The Chicago Blackhawks' Game 6 win over Tampa Bay on Monday night was more than just their first Stanley Cup-clinching victory on home ice since 1938.
It represented their third NHL championship in six years, the first time that has been accomplished since Steve Yzerman, Sergei Fedorov and Brendan Shanahan hoisted the Cup in 2002 following back-to-back titles in 1997 and '98.
For some, Chicago's accomplishment puts them in the same company as the Montreal Canadiens of the late 1970s and New York Islanders of the early '80s.
Those teams won four consecutive championships and were considered dynasties of their era, an era devoid of a league salary cap.
This is where the debate begins.
Is winning three championships in a six-year period enough to be a dynasty, given the fact the salary cap precludes teams from keeping a group of high-salaried players and those coming off career seasons for a long period?
Let's say the Los Angeles Kings win the Cup next spring, making it three titles in five years? Are they a dynasty? But they didn't even make the playoffs this year? Does that matter?
While many believe the NHL will never see a return of the traditional dynasty with a team winning champions for at least three consecutive years, are the Blackhawks an example of a redefined dynasty?
Share your thoughts in the comments section and on our Facebook page.