How long should a rebuild take??

[Hunter368]

Depends on a lot of factors

- Small vs large market (FA signings, taxes, weather, etc)
- USA team vs Canadian team (FA signings, taxes, weather, etc)
- Drafting & development ability of the team
- Team budget to eat bad contracts to get more picks and sign FA’s
- How do you define rebuild, meaning a playoff bubble team or a serious cup contender bc once you have core assembled it still takes a few years for them to gain the required experience to be a serious contender vs a playoff bubble team is much easier/faster.

Playoff bubble team - 3-4 years
Serious cup contender- 5-10 years.

Building a serious contender takes a long time and is very expensive even for big market teams with advantageous tax & weather destinations……..and it’s only tougher for small market teams in destinations with poor weather and tax destinations.

 

[majormajor]

I'm talking sell off everything and throw away any hopes of winning in the present to making the playoffs in the future. What does that look like in regards to time?

I'd say average time to return to the playoffs after a complete sell-off (which we don't see very often) would be between 5 and 10 years. Maybe something around 7 years, but it would be hard to come up with a good sample of teams taking that approach. And that would just be an average, there is a definite possibility of it taking significantly longer. Even making the assumption of very good management, the expected timetable would vary widely, perhaps between 4-7 years.

5 years seems right.

2 years to tear it all down.
2 more years to draft a young core.
1 year to acquire veteran depth around that young core.

So your young core players are either still on their ELCs or just at the beginning of their second contracts.

Of course a lot has to go right for this to happen. No guarantees.

After that 5th year most of your ELC talent is still like 20 years old and you have to learn how to win. So perhaps after 5 years you have the personnel in place but you still need to add a year or more to that to come up with realistic expectations for making the playoffs. It's a long slog.

I have changed my opinion on the matter, and I'm talking about rebuilds that work.

So how long are the rebuilds that work well? Is that what you're asking? So ignoring the majority of rebuilds, the ones that don't have the combination of good luck and good management?

 

[Big Trout]

It's different for every team, depending on their assets when they sell.

But anything more than 5 years to get back inthe playoffs should be a failure

 

[NVious]

I think you need 4 years of being bottom 5 bad, the next 4 years should be an upward trajectory.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I'd say average time to return to the playoffs after a complete sell-off (which we don't see very often) would be between 5 and 10 years. Maybe something around 7 years, but it would be hard to come up with a good sample of teams taking that approach. And that would just be an average, there is a definite possibility of it taking significantly longer. Even making the assumption of very good management, the expected timetable would vary widely, perhaps between 4-7 years.



After that 5th year most of your ELC talent is still like 20 years old and you have to learn how to win. So perhaps after 5 years you have the personnel in place but you still need to add a year or more to that to come up with realistic expectations for making the playoffs. It's a long slog.



So how long are the rebuilds that work well? Is that what you're asking? So ignoring the majority of rebuilds, the ones that don't have the combination of good luck and good management?

Yes all a bit vague. If you pick top 5 in five straight seasons yeah you have a collection of high picks but they’re 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 that “sixth” season. Unless you have some other good but experienced players who rode through the tank years, go crazy that particular offseason with good moves or your first year of tank drafted other really good players with excess picks, it probably will take a bit longer than they even. Thing is nobody truly starts with “nothing” so how you managed to make the most out of the “something” will matter a lot in addition to what the “something” was. If a team really started with nothing (expansion group with spares/AHL guys) they could probably make playoffs one year if they got really aggressive since everyone has same hard cap but if they were really committed to “doing it right” to maximize a particular timeline to build up a big base from, probably looking at more like 7 years to make playoffs and another 3 to possibly have a team good enough to win it all if it goes right from there.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Damn... crazy to me that people think 5-10 years, with many saying 7-8 is a reasonable timeline. Like bottom our for 5 years (!?!) to get a collection of top 3-5 picks and then after that you start building on it? That's incentivizing ineptitude. 3 years as a bottom 5 team at the absolute most and that should be scorched earth, cap hell, worst case scenario.

I still stand by you should not be missing the playoffs 5 years in a row. That 5th year you should at least be a competitive bubble team.

 

[Dumais]

While a lot depends on the players available when rebuilding, which depends on development and attitude, which depends on good scouting, which depends on a good GM listening and Ownership not getting involved.

But in a salary cap system, with options to trade with now, 32 teams! over 100 years of history to learn from; it shouldn't take dumb luck or 8+ years to build a core that can win a cup.

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

5 years seems right.

2 years to tear it all down.
2 more years to draft a young core.
1 year to acquire veteran depth around that young core.

So your young core players are either still on their ELCs or just at the beginning of their second contracts.

Of course a lot has to go right for this to happen. No guarantees.

This blueprint is proof why 5 years isn't even enough.

By Year 5 you get one to two impact players at best from Year 1. If you want to see impact from that "2 more years to draft a young core", expect 4 years from that point before they are useful.

7-9 years is how long it usually takes

 

[FiveTacos]

Depends on how bare bones your young pipeline was when you started. If you gotta fill an entire roster it's gonna take a while. If you at least had a couple good young middle lineup players in the mix or close to making the NHL when you started that helps.

It also depends on if you find any additional impact players with a non premium pick. You get a top 6 forward or top pairing dman or something without using one of those top 5 picks, it's like cutting out the need for an extra year of bottom feeding.

 

[Mr Nogatco]

About 3.50

 

[norrisnick]

People that think it takes less then 5 years to assemble a core obviously have part of a core already.

 

[Caps8112]

depends on a teams assets at the time of the punt. If they decide to go full rebuild in preparation for a upcoming draft year and they have some established players 28-32, trading them for 1sts/2nds can accelerate a rebuild. If vancouver decides to rebuild and move Hughes, they could multiple picks right now to go along with whatever they have. Pretty much moving anything that isnt nailed down for picks is the good start. On the other hand a team that just sucks and has nothing of value is probably looking at 5 + years before improvement.

 

[Volica]

Highly dependent on luck. Notably lottery outcomes and relative draft strength.

This cannot be overstated.

A rebuild is infinite with no lotto luck. It doesn't end, and you get locked into the Florida/Buffalo/Columbus cycle of being really bad for a long time; then all it takes is some luck getting 1-2 pieces that you can build your foundation on and some semi-competent general management.

The Leafs had a 3 year rebuild, and everyone thought that was the blueprint. Of course it doesn't account for drafting potentially the best goal scorer of all time when all is said and done with a first overall, and then getting a top 3-5 RW in the NHL the next year and the previous year getting the third best player of the draft at 7. Along with having the best UFA in recent memory commit to playing for your team.

That just doesn't happen.

What I'm finding more and more, it's the teams that are semi-competitive who fall back into either a top 3 pick just due to some PDO/injuries or fall into a star in later rounds of a draft that end up being competitive faster and for longer. I think it's because it reflects some competent management; like a management group that can find value in UFA's/Draft picks that keep a team from being at 20 wins.

Like Colorado before the Makar pick? They were a middling team before collapsing to that pick.
Dallas before the Heiskanen pick? They were a 109 point team the year prior to falling into the lotto.

If the plan is to tear down the roster, scorch the earth, it's 5+ years and you have to really luck into some high end skill.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

Thank you for your honesty but I find that absolutely insane considering most NHL careers are less than 5 years long.

Now do core players.

 

[GettingYourMoms]

Detroit and Buffalo fans voting more than 5!