As we await the start of the 2008 Stanley Cup Final, there's a lot of talk flying around about how a Detroit win would create a post-modern era "Dynasty" with 4 Stanley Cups in 11 years. Or how a Pittsburgh win will likely usher in the start of a new hockey "Dynasty".

There are a lot of words thrown around casually in sports, and "Dynasty" is one of them. We want to recognize success, and we want to equate the success of current teams (our great teams) against the all-time greats (our father's and grandfather's great teams). But "Dynasty" has a very specific meaning: usually at least three successive championships or, if we broaden the definition slightly, a number of championships within a short timespan, like the Edmonton Oilers winning five Stanley Cups in seven years.

As someone who foolishly clings to the notion that words are important, and their meanings shouldn't be cheapened, Detroit's recent Stanley Cup run of 3 in 6 (1997, 1998 and 2002) and potential Stanley Cup run of 4 in 11, while impressive, does not a Dynasty make. We need another term.

I propose "Dominant". It captures the idea that people wish to impart -- these are significant accomplishments achieved by excellent teams -- without cheapening the term "Dynasty". More importantly, "Dominant" allows us of have more than one team vying for the title of excellence, which better reflects our current era where there is no single uber-team.

Consider: Of the last ten Stanley Cups (1997-2007; no Cup in 2005), the victors include Detroit (3), New Jersey (2), Anaheim (1), Carolina (1), Colorado (1), Dallas (1) and Tampa Bay (1). If we look at appearances in the Stanley Cup Final over that same time period, we get Detroit (3), New Jersey (3), Anaheim (2), Carolina (2), Dallas (2), Buffalo (1), Calgary (1), Colorado (1), Edmonton (1), Ottawa (1), Philadelphia (1), Tampa Bay (1) and Washington (1). For 2008, give another appearance tally for Detroit and add Pittsburgh to the list.

Clearly, we can make the case that Detroit and New Jersey (at least as far as appearances in the Stanley Cup Final and championships won) are the Dominant teams of the last decade, but neither obviously comes close to qualifying as a proper Dynasty. And I think a decade is the longest timeframe that should be considered when we talk of Dominance and Dynasties. Those great teams we recall from the past are primarily a collection of athletes who will walk through history together as champions. The more time between titles, the less connection those title-winning teams have with each other. Look at the rosters and you'll find there is surprisingly little player overlap between the Detroit squad of 2002 versus the current club, let alone the Detroit teams of 1997 and 1998.

So, sit back and enjoy the 2008 Stanley Cup Final. Will Detroit extend their Dominance? Might we be watching the beginning of something special in Pittsburgh? We'll know in a couple of weeks.

Barring a miracle on the Pennsylvania Turnpike or a Texas landslide, it's beginning to look more and more like 2008 will provide us with a Detroit vs. Pittsburgh Stanley Cup Final. And that match-up could be one for the ages with the most probable and potential HHOFers in the lineup since Colorado vs. New Jersey in 2001, maybe even since Edmonton vs. NY Islanders in 1984.

Eyeballing the Detroit/Pittsburgh rosters, there's pretty much four guaranteed HHOFers already in the mix (Hasak, Lidstrom, Chelios and Crosby), a bunch of guys with the potential to get there if they stay healthy (Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Malkin, Hossa, Gonchar), even a couple of argument candidates (Osgood and Roberts) thrown in for good measure. And, no doubt, maybe one or two more young players who'll emerge from the mix over time and surprise us all. That's not a bad crop of high-end talant which should produce some great hockey over the next few weeks.

In advance of that, it's to one of those HHOF argument candidates -- Chris Osgood -- that I'd like to turn our attention and sound out the argument posed in the title of this blog: Is Chris Osgood a Hockey Hall of Famer?

The initial gut reaction for many (myself included) is that Chris Osgood isn't a Hall of Famer. He doesn't have the swagger of a Billy Smith did or that aura that surrounded Grant Fuhr in his prime. Instead, Osgood has quietly put together a very impressive career, and with nine straight wins in this year's playoffs he's beginning to make some noise at last. So let's take a closer look at Mr. Osgood...

As of the end of this regular season, Chris Osgood has won two Stanley Cups (albeit one as a caddy) and holds a regular season record of 363-195-66 in 664 games (a 0.596 winning percentage). Those are pretty good numbers thus far, which currently puts him in the same class (stastically, at least) as Hockey Hall of Fame hopefuls Rogie Vachon (3 Cups, 355 wins), Tom Barrasso (2 Cups, 369 wins), Andy Moog (3 Cups, 372 wins) and Mike Vernon (2 Cups, 385 wins). Each of those players have vocal lobbists passionately arguing for their induction and the Hall would clearly not be diminished by their inclusion.

Let's consider Osgood's contemporaries: Among active goaltenders, only Martin Brodeur (3 Cups, 538 wins), Ed Belfour (1 Cup, 484 wins), Curtis Joseph (0 Cups, 449 wins) and Dominik Hasek (1 Cup, 389 wins) are ahead of Osgood in regular season wins. There is little doubt three of those four guys in front of Osgood are headed to the Hockey Hall of Fame shortly after they retire -- the jury is still out for Curtis Joseph; subject matter for another blog someday. Osgood is among some select company.

So, is Chris Osgood a Hockey Hall of Famer? I'd have to say he's a player on the cusp, and this post-season could be critical to his chances, tipping him one way or the other in the minds of fans and HHOF Selection Committee members alike. If Osgood wins his third Stanley Cup this year (playing AHEAD of Hasek) and he pushes himself over 400 regular season wins (which is quite possible with another couple of seasons in the Motor City), the argument for his induction becomes significantly stronger and I'd wager it likely he makes the cut. Conversely, if Osgood loses out in the Final this season, he becomes labelled as a guy who couldn't win with a great team in front of him and likely finds himself on his way out of Detroit and out of HHOF contention.