Are the Red Wings a dynasty?

From Jamie Samuelsen of the Detroit Free Press:

Dynasty – a powerful group that maintains its position for a considerable time.

Well, the Wings may not be the Mings or even the Carringtons (’80s TV reference that about six readers will get), but if you go by the definition, they are a dynasty.

A lot of callers disagreed. They claimed that to be a sports dynasty, you have to win multiple championships in consecutive years. Like the ’90s Bulls or the ’80s Islanders and Oilers. But I disagree. In fact, I’d argue that it’s the opposite.

To me, a dynasty is a franchise that maintains excellence even as the players change. The Bulls were great because of one guy – Jordan. The Oilers were great because they had Gretzky and surrounded him with Hall of Famers like Kurri, Messier and Coffey. Those guys stayed together and won a ton. Those are great teams, not dynasties.

The Red Wings have been the best or one of the best teams in hockey for more than a decade. Each and every year they are a favorite to win. They are a consistent challenger for the top spot in the league. And they’ve won four Cups. Yet during that run they have changed general managers, coaches, goaltenders, captains and leading scorers. They have maintained excellence while changing the roster almost entirely. That’s more dynastic than striking gold for three or four years with a superstar player or tandem.

Read the entire entry here.

If you consider his definition of a dynasty, then why doesn’t he include the 1995-present New Jersey Devils as a dynasty?