Which NHL Team Is Most in Need of a Rebuild?

Heading into the 2016-17 season, there was something odd going on with the NHL's 30 teams. For the first time in years, everybody was trying to win.

That sounds like it should be standard operating procedure, but it's not, at least in today's NHL. In recent years, a handful of teams have clearly gone into each season with the intention of losing. Oh, the league swears that tanking never happens, and you're supposed to use terms like "strategic rebuild" in polite company, but fans know better. With surefire franchise players like Connor McDavid and Auston Matthews waiting for whichever team could secure the top pick in the last two drafts, some clubs were more than happy to camp out in the cellar and improve their lottery odds.

But not this year. This year, everyone came into the season looking like they were actually trying. It was kind of nice.

It was also two months ago. A quarter of the way into the season, it's becoming clear that some teams just aren't as good as they'd hoped to be. And it won't be long before the NHL's tank brigade starts to appear, engines revving as the race for Nolan Patrick begins.

So today, let's try to answer the question: Which NHL franchise is most in need of a good ol' fashioned rebuild?

Clearly, we don't need to do this for everyone. We can eliminate any team that's already contending, or reasonably close to it. That's a tricky thing to define, but let's go with this: Any team that's won a division title or been to a conference final over the last two seasons is considered a contender, and we won't worry about them hitting the reset button any time soon. That knocks 11 teams off the list.

We're also going to rule out a few teams that are already rebuilding, or were very recently. That means Buffalo, Toronto, Arizona and Edmonton are all out; nobody expects them to start over again so soon. And of course, we're not going to worry about the expansion Golden Knights, since you have to build something before you can rebuild it.

As it works out, that leaves us with 15 teams, or half of the current league. That seems about right. So let's start with the teams that are in the best shape and count our way down to the dregs as we ask the question: Is it time to tank?

The case for: They've had a disappointing year so far; after being a trendy preseason pick to contend for a Cup, they've struggled to even stay in the playoff mix.

The case against: They've spent years building toward contender status, and seemed like they'd arrived this year. Pulling the chute because of a tough 20-game stretch would be a classic case of overreacting to small samples. They're reasonably young, the cap situation is solid, and the prospect pipeline is already in decent shape. With Pekka Rinne having just turned 34, goaltending is going to be an issue at some point soon, but otherwise, they should be fine.

The verdict: David Poile knows what he's doing. Next.

The case for: They haven't won a playoff round since 2012, and a disappointing start to the season already has them looking like a long shot to break that streak this year.

The case against: The Flyers are a good example of a team that's spent the last few years executing a reload instead of a traditional hit-rock-bottom rebuild. They've only picked in the top ten of one of the last five drafts, but GM Ron Hextall has been building patiently and amassing good young players. Between Shayne Gostisbehere, Ivan Provorov and Travis Konecny, they've already got some excellent young talent.

The verdict: Philadelphia fans aren't known for their patience, but Hextall deserves some time to see his plan play out.

The case for: In five seasons since returning to Winnipeg, they've yet to win a single playoff game. And they've been a letdown yet again this year, struggling to climb into the playoff race in a tough Central Division.

The case against: They're already the league's youngest team, with a stocked pipeline that had some experts handing them future Stanley Cups—and that was before they added a legitimate blue chip stud in Patrik Laine. If anything, they're one of the teams that might want to be moving picks and prospects to make a leap right now.

The verdict: Hope can only sustain you for so long, and at some point soon, all that future potential has to start translating into something in the present. If it doesn't, that will fall at the feet of coach Paul Maurice, or maybe even GM Kevin Cheveldayoff. But a rebuild? Not for a while yet.

The case for: They've missed the playoffs five years out of six, and look like they're headed in that direction again this year. They've had some high picks in those years, with three choices in the top six, but none in the top three.

The case against: They've looked at least a little better over the last week or so. More importantly, they're already a fairly young team, with players like Sean Monahan and Dougie Hamilton to build around. And while they haven't had a chance to draft that top three franchise player, they may have managed to find the rare late-round version in Johnny Gaudreau.

The verdict: Flames president Brian Burke memorably refused to tank when he was the GM in Toronto, even though the Maple Leafs seemed to be screaming for that approach. That ended up being a disastrously wrong call. But these Flames are in a much different—and much better—situation. There's no need for a tank here.

The case for: They've missed the playoffs in five of the last six seasons and haven't won a round since 2008. They look like they'll miss again this year, too, and in a stacked Central Division, maybe this is as good a time as any to take a strategic step back.

The case against: They already bottomed out a few years ago, racking up three top three picks in five years, including a first overall. That means that they're still a relatively young team. They'll move some veterans, and Jarome Iginla should bring a nice return at the deadline. But a rebuild usually means breaking up the core, and this doesn't look like one you'd want to do that with.

The verdict: Something needs to change in Colorado, and maybe it's in Joe Sakic's old-school front office. But it feels too soon to talk about hitting the reset button on the roster.

The case for: They're riding a streak of seven straight years without a playoff appearance, the longest in the league outside of Edmonton. Attendance is bad and getting worse, and relocation rumors pop up from time to time. At this point, you might as well bottom out and hope you can draft a franchise savior before you're headed to Quebec.

The case against: Wait, are they already rebuilding? I nearly put them in the same group as the Sabres and Leafs, but I'm not sure whether this is a strategic rebuild or a team that's stuck at the bad end of the mushy middle. They've drafted in the top seven four times since 2010, but never higher than fifth, and they haven't really done the sort of star player selloff that tends to mark a true rebuild. Then again, they didn't have that many star players in the first place, and they did move Eric Staal at the last trade deadline.

In any case, there's some evidence that the Hurricanes are already secretly good, or at least better (and smarter) than you think. They're a consistently good possession team that gets killed every year by bad shooting and awful goaltending. If they can improve either or both, they might be in the playoff picture, and finding a competent goalie doesn't require a full rebuild.

The verdict: We can argue over whether the tank has already rolled through Carolina, but for now they look likely to stay the course—at least as long as ownership will allow it.

The case for: They've made the playoffs once in seven years and have never won a round in franchise history. They've never finished higher than seventh in their conference, or third in their own division, which seems just about impossible. Oh, and their cap situation is a mess.

The case against: They're surprisingly good this year, beating plenty of top teams and entrenching themselves in the wild-card race. Nobody really seems to think that will last, but when you're as starved for success as the Blue Jackets have historically been, you don't mess with a good thing.

Besides, the team's core is reasonably young, with key pieces like Brandon Saad, Seth Jones and Zach Werenski in place and reinforcements on the way from a decent prospect pipeline.

The verdict: It still feels like there's a reckoning coming soon in Columbus, especially if the percentages catch up with them and they fall out of contention this year. If we were writing this post a few months from now, there's a good chance the Jackets would be several slots higher. But for now, they can cautiously stay the course.

The case for: After winning two Cups in three years and being the best NHL team outside of Chicago over the last five or six, the Kings haven't made much noise over the last few seasons. They missed the playoffs in 2015 and went out meekly in the first round last year. And this year, a slow start had them looking up at a lot of the Western Conference for most of the season's first two months.

On top of that, this is the oldest team in the NHL, with a salary cap clogged with bad contracts and one of the league's weaker farm systems. It was fun while it lasted, but the finish line is in sight.

The case against: This year's Kings may be better than we think. As always, they're an excellent possession team, and they've heated up in recent weeks to get back into the Pacific race. And remember, they're missing Jonathan Quick, who'll be out most of the regular season with an injury but should be back by playoff time.

The verdict: Waiting too long to rebuild is a major mistake. But doing it too quickly can be at least as bad. The Kings' day is coming, and probably soon. But right now, this team may still be a Cup contender. They deserve the chance to find out.

The case for: They haven't made the playoffs since their trip to the finals in 2012. They've only had one top five pick since Scott Niedermayer 25 years ago, and that player (Adam Larsson) isn't on the roster anymore. They're still relatively old, and while they've been better than expected so far this year, they're a long way away from challenging the Metro Division's big three.

The case against: The Devils are another team that you could argue is already rebuilding, even though they haven't bottomed out the way other teams have. They've also got one of the best goaltenders in the league in Cory Schneider, and you'd hate to waste a big chunk of his prime on a full-scale rebuild.

The verdict: The Devils are a real Rorschach test. Do you see a team that's walking the line of reloading without having to tank? Or is this a classic case of a stuck-in-the-middle team that's not good enough to contend but just not quite bad enough to add the pieces it needs for the future? New Jersey has a very good GM in Ray Shero and its been exceeding expectations recently. But if Shero's finger isn't at least hovering over the reset button, it probably should be.

The case for: Assuming you don't live in Ottawa, when was the last time you even really thought about the Senators? Other than Erik Karlsson's brilliance, they haven't been all that noteworthy since their trip to the final in 2007. They've won just one playoff round since then, missing the postseason altogether four times.

They're never terrible—they haven't finished in the league's bottom five since their expansion days—but they're also never in the Cup contender conversation. They've had a surprisingly good start to this season, but we've been here before with this team, and the story always seems to end the same.

The case against: Karlsson really is a once-in-a-generation talent, and you'd hate to waste what's left of his prime on a multi-year rebuild. And the team's done a great job of drafting and developing young players over the years, so it may feel like it can find top talent even without high picks.

But there's a bigger question hanging over Ottawa: Would the fans keep filling the building to see a bad team? That's a concern in every market, but it's especially pronounced in Ottawa, a city that's seen more than a few sports teams leave town over the years. Half-empty buildings earlier this season won't help. Factor in that the notoriously budget-conscience Senators may need playoff revenue just to break even, and the call to rebuild is a complicated one.

The verdict: The question for the Senators isn't so much "should they?" as "can they?" There's a growing feeling in Ottawa that the current approach of being consistently decent but never elite just isn't working, and fans might look at what's happening with their rivals in Toronto and wish the Sens would do the same. But would those fans buy tickets?

The case for: They haven't made the playoffs since 2014, and didn't come into this season expected to contend for much more than a wild-card spot. Their longtime franchise player, Zdeno Chara, seems to be on his last legs, and while their prospect pipeline is deep, it's lacking in the sort of blue chip players that championship teams are built around.

What's more, coach Claude Julien has been on the hot seat for a few years now, and there are rumblings that GM Don Sweeney and maybe even team president Cam Neely could be, too. This feels like a team that could be one bad year away from sweeping everything out the door and starting all over.

The case against: They've been slightly better than expected this year. And while Chara may be on the way out, they've got three very good players in Patrice Bergeron, Brad Marchand and Tuukka Rask who are all at the tail end of their prime right now. There's no guarantee that any of them would still be elite contributors by the time a three or four-year rebuild was ready to bear fruit.

The verdict: This season's start may have staved off the inevitable, but it seems like a rebuild has to be coming soon. The question is what kind. The presence of players like Rask, Bergeron and Marchand might make the idea of an on-the-fly reload seem more attractive than a full-scale teardown to the Bruins' brain trust—whoever that happens to be.

The case for: Back in 2012, the Wild made a huge free agency splash by signing free agents Zach Parise and Ryan Suter to massive contracts. That was supposed to be the move that pushed them toward contender status; instead, the Wild seem to have become one of those dreaded stuck-in the-middle teams. They've made the playoffs four years in a row, but have only won two rounds. They haven't picked higher than 15th, but also haven't advanced out of their division. They're old and expensive, but the farm system is just OK. The NHL roster is just OK. Results so far this year have been just OK. In today's NHL, "just OK" doesn't get you anywhere.

The case against: The Wild made a major move in the offseason to bring in Bruce Boudreau as coach, and you figure he deserves a chance to see what he can do with this group. And this wouldn't be an easy roster to break up. Veterans like Suter, Parise, Jason Pominville and Mikko Koivu are all good players, but they'd all be difficult if not impossible to move because of their contracts.

The verdict: If the Wild suffer through another early exit this year, a rebuild may become inevitable. But it will be tough to pull off, and don't be surprised if it's someone other than current GM Chuck Fletcher who ends up doing it.

The case for: After finally winning their first playoff round in 23 years last season, the Islanders have taken a major step back. They've been one of the league's most disappointing teams, settling into last place in the East. Their big UFA addition, Andrew Ladd, has been a bust, and will be 37 when his seven-year contract expires. Their goaltending is a weird mess. Oh, and everyone hates their new building in Brooklyn. Surely, this can't be what the team's new majority ownership signed up for.

The case against: Almost everything is pointing to a full rebuild, but there's one problem: John Tavares. He's the franchise, and exactly the sort of player that teams tank entire seasons just to get. But he hits unrestricted free agency at the end of next season, meaning he'll need a long-term extension as early as this summer. Does he want to commit what's left of his prime to a team that's headed back to square one? And if not, how do you possibly sell a frustrated fan base on a future that doesn't include the best player they've had in a generation?

The verdict: You have to think that coach Jack Capuano and GM Garth Snow are on the hottest of hot seats right now, and a new management group might decide that there's no choice but to start over. But the Tavares situation is worth watching closely. If he wants to stay, it makes things tricky. And if not… well, there's no better way to jumpstart a rebuild than by trading one of the best players in the entire league.

The case for: They've made the playoffs every year since 1990, by far the longest active streak in the league (and in North American pro sports). But all things must end, and this sure seems to be the Red Wings' year.

While they've got a handful of good young players in the lineup, the core is old and expensive. And the prospect pipeline isn't anything to get excited about, partly because the Wings haven't picked higher than 15th since 1991.

Simply put, without some sort of major changes, there's no real reason to think that things will get much better than they are right now.

So could they rebuild? Unfortunately, a lot of their roster is locked into long-term contracts that would be tough to move. Henrik Zetterberg, Niklas Kronwall, Jimmy Howard and Jonathan Ericsson are all signed through at least 2019. Those aren't impossible deals to move, but you're not going to get a top pick or prospect without eating a bunch of salary.

Still, that's a degree of difficulty, not a reason not to try. The way this season is going, the Red Wings look like a team that isn't going to have a choice.

The case against: Timing. Red Wings owner Mike Ilitch is 87 years old and would no doubt love to see another Cup run. And maybe more importantly, they're set to finally move into an expensive new arena next season. That could make this the worst possible time to take a major step back.

Add in the fact that longtime GM Ken Holland is on the record as being against the idea of starting over, and it's not hard to see where there would be a strong push at the organization's highest level not to opt for a classic rebuild.

The verdict: Sorry, Detroit. It was a great run, one that NHL fans may never see again. But unless this season turns around quickly, it's becoming clear that it's time to bite the bullet and start over. The new arena complicates things, and maybe it makes it tempting to try to squeeze one more competitive season out of the current core. But that's just postponing the inevitable.

Holland may not like it. Then again, after nearly two decades as GM, maybe he should be part of the housecleaning.

The case for: We could mention the team's poor record, or the aging roster, or the farm system that's largely barren beyond a few top names, or the zero playoff rounds won since the 2011 Cup final, or the general lack of direction, or the fans crying out for a change in direction, or the local media ripping their approach.

But instead, let's just point out the obvious: When you saw the premise of this post, you immediately thought "Ah, OK, so the Canucks are going to be ranked number one."

The case against: There isn't one. At least, not a good one. Everyone already realizes what has to happen in Vancouver. But that doesn't seem to be stopping the Canucks from plowing forward with a "win now" mentality, so let's try to figure out where they're coming from.

According to GM Jim Benning, the team is a playoff contender and their goal is to snag a wild-card spot. If that sounds like aiming low, well, it is, and that's part of what has Canucks fans so upset. But we can cut Benning at least a little bit of a break here, because what's he supposed to say? "I've been the GM here for three seasons and didn't rebuild when I might have had the chance, so now I know that if we do hit the reset button the first move will be me getting fired"? You'd give him points for honesty, but he wouldn't make it through the whole sentence before Trevor Linden had yanked his sport coat over his head and wrestled him out the door.

There's also the question of how a rebuild would even work. Normally, you start down the road by trading veterans, but that would be difficult for the Canucks. Sure, you move Ryan Miller and maybe Alexandre Burrows. But you can't do anything with that Loui Eriksson contract. And more importantly, your two franchise players are identical twins who've always been a package deal. You think it's hard to trade one big contract in today's NHL? Try finding a home for the Sedin twins at a combined $14 million price tag. And that's if the twins even wanted to leave, which by all indications they don't.

But the biggest issue of all in Vancouver, if you believe the rumor mill, is that ownership isn't behind starting over. The Aquilini brothers may not trust the Vancouver market to handle a lengthy losing spell, and some recent attendance questions may back them up. If the bosses aren't on board, nothing that Linden, Benning or anyone else says is going to matter.

The verdict: The case against isn't a case at all. It's just a list of excuses and rationalizations from a franchise that's come to specialize in them. The Canucks need to smash the reset button with both hands, and they needed to do it years ago.

It won't be easy. Tanking never is. But it's a necessary evil in today's NHL. And right now, nobody needs it more desperately than the Vancouver Canucks.