When the Chicago Blackhawks face the San Jose Sharks tonight, the matchup is about more than two teams near the bottom of the standings. It’s a direct look at two NHL rebuilds that began around the same time — but took very different paths.
Since 2022, both organizations have torn down their rosters, traded franchise players, stockpiled draft picks, and leaned on free agency to bridge the gap. Chicago committed early to a full reset under Kyle Davidson, while San Jose took a more gradual approach under Mike Grier before fully embracing the rebuild.
This article breaks down when each rebuild truly started, the key trades that shaped them, the first-round picks that now form the foundation, and how each team used free agency along the way — all backed by verified data. By the end, we’ll see not just where these teams are today, but how their choices led them here.
WHEN THE REBUILDS BEGAN
Hitting the Reset Button
While the Chicago Blackhawks and San Jose Sharks are both in rebuild mode today, their timelines show an important difference in how early each organization committed to the reset.
Chicago Blackhawks
Chicago’s rebuild officially began in the fall of 2021, when longtime general manager Stan Bowman resigned and Kyle Davidson was promoted to GM. The direction became clear at the 2022 Trade Deadline, when the Blackhawks moved core players and accepted short-term pain in exchange for long-term flexibility.
From that point forward, Chicago committed fully to a teardown. Veterans were moved out, cap space was preserved, and draft capital became the priority. The message was simple: start over, build through the draft, and don’t rush the process.
San Jose Sharks
San Jose’s timeline started slightly later. Mike Grier was hired as general manager in July 2022, becoming the first Black GM in NHL history. While changes began immediately, the Sharks initially tried to remain competitive during the 2022–23 season, keeping much of their veteran core intact.
The true teardown didn’t arrive until 2023–24, when San Jose finally moved cornerstone players and accepted a deeper rebuild. From that moment on, the Sharks shifted fully toward youth, draft picks, and long-term development.
The Key Difference
Both teams entered rebuilds within a year of each other, but Chicago committed earlier and more aggressively, while San Jose delayed its full reset. That difference in timing would later shape how each organization approached trades, free agency, and draft strategy.
THE TRADES THAT SHAPED EACH REBUILD
Who They Moved — and What It Meant
Rebuilds are defined by trades. Not just who gets moved, but when, why, and what a team asks for in return. Chicago and San Jose followed two different playbooks once the teardown truly began.
Chicago Blackhawks: Fast, Aggressive Asset Collection
Once Kyle Davidson committed to a rebuild, Chicago moved quickly to strip value from the roster and convert it into draft capital and flexibility.
The first major signal came in July 2022, when the Blackhawks traded Alex DeBrincat, a proven young scorer, rather than building around him. That move made it clear Chicago was prioritizing long-term assets over short-term wins. Shortly after, Kirby Dach was also moved, reinforcing the idea that no player was untouchable if the return fit the rebuild timeline.
At the 2022 and 2023 trade deadlines, Chicago continued to sell aggressively. Brandon Hagel was dealt for futures, while Patrick Kane was eventually moved once circumstances allowed, closing the chapter on the franchise’s previous era. Jonathan Toews was not traded but exited the organization as Chicago fully turned the page.
Even contracts inherited from the previous regime were eventually addressed. Seth Jones, acquired before Davidson took over, was later moved as part of the rebuild process, allowing Chicago to turn a long-term commitment into future assets.
Chicago’s approach was clear: move players early, maximize flexibility, and stack picks, even if it meant losing recognizable names quickly.
San Jose Sharks: Delayed Teardown, Bigger Swings
San Jose’s rebuild unfolded at a different pace. After Mike Grier was hired in July 2022, the Sharks initially tried to balance change with competitiveness. Veterans remained on the roster longer, and the organization delayed a full teardown.
That approach shifted dramatically beginning in 2023. The Sharks moved Timo Meier, signaling the start of a deeper rebuild. This was followed by the trade of Erik Karlsson, one of the most significant deals in franchise history, which brought back a substantial package and marked a clear reset.
San Jose also moved long-time core pieces such as Tomas Hertl, officially ending the previous era of Sharks hockey. Additional veteran contracts, including Mikael Granlund, were later flipped for future assets as the rebuild progressed.
Rather than selling quickly, San Jose waited — but when they did move players, they targeted impact returns instead of volume. The Sharks accepted a longer period of pain in exchange for fewer, but potentially higher-value, transactions.
Trade Philosophy: The Contrast
Chicago’s rebuild was defined by speed and volume — moving players early and often to stockpile picks and cap space.
San Jose’s rebuild was defined by timing and patience — holding veterans longer before executing major, franchise-altering trades.
Both paths aimed at the same goal, but the difference in execution would shape how each team approached the draft, free agency, and roster construction moving forward.
CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS — REBUILD TRADES (KYLE DAVIDSON ERA) 52 trades
| Date | Player(s) Traded | Trade Partner | Assets Received | Rebuild Outcome |
| Mar 18, 2022 | Brandon Hagel | Tampa Bay | 2023 1st, 2024 1st, Taylor Raddysh, Boris Katchouk | 2023 1st → Oliver Moore |
| June 24, 2022 | Kirby Dach | Montreal | 2022 1st (13th), 2022 3rd | 13th → Frank Nazar |
| July 7, 2022 | Alex DeBrincat | Ottawa | 2022 1st (7th), 2022 2nd, 2024 3rd | 7th → Kevin Korchinski |
| Mar 3, 2023 | Patrick Kane (50% retained) | NY Rangers | 2023 2nd, 2023 4th | Futures |
| Mar 3, 2023 | Max Domi | Dallas | 2023 2nd | Futures |
| Mar 3, 2023 | Jake McCabe, Sam Lafferty | Toronto | 2025 1st, 2026 2nd | Futures |
| Mar 1, 2025 | Seth Jones | Florida | Spencer Knight, conditional 2026 1st | Core goalie asset |
SAN JOSE SHARKS — REBUILD TRADES (MIKE GRIER ERA)
| Date | Player(s) Traded | Trade Partner | Assets Received | Rebuild Outcome |
| July 13, 2022 | Brent Burns (33% retained) | Carolina | Steven Lorentz, Eetu Makiniemi, 2023 3rd | Early cap reset |
| Feb 26, 2023 | Timo Meier | New Jersey | 2023 1st, 2024 1st, Shakir Mukhamadullin, Fabian Zetterlund, Okhotiuk, 2024 7th | Core rebuild return |
| June 27, 2023 | Erik Karlsson (18% retained) | Pittsburgh | Mikael Granlund, Jan Rutta, Jeff Petry, 2024 1st | Franchise reset |
| Mar 8, 2024 | Tomas Hertl (17% retained) | Vegas | 2025 1st, David Edstrom, 2027 3rd | Full teardown moment |
| Feb 1, 2025 | Mikael Granlund, Cody Ceci | Dallas | 2025 1st, 2025 4th | Flip veterans for picks |
| Mar 7, 2025 | Jake Walman | Edmonton | Conditional 2026 1st, Carl Berglund | Future-focused move |
DRAFT CAPITAL FROM THE REBUILD
Turning Trades Into Foundations
Chicago Blackhawks — First-Round Picks (2022–2025) 38 picks total
| Year | Overall Pick | Player |
| 2022 | 7th | Kevin Korchinski |
| 2022 | 13th | Frank Nazar |
| 2023 | 1st | Connor Bedard |
| 2023 | 19th | Oliver Moore |
| 2024 | 2nd | Artyom Levshunov |
| 2024 | 18th | Sacha Boisvert |
| 2024 | 27th | Marek Vanacker |
| 2025 | 3rd | Anton Frondell |
| 2025 | 25th | Václav Nestrasil |
| 2025 | 29th | Mason West |
SAN JOSE SHARKS — 1st-Round Picks (2022–2025)
| Year | Overall Pick | Player |
| 2022 | 27th | Filip Bystedt |
| 2023 | 4th | Will Smith |
| 2023 | 26th* | Pick from Meier trade |
| 2024 | 1st | Macklin Celebrini |
| 2024 | 11th | Sam Dickinson |
| 2025 | 2nd | Michael Misa |
| 2025 | 30th | Joshua Ravensbergen |
TEAM RESULTS SINCE THE REBUILDS
The Cost of Tearing It Down
Free agency shows how a rebuild is managed day-to-day.
Chicago and San Jose both rebuilt — but used UFAs very differently.
Chicago Blackhawks — Short-Term Control
Since 2022, the Blackhawks have focused almost exclusively on short-term UFA contracts. These signings were not meant to change the franchise. They were meant to support the rebuild without blocking it.
The goals were clear:
- Add NHL experience to a young locker room
- Protect prospects from being rushed
- Keep roster spots flexible
- Create potential trade value at the deadline
Most Chicago UFAs were signed for one or two years. If a young player was ready, the UFA moved aside — or was moved out.
Chicago does not chase big names in free agency.
They chase control and patience.
Chicago Blackhawks UFAs Since 2022
| Player | Signed Year | Term |
| Max Domi | 2022 | 1 year |
| Andreas Athanasiou | 2022 | 2 years |
| Nick Foligno | 2023 | 2 years |
| Corey Perry | 2023 | 1 year |
| Pat Maroon | 2024 | 1 year |
| Craig Smith | 2024 | 1 year |
| Alec Martinez | 2024 | 1 year |
| Laurent Brossoit | 2024 | 2 years |
| TJ Brodie | 2024 | 2 yeras |
Pattern: short deals, no long-term commitments, no prospect blockage.
San Jose Sharks — Stability Through Free Agency
San Jose used free agency more selectively, but with more willingness to add term.
The Sharks signed UFAs to:
- Stabilize the roster during the teardown
- Handle tough minutes
- Reduce lineup chaos
- Protect young core players
San Jose did not sign many UFAs, but when they did, the contracts were often longer than Chicago’s.
San Jose Sharks UFAs Since 2022
| Player | Signed Year | Term |
| Nico Sturm | 2022 | 3 years |
| Luke Kunin | 2022 | 2 years |
| Oskar Lindblom | 2022 | 2 years |
| Anthony Duclair | 2023 | 1 year |
| Mike Hoffman | 2023 | 1 year |
| Tyler Toffoli | 2024 | 4 years |
| Alexander Wennberg | 2024 | 2 years |
| Cody Ceci | 2024 | 2 years |
Pattern: fewer signings, more stability, longer commitments.
What This Tells Us
Chicago
- UFAs as placeholders
- Short-term control
- Maximum flexibility
San Jose
- UFAs as stabilizers
- More term
- Less churn
- Structure around young talent
Same rebuild goal.
Different management risk tolerance.
CORE & PIPELINE BUILT UNDER EACH GM
This section shows what each rebuild has actually produced so far — and what is coming next.
Not hype.
Not projections without context.
Just the core + pipeline each general manager has built.
CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS — DAVIDSON CORE & PIPELINE
Kyle Davidson’s rebuild is built on volume, patience, and internal competition.
Chicago is not rushing answers — they are stacking options.
Established core under Davidson
These players are already part of the rebuild foundation:
Connor Bedard
Frank Nazar
Oliver Moore
Ryan Greene
Sam Rinzel
Artyom Levshunov
Alex Vlasic
Spencer Knight
This group represents the spine of the rebuild: a franchise center, speed through the middle, and a defense group grown internally.
Long-term pipeline (potential future core)
This is where Chicago separates itself. The Blackhawks have built depth behind the depth, allowing patience instead of pressure.
Frondell
Vanacker
Boisvert
Nastresil
Kantserov
Kevin Korchinski
West
Spellacy
Pridham
Behm
Mustard
Gajan
Nick Lardis
Not all of these players will hit.
That’s the point.
Evaluation tier (NHL roster / fringe long-term)
These players are part of the rebuild environment, but their long-term status is not locked:
Wyatt Kaiser
Landon Slaggert
Louis Crevier
Colton Dach
Davidson has built a system where misses are survivable, because replacements are already in line.
Chicago rebuild identity:
Big pipeline. Long runway. Competition everywhere.
SAN JOSE SHARKS — GRIER CORE & PIPELINE
Mike Grier’s rebuild is more concentrated and selective.
San Jose is betting on elite talent first, then filling around it.
Established core under Grier
These are the Sharks’ clear rebuild pillars:
Macklin Celebrini
Will Smith
Collin Graf
Michael Misa
Shakir Mukhamadullin
Jason Dickinson
Alongside them, the long-term foundation includes:
William Eklund
Yaroslav Askarov
This is a smaller core, but one built around premium positions: center, defense, and goaltending.
Long-term pipeline (potential future core)
San Jose’s pipeline is thinner than Chicago’s, but still contains high-end upside.
Filip Bystedt
Yaroslav Ravensbergen
Kaspar Halttunen
Quentin Musty
Grier’s approach is clear: fewer swings, but higher confidence in the ones he takes.
San Jose rebuild identity:
Elite talent first. Structure early. Less margin for error.
WHAT THIS SECTION TELLS US
Chicago is building a rebuild ecosystem.
San Jose is building a rebuild nucleus.
One relies on volume and patience.
The other relies on precision and structure.
Both paths can work — but they will not peak at the same time.
SAME GOAL, DIFFERENT ROAD
Both Chicago and San Jose committed to full rebuilds.
Both accepted losing seasons.
But the way Kyle Davidson and Mike Grier chose to travel that road is very different.
Pain tolerance
Chicago embraced maximum pain early. Davidson stripped the roster down, accepted the standings, and focused on draft position and volume. Losing was not an accident — it was part of the plan.
San Jose also tore things down, but with more guardrails. Grier removed the old core while keeping enough structure to avoid total collapse. The pain is real, but more controlled.
Timeline patience
Davidson is building for the long game. Chicago is not rushing conclusions on young players. The organization is comfortable letting prospects develop at different speeds, even if it means extended struggles at the NHL level.
Grier’s timeline is tighter. With elite pieces already in place, San Jose is aiming to become competitive sooner, even if true contention is still years away. The Sharks want progress that is visible, not just theoretical.
Asset recycling vs. stability
Chicago treats roster spots as assets. Veterans are signed short-term, evaluated, and often flipped. Nothing is permanent unless it earns that status. The system stays flexible.
San Jose values stability earlier in the process. Grier has shown a willingness to keep players longer to protect young talent and create structure. Fewer flips — but when they happen, they matter.
Roster honesty
Davidson has been brutally honest about where Chicago is. There are no shortcuts, no illusions, and no rush to appear competitive. The rebuild is transparent.
Grier’s honesty is quieter but just as firm. The Sharks are rebuilding, but with a focus on teaching habits early so young players aren’t developing in chaos.
The bottom line
Chicago is building a rebuild ecosystem — depth, competition, patience.
San Jose is building a rebuild nucleus — elite talent, structure, clarity.
Same destination.
Different roads.
And neither rebuild will be judged fairly until time does its work.
THE RESULTS SO FAR: STANDINGS & RECORDS
What the Rebuild Has Cost (and Bought)
Before talking philosophy or future upside, we need to look at the hard truth:
the standings.
Team Records by Season (Since Rebuilds Began)
| Season | Chicago Blackhawks | Points | San Jose Sharks | Points |
| 2022-23 | 26-49-7 | 59 | 22-44-16 | 60 |
| 2023-24 | 23-53-6 | 52 | 19-54-9 | 47 |
| 2024-25 | 25-46-11 | 61 | 20-50-12 | 52 |
| 2025-26 | 21-25-9 | 51 | 27-22-4 | 58 |
This table represents the cost of rebuilding — seasons spent near the bottom to secure draft capital, development time, and cap flexibility.
What the Records Tell Us
Chicago Blackhawks — Controlled Pain
Chicago accepted the pain early and stayed disciplined.
- Three straight seasons near the bottom
- No shortcut seasons
- No fake pushes for respectability
- Losses were intentional and strategic
This allowed:
- High draft position (Bedard, Nazar, Moore, Levshunov, Frondell)
- Patience with development
- Clean cap sheet
- No panic signings
Chicago’s rebuild is slower, but very structured.
They didn’t try to win early.
They tried to build correctly.
San Jose Sharks — Deeper Drop, Harder Reset
San Jose’s fall was sharper.
- Legacy core aged out
- Big contracts had to be moved
- Defensive structure collapsed before youth arrived
Their records show:
- A steeper decline
- Fewer “bridge years”
- A more painful bottom
But it also forced:
- Total reset
- Full commitment to youth (Celebrini, Smith, Misa, Mukhamadullin)
- Long-term thinking without half-measures
San Jose didn’t choose pain —
they were forced into it, then embraced it.
Comparing Where They Are Right Now
Chicago
- Rebuild is clean
- Core is forming
- Timeline is long
- Still learning how to win
- Results not here yet — foundation is
San Jose
- Rebuild is raw
- Youth already everywhere
- Less insulation
- Faster exposure to NHL mistakes
- Results may arrive sooner — risk is higher
What This Means in One Sentence Per Team
- Chicago: building a house slowly, making sure the foundation doesn’t crack.
- San Jose: living in the house while it’s still being built.
Both paths are valid.
Both are painful.
Both take years.
Final Conclusion — One Game, Two Rebuilds
This article was never about tonight’s score.
It’s about:
- How much losing each team accepted
- What they gained from it
- How honest they were with their timeline
Chicago chose patience and control.
San Jose chose urgency and exposure.
The standings show the cost.
The prospects will show the payoff.
One game.
Two rebuilds.
Same destination — different roads.
I loved the breakdown, Grier is going to have to be right, but my biggest issue is depth depth and more depth. The Blackhawks rebuild allows so much more forgiveness.
Doesn’t the Sharks rebuild look a lot like the Leafs? Top heavy forward team? To me it really does, i see the same with the Ducks, time will tell but i want a 3rd scoring line and with our stable of dmen and the forward prospects pipeline.
The only thing i disagree with is the Sharks have been rebuilding since 21 and Kyle had no 1st round draft picks in 22 until he traded for 3 of them because of the Seth Jones trade which turned into a great trade for Knight and a 1st round pick.