Victims of "bad" tanks and rebuilds: How soon did you know something was going wrong?

[shello]

There's an interesting pattern with the two most successful tanks of the last 25 years (Hawks and Penguins).

Both got a least one superstar with a high, but not first overall pick (Malkin 2nd overall, Toews 3rd overall)
Both had a superstar go first overall (Crosby, Kane), though obviously Crosby is in a class of his own
Both had a superstar draft pick after the first round (Letang 2nd round, Keith 2nd round)
Both had multiple good players get drafted outside the top 10 as well (Seabrook/Crawford/Byfuglien/Brouwer/Bickell/Hjallmarsson and Whitney/Talbot/Goligoski)

Pittsburgh has the higher highs in drafting, and obviously Fleury and Staal are outliers in this regard.

But both teams combined superstars at #1 with 5+ good picks elsewhere.

Getting three superstars in the draft (Crosby,Malkin,Letang Keith/Toews/Kane) in a few years is a huge get. Filling the team with other great picks goes a long way too. Both teams had to retool significantly after their first Cup, but the depth charts from strong drafting helped a lot.

I agree with you, but Whitney was a top 5 pick

 

[qc14]

It's pro scouting.

There will be a time when you need to bring in veterans -- to take them on as cap dumps, to fill out a roster, to take chances on young talent that hasn't worked elsewhere, to have someone there to mentor the kids, to start taking a step towards contention, etc..

The quality of those veterans will determine a lot. I think it's honestly one of the biggest differences between the vibes in SJS vs. ANA/CHI/DET/BUF right now. Toffoli, Granlund, Wennberg, Walman, Liljegren are all at their core good players. All some combination of overpaid/overutilized sure, but just good players. Killorn, Trouba, Tarasenko, Kane, Petry, Clifton, Chiarot, Hamonic, etc. are bad players.

 

[Sol]

I think for me is when I was watching Byfields draft videos and all I saw was a guy who was scoring on the rush.

And how bad he was at WJC didn’t help either.

That’s why it’s no shock to me he is struggling this year after being taken away from Kopitar.

 

[WarriorofTime]

There's an interesting pattern with the two most successful tanks of the last 25 years (Hawks and Penguins).

Both got a least one superstar with a high, but not first overall pick (Malkin 2nd overall, Toews 3rd overall)
Both had a superstar go first overall (Crosby, Kane), though obviously Crosby is in a class of his own
Both had a superstar draft pick after the first round (Letang 2nd round, Keith 2nd round)
Both had multiple good players get drafted outside the top 10 as well (Seabrook/Crawford/Byfuglien/Brouwer/Bickell/Hjallmarsson and Whitney/Talbot/Goligoski)

Pittsburgh has the higher highs in drafting, and obviously Fleury and Staal are outliers in this regard.

But both teams combined superstars at #1 with 5+ good picks elsewhere.

Getting three superstars in the draft (Crosby,Malkin,Letang Keith/Toews/Kane) in a few years is a huge get. Filling the team with other great picks goes a long way too. Both teams had to retool significantly after their first Cup, but the depth charts from strong drafting helped a lot.

Speaking for Hawks, they had a great foundation in place prior to Toews/Kane being drafted. The issue there is most people have no clue what other team's prospect pools look like outside of the high-profile names, and even if they follow the rankings and such, noobdy has any idea how all those players turn out until looking in hindsight much later.

Hawks would have had (age they turned in 2006 calendar year in parentheses) in the system, whether NHL roster, AHL roster, draft pick not yet officially in the org yet:

Duncan Keith (23)
Brent Seabrook (21)
Niklas Hjalmarsson (19)
Patrick Sharp (25)
Corey Crawford (22)
Dustin Byfugilien (21)
Tuomu Ruutu (23)
Troy Brouwer (19)
Dave Bolland (20)
Bryan Bickell (20)
James Wisniewski (22)
Cam Barker (20)
Adam Burish (23)
Jack Skille (19)
Brandon Bochenski (24)

So even though the Hawks didn't really add anything besides Toews and Kane from the 2006, 2007 and 2008 Drafts despite missing playoffs all three of those years, there was already a great foundation in place.

Yet during the 2005-06 season, nobody would have really looked at the Hawks as a team that had such a good foundation where they just needed a couple homerun top of the draft picks and could leverage that to a mini-dynasty. Many of those were lower round draft picks. Someone like Patrick Sharp would have been viewed as old and likely tapped out with his half ppg amidst more opportunity after being traded by Flyers. Of course there is no way to account for a Bochenski for Versteeg (turned 20 in 2006 calendar year) trade steal and then they also traded Ruutu for Ladd (turned 21 in 2006 calendar year) to give a couple more guys on the timeline.

The narrative circa then would have been the Hawks have been trying and failing to rebuild for a while with lots of busts, terrible ownership, a team nobody including the former hall of famers wants anything to do with. The highest ceiling players amongst the list above would have likely been considered Cam Barker and Jack Skille.

This is what make rebuilds so tricky to properly assess. Had more of those guys gone in a different direction post 2005-06, we're looking at a scenario where Kane and Toews step into a void roster with maybe some young guys that have future NHL journeymen potential. They're asked to carry a big load with little to no support behind them. As the rest of 2006-2008 drafts don't bear much results, they have to resort to more desperate free agents singings to try and get a core, but of course nobody with good options wants to play there. Maybe six years in, both are looking to play elsewhere by then.

You just don't really know what teams have going on in the system until you can zoom out and look years later and say "oh yeah, their prospect group was really stacked then".

 

[gary559]

Rebuilding teams need to be a pain to play against, trying to stack skill without having any toughness usually doesn't work out.

 

[Pavels Dog]

It's pro scouting.

There will be a time when you need to bring in veterans -- to take them on as cap dumps, to fill out a roster, to take chances on young talent that hasn't worked elsewhere, to have someone there to mentor the kids, to start taking a step towards contention, etc..

The quality of those veterans will determine a lot. I think it's honestly one of the biggest differences between the vibes in SJS vs. ANA/CHI/DET/BUF right now. Toffoli, Granlund, Wennberg, Walman, Liljegren are all at their core good players. All some combination of overpaid/overutilized sure, but just good players. Killorn, Trouba, Tarasenko, Kane, Petry, Clifton, Chiarot, Hamonic, etc. are bad players.

Vibes are high in SJ because there are zero expectations and some of their kids look good.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I think you can call it a success/fail by year three. If you haven’t won a cup by then you never will.

 

[Xirik]

Devils didn't have any vets to sell so I guess we never tanked?

 

[TheBeerNerd]

Ray Shero came in as Devils GM and had a vision of a "run-and-gun" team. I'll give him credit for coming up with an identity from the get-go, but under John Hynes, I couldn't see it, outside of the Taylor Hall Hart year. It certainly didn't manifest in the extremely passive defensive system.

So my answer is- if your team either has a stated identity that doesn't match what's on the ice, or doesn't have an identity to strive for at all, that's when you can tell. Also, they need to nail that coaching hire.

 

[BHFAN92]

This is really a poll on tanking. We talk about tanking a lot on this board because it's an easy, obvious strategy for a rebuilding team. Tank successfully and you win a shiny, exciting new toy at next year's draft. It's a fun upside-down standings that fans of losing teams can cheer for.

Sure, tanking helps. Florida got Ekblad and Barkov; Tampa got Stamkos and Hedman; Colorado got Landeskog and MacKinnon. Those teams added their core stars by being really bad.

But as stated very well above^, tanking year after year becomes a cheap drug that leads nowhere. Yes, you need some lottery picks, but contending rosters also need lucky later picks and/or bold, big trades. In other words, GMs can't passively hope their team is rescued by a series of 18-year-old prospects.

There's no one-size answer to the OP's question, but it's fair to give a rebuild at least three/four years before judging. Main signs are:

1) Is the first wave of rebuild players showing improvement? After two/three years, your first tank picks should start showing signs of their pedigree.

2) Is the GM active? Is he stocking picks, trade-assets, & cap space? Does the GM have the balls to shift from seller to buyer, make the big trade and bid on a big UFA?

3) Is the timing of all the above a strategic response to the roster's development, or is it an emotional response to fan impatience? Move too slowly and you have a young roster with chronic gaps and no leadership. Move too fast and you generate a short-term gust of wind that'll lift you towards the playoffs, but let you plummet just as quickly.

I will take a stab at this from Blackhawks fan perspective:

1) Is the first wave of rebuild players showing improvement? Korchinski & Nazar are technically wave 1 and as of last 2 weeks been called up and playing but haven't put in much in terms of meaningful stats. Bedard is wave 2 and had outstanding yr 1 but due to scheme and talent hasn't taken next step towards superstardom in yr 2. Luke Richardson getting fired and new coach Sorensen has given Bedard a bump playing in new scheme (7pts in 5gms) Levshunov is wave 3 and after suffering broken ankle in summer has begun to start playing well in Rockford over past month. Overall I would say KD has a very solid B out of his past 3 drafts but has failed to land another potential top 6 forward (star potential) Oliver Moore and Frank Nazar are likely top 6 but not stars to play with Bedard. He has done well with potential bottom 6 guys like Kantserov, Lardis, Vanacker, Boisvert, Spellacy

2) Is the GM active? Is he stocking picks, trade-assets, & cap space? Does the GM have the balls to shift from seller to buyer, make the big trade and bid on a big UFA? KD has made multiple trades to acquire future picks in multiple draft so Yes I would check this box as a yes

3) Is the timing of all the above a strategic response to the roster's development, or is it an emotional response to fan impatience? KD doesnt seem to be rushing anything and I think its much to the fanbases dismay and Bedard's development

 

[TheBeastCoast]

You do realize the Leafs have a lower point percentage right now than any Atlantic division winner in the years Dubas was there? Blaming him for not being better than the historical Bruins/dynastic Lightning is a stretch + the Florida teams that have been generally good in the same window as the Leafs and this is coming from someone who thinks Dubas blows chunks

So can we use a strong division as an excuse for our lack of playoff success? I can’t keep up around here.

 

[K1984]

Would have been the start of the 13-14 season for the Oilers.

In 12-13 the Oilers were actually in a playoff spot at the deadline before totally cratering down the stretch. Dallas Eakins was supposed to be the next coming of Scotty Bowman and the one to solve our problems, only to start something like 4-18 with the team looking worse than it had at any point.

Was apparent then that the mix of players wasn't it. Mercifully it lead to drafting Draisaitl in 2014 and McDavid in 2015. The Oilers are everyone's favourite team to troll for "duhhhh LOOK AT ALL THE 1ST OVERALLS," but the crop of Hall -> RNH -> Yakupov is probably among the worst possible run of 1st overall players you could land on. That's simply bad luck, and we're seeing it with some other teams today. Not all #1 overalls or high draft picks are the same, and if you have the bad luck of landing on those picks on the wrong year it can destroy a first rebuild attempt almost single handedly.

 

[SEALBound]

It's not just enough to suck, you have to suck at the right time. Something that doesn't get acknowledged enough is how much "luck" is really involved with building a competitive team (read: one capable of winning the cup).

You get 3 1st OVs, sometimes that would be MAF, Ovechkin, and Sid and other times that would be Hall, RNH, and Yakupov. Not every draft has a generational, franchise player available. Sometimes there's 2-3, sometimes there's 0.

When you're bad, the best way to get good players is through the draft. Adding or supplementing via trade and FA is incredibly tough.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Vibes are high in SJ because there are zero expectations and some of their kids look good.

Like he said though, Grier's pro scouting has been great.

Blackwood, Granlund, Walman, Liljegren, Dellandrea etc. were all traded to SJS and seen as reclamation projects/acquired for next to nothing and are now key players for the team. Blackwood was acquired for a 6th and just returned Kovalenko and a 2nd. Walman was traded with a 2nd that was used to move up in the draft. He's used expendable assets to address areas of weakness such as the Askarov trade. Even in free agency, he's not committed to any longer term contract, and brought in complimentary veterans like Toffoli and Wennberg for 4 and 2 year contracts.

Alot of the other "rebuilds" used as his example have failed to do so. By either failing to bring in veterans, bringing them in on bad contracts, or just bringing in players who aren't good.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

It really takes a lot of luck. And not the kind that most people think. All of your ducks have line up in a row. Which means ownership and management have to be on the same page. And that usually means that a GM has to be hired at least near the beginning of the rebuild. A rebuild that ownership has fully committed to.
You can't have multiple GMs during your rebuild, if you want it to be a success. So hire one near the beginning of the rebuild and have him see it all the way through.
Plus a whole lot of other subtle details that have to go right, at the beginning. Otherwise, it's over before it begins. inevitably it will get tripped up somewhere down the road.
It's about the plan, the commitment, and the execution. If one of those don't get accomplished, that's when your rebuild has come up short.

 

[WarriorofTime]

The Oilers are everyone's favourite team to troll for "duhhhh LOOK AT ALL THE 1ST OVERALLS," but the crop of Hall -> RNH -> Yakupov is probably among the worst possible run of 1st overall players you could land on. That's simply bad luck, and we're seeing it with some other teams today. Not all #1 overalls or high draft picks are the same, and if you have the bad luck of landing on those picks on the wrong year it can destroy a first rebuild attempt almost single handedly.

Yes, a relatively bad rolling three-year period in terms of top 3/top 5/top 10 picks is basically impossible to control for if a team presses the "TANK" button. Everyone knows there are bad drafts, you can't really say there's a "bad league" as a whole because it's always just relative to each other, so the further we zoom out, the harder it is to say there was a bad x number of drafts. But for a relatively low number, we can certainly say some drafts are not too good as they don't contain a lot of players that are able to overtake players from prior drafts and aren't able to hold off players from subsequent drafts.

This is the hidden factor in all of it that will cause people to say "tanking doesn't work! Bad cultures!" A lot of it just comes down to who is available in particular draft years and how deep the field goes in terms of high-end impact players.

 

[K1984]

Yes, a relatively bad rolling three-year period in terms of top 3/top 5/top 10 picks is basically impossible to control for if a team presses the "TANK" button. Everyone knows there are bad drafts, you can't really say there's a "bad league" as a whole because it's always just relative to each other, so the further we zoom out, the harder it is to say there was a bad x number of drafts. But for a relatively low number, we can certainly say some drafts are not too good as they don't contain a lot of players that are able to overtake players from prior drafts and aren't able to hold off players from subsequent drafts.

This is the hidden factor in all of it that will cause people to say "tanking doesn't work! Bad cultures!" A lot of it just comes down to who is available in particular draft years and how deep the field goes in terms of high-end impact players.

The Sabres and Oilers would probably essentially flip spots in the pecking order had the Oilers drafted Reinhart and Eichel instead of McDavid and Draisaitl. The margin is that close.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Not a tank job, but the Canes’ attempt at a rebuild in the early-mid 2010s started to feel “off” when we found ourselves having to dream up nice stories about how Elias Lindholm, Justin Faulk, Jeff Skinner, Noah Hanifin, Haydn Fleury, Ryan Murphy, Jake Bean really was a good set of core players to build around a center duo of aging Eric Staal and Jordan Staal.

It’s that moment where you know damn well that Lindholm isn’t really a budding 1C and Hanifin/Faulk isn’t really a good enough top pair, but the narrative says this is supposed to work out. Eric Staal isn’t really a dominant center anymore but the narrative says he’ll bounce back as the team improves.

You find yourself clinging to the idea that Alex Semin and Tomas Kaberle and James Wisniewski are really strong UFA additions to fill gaps. And if you keep taking shots at goalies like Eddie Lack and Scott Darling, one of them is going to bloom into an actual starter. That guys like Kirk Muller and Bill Peters are just waiting in the wings to be great coaches.

It’s a lot of narrative which may or may not not a lot of substance behind it. You get sold on hope and have to learn the hard way why none of those guys was at the top of anyone else’s list.

Some time around 2016 it became undeniable that the Staal/Skinner/Faulk/Lindholm/Hanifin build was not actually capable of developing into a contender. That’s a gut-wrenching feeling because it means you go back to square one. That’s about the time the diehard fanbase starts to show cracks, because people react differently to disappointment and not everyone has another 5-10 years to devote to a failed experiment.

Ironically, they actually did draft the core of a really good team in Aho/Slavin/Pesce during that timeframe, but the narrative wasn’t focused on them. It wasn’t until the “name” players were stripped away that the real talent started to shine, and thank god for that because it probably saved the franchise from some really tough decisions.

 

[jkrdevil]

It's pro scouting.

There will be a time when you need to bring in veterans -- to take them on as cap dumps, to fill out a roster, to take chances on young talent that hasn't worked elsewhere, to have someone there to mentor the kids, to start taking a step towards contention, etc..

The quality of those veterans will determine a lot. I think it's honestly one of the biggest differences between the vibes in SJS vs. ANA/CHI/DET/BUF right now. Toffoli, Granlund, Wennberg, Walman, Liljegren are all at their core good players. All some combination of overpaid/overutilized sure, but just good players. Killorn, Trouba, Tarasenko, Kane, Petry, Clifton, Chiarot, Hamonic, etc. are bad players.

I think good pro scouting is a good answer. As a Devils fan think about the abortive rebuild under Shero and the reset that they have now pulled out of under Fitzgerald is how they tried to build the defense.

Shero tried to fast track a rebuild with the Hall trade, but traded their only good young defensemen in the process. They were giving away pick for Mirco Muller and made a big risk with Subban that failed.

Another aspect is knowing when to cut bait on young prospects that aren’t going to pan out.

Finally, there is luck. Not only did they have lottery luck, but frankly the pandemic helped them. They probably don’t sign Hamilton in a non-flat cap environment and they were able to take advantage of some cap crunches.

 

[chris kontos]

a bad sign is when jersey sales and marketing slogans like "tradition moves forward" become important. as was already said it depends alot on intent. does the management truly want to compete? or is barely making the playoffs considered the goal. is being a successful business enterprize truly the goal or is winning championships?
finishing out of the lottery but barely good enough to compete in the regular season that places the team in the black hole of mediocre draft picks and never winning anything over multiple seasons is an unsuccessful rebuild in my opinion.

 

[Zarzh]

Well whenever an executive talks about avoiding a losing culture you know the rebuild is doomed to failure because they will blame structural issues on culture and not build with purpose.

You need at the very least a strong 2D and a good all-situations 1C to come out of a rebuild as a playoff contender, more to win a cup but it's hard to make the playoffs without both.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Trading away high picks for vets when you're not a playoff team. That was always a headscratcher to me.

 

[raymond23]

Winning the right lottery at the right time

 

[Nogatco Rd]

It wasn't signing Tavares it was hiring Dubas.

You notice how Dubas isn't here and they are 1st in the Atlantic, battling for 1st in the NHL?

This is what happens when you have a REAL GM and and REAL coach

So Keefe isn’t a real coach yet they are 4 pts ahead of the leafs?

 

[Chiarelli]

Avs started to really suck sometime between 2004 and 2006. They had some guys in the pipeline but the team looked to be built around Duchene. The first game of the 2013 season MacKinnon was dominant and clearly better than any player on or coming up through the Avs. I remember thinking during mackinnons first game “so no what?” The writing was on the wall it was his team even if the roster looked ready the rebuild was far from over.