What is a Dynasty in today's age? In the 1300s in China it was Ming.
In 80s television it was Linda Evans and Joan Collins catfighting
In NHL hockey it has been the 50s Habs, 70s Canadiens, 80s Islanders, 80s Oilers...and not much even close since.
Just think about this: no franchise has won so much as back to back Stanley Cups since the Red Wings in 97,98. That's well over a decade and a half ago.
Which brings us to the team the Stars will see three times this month,the LA Kings.
The Kings have won two of the last three Cups. A dynasty? Not for me. I'm a believer in the 3 in 3 years, 4 in 4, or 4 in 5. (Or in the case of the 80s Oilers, 5 in 7) Yup, 3 in a row or 4 half a decade or so or no deal.
Agree with the Razor criteria?
So anyway, by my count the Kings have a shot at Dynasty status, but it's a long shot.
Past Dynasties seem to have had similar core groups of players that made up the championship foundation. A cursory glance to the rafters in Montreal, Long Island, and Edmonton brought on the epiphany that dynastic teams have to have six "franchise" players: a goalie you drafted, a defenseman you developed, and four forwards of varying styles - all of them usually homegrown
The NY Islanders are the perfect example. They have retired the numbers of six players: Goalie Billy Smith, defenseman Denis Potvin, clever scoring center Brian Trottier, super sniper Mike Bossy, power forward Clark Gillies, and heart & soul winger Bob Nystrom. Six guys. Four consecutive Stanley Cups.
Edmonton is similar: Fuhr, Coffey, Gretzky, Kurri, Messier, Anderson. (All homegrown) The Kings have the goalie (Quick), the defenseman (Doughty), also Kopitar...maybe
Who knows, maybe with free agency and a capped system, no franchise will ever again be able to sustain the winning year after year after year after year.
Heck, the Stars would gladly just take a second Cup title before the 20th anniversary of the first. Call it a Boomerang or Echo Cup if it happens...or, perhaps, the infancy of a Dynasty?