Yeah, that was forced.
So I was at The Hockey News, and saw a fan letter asking if there will ever be another dynasty in the NHL. Now they didn't bother describing what they meant by a dynasty, but I've seen the question often enough to have thought a bit about it, so here goes.
About dynasties: it is difficult to judge what should qualify as a "dynasty" now. New Jersey could certainly qualify, I think: over a decade of strong teams with three cups in fifteen years. Detroit, as mentioned, has four in the same span (with an additional final appearance to boot) and has been one of the best in the league for twenty years.
Colorado's Avalanche had ten excellent years with two Cup wins.
Then there are the Flyers, with ten seasons first or second in their division and two finals appearances (not including last year). But without any Cups to cap their years, can they count?
Edmonton had nine years of dominance with five cups. Feels strange to ask, but is a decade enough, especially when compared to the Devils or Red Wings?
Winning Cups can kill off any potential dynasty now, as Chicago is finding out what Carolina, Anaheim, and Tampa Bay already learned: try to keep your stars, and you will lose your depth. The last team to win without much in the way of depth was Montreal riding Roy, Keane and Carbonneau to victory (their motto: They can't score if we have four defensemen on the ice at all times!).
So if you see dynasties as being all about the Stanley Cups in a short span, then yeah, they're probably over. But if being at the top of the league for a decade (or more) is a dynasty, then we've already had at least one since the Oilers.
Unless you're old enough to sigh wistfully and stare at the world through nostalgia-coloured glasses, that is. Then the answer is No, Of Course Not! Not Like They Had In My Day...