioneers, those were tough men.
That's why it's always been about the best beating the best.

This year Chicago's best wasn't good enough in the playoffs; better luck next year.

Really?  Are you mad because your Avalanche couldn't even make the playoffs?

It's funny you seem to delight in posting when other's teams get eliminated---when your's performed so poorly they couldn't even get to the first round.

You contradict yourself by saying quote, "Chicago still has a ways to go to measure up to the above standards from the true experts(not sportswriters)." Well, who do you think votes in the Hall of Fame members. Hint---it's a panel consisting of Hall of Famers(who were voted in by the press) AND members of the media. Wouldn't that make them true experts?

A 49 yr drought has nothing to do with the conversation or whether their recent teams comprise a dynasty... please enlighten me on that.

And a true fan of any sport doesn't necessarily subscribe to the argument that Commissioners of these Sports are without fault nor supreme beings. Gary Bettman is not a popular Commissioner just like Roger Goodell isn't universally liked.  So unlike you, I'm sorry I don't necessarily take everything that comes out of their offices as Gospel.


I already exposed some of the NHL's "dynasties" as no more of an accomplishment than what the Hawks have done. How many series did the Ottawa Senators of 1919 have to win? How about the Maple Leafs of 47-51? How many series did they have to win? How about the Red Wings of 50-55?

It certainly was easier to win Championships 80 yrs ago and it was easier 50 yrs ago.  Up until 1967, a team only had to win 2 playoff series to be Champion.
To win their 3 Cups, the Hawks had to win FOUR series each year. So the Hawks beat 12 other opponents to win their 3 Cups vs only 8 series---or less, for most on your "dynasty" list.



Maybe next year your Avalanche can move up a spot or two and you won't be so bitter.

Fact #1  I am (and always will be) an avid Montreal Canadiens fan since the age of 3 (listened to the
           game radio coming down en francais from Canada.
Fact #1a My father's casket contains a puck with the Canadiens crest and so will mine.
Fact #2  I follow and root for the Colorado sports franchises; I have lived here since 1977
Fact #3  I attend some Colorado Avalanche (and attended Colorado Rockies) games for the love of the
            game.
Fact #4  Every team on the dynasty list has at least one back-to-back (or more) championships
Fact #5  The Chicago Blackhawks have been eliminated from the playoffs each year after winning the
             Cup.  Repetitive dominance over time is indicative of a dynasty.
             Since 2010, ergo, they are lacking the dominance of dynastic performance and don't deserve
             to be acknowledged as such (at this time).
             When the Hockey Hall of Fame puts them in their Stanley Cup Dynasties Exhibit, then and
             only then will they be formally recognized.
Fact #6 Patrick Kane declined to call their team a dynasty after winning the Cup in 2015.
              Who better to say?  He described the three Cups as " I know that's pretty good."
Fact #7 Bettman may not be popular (and I don't know why), but he IS a good Commissioner for the
              game.  It is becoming a better game under his watch for the players, the fans, the rules,
              the overall "health" of the game and the exposure/progression of the game around North
              America.
Fact #6  I love the game of hockey and looking forward to the finals; whomever gets there. Not
             bitter at all about who's winning and who's losing.  I'm wise enough now to realize that blind
             allegiance to only one club gets in the way of honoring the sport in it's entirety.


Truly wish for better luck next year for the Hawks.

Anyone from the rest of the hockey world wanna chime in on this?  It's hockey fer cripes sake!

[t-man403]

I'm in on it and having fun read you and wiggys battle on dynasties!! Nothing like a good playoff battle! 

I have lived in Calgary all my life but have always cheered for the LEAFS ........ speaking of dynasties! 

I've had seasons ticket for the Flames and I still go to a few of the games regardless of who they are playing. I'm also fortunate enough that all my Flames loving friends will always have a ticket with my name on it for when the LEAFS are in town. It's funny to go to a LEAFS game here cause there are more LEAFS fans out that night than Flames fans.

I seriously didn't think I'd be watching so many games without a Canadian team in, but, the love of the game keeps me watching.



Easy win by the Flames on this draw!

[wiggydotcom]

This will be my last post on this subject. I've made it pretty clear and supported it with facts that it was easier to win championships in the distant past.  They simply played fewer games and against fewer opponents. And YES that DOES mean something.

You've contradicted yourself more than a few times in your posts.

Here are your lastest "Factual" assertions!

Quoted from Willowpad:
Fact #1  I am (and always will be) an avid Montreal Canadiens fan since the age of 3 (listened to the
           game radio coming down en francais from Canada.
Fact #1a My father's casket contains a puck with the Canadiens crest and so will mine.
Fact #2  I follow and root for the Colorado sports franchises; I have lived here since 1977
Fact #3  I attend some Colorado Avalanche (and attended Colorado Rockies) games for the love of the
            game.
Fact #4  Every team on the dynasty list has at least one back-to-back (or more) championships
Fact #5  The Chicago Blackhawks have been eliminated from the playoffs each year after winning the
             Cup.  Repetitive dominance over time is indicative of a dynasty.
             Since 2010, ergo, they are lacking the dominance of dynastic performance and don't deserve
             to be acknowledged as such (at this time).
             When the Hockey Hall of Fame puts them in their Stanley Cup Dynasties Exhibit, then and
             only then will they be formally recognized.
Fact #6 Patrick Kane declined to call their team a dynasty after winning the Cup in 2015.
              Who better to say?  He described the three Cups as " I know that's pretty good."
Fact #7 Bettman may not be popular (and I don't know why), but he IS a good Commissioner for the
              game.  It is becoming a better game under his watch for the players, the fans, the rules,
              the overall "health" of the game and the exposure/progression of the game around North
              America.
Fact #6  I love the game of hockey and looking forward to the finals; whomever gets there. Not
             bitter at all about who's winning and who's losing.  I'm wise enough now to realize that blind
             allegiance to only one club gets in the way of honoring the sport in it's entirety.



Fact #9 First, it's probably hard for you to grasp the numbers game when your having a hard time counting past 7.... referring to your numbering system above; so I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I've been stating as facts!

Fact #10 Patrick Kane not declaring his own team a dynasty means that he's leaving that up to others, not tooting his own horn---I'm not sure where you draw any analogy from that.

Fact # 11 I can certainly understand how a league or sport operates WHILE having an allegiance to one team. No need to explain that one either as I won't be replying.

Fact #12 You're obviously forgetting in the distant past, NHL teams had exclusive rights to their surrounding territories for "obtaining" players. I "think" that would have made it harder for especially the Blues and Blackhawks-and to some extent Detroit since the better players were all from Canada back then.

Fact #13   Your Canadiens no longer dominate the NHL like in the distant past. Maybe because it's harder to win in a league with 29 other teams(comprised of WORLD players) in which one has to win FOUR best of SEVEN series, unlike the early years when a team had to sometimes win only a couple games against one opponent from a 6 team(or less) league.

Suggestion #1 Work on your counting skills a little bit and you can better comprehend the numbers I've thrown at ya throughout this thread.

Fact #14 It's hard to understand Trigonometry if ya can't count past SEVEN!

Thanks for repeatedly wishing the Blackhawks better luck next year. The sincerity in that really strikes home.  lol

Best of luck to the Avalanche next year too.. Maybe they can even get IN the playoffs!

Fact #15  I root for all Chicago teams except the Cubs. In Chicago, it's almost illegal to root for the Cubs and the Sox. I'm a White Sox fan.

Fact 16 I'm done with this thread!

[The emperor has no clothes]

Sure was a good game last night. My first time watching Oshie. He is pretty good.