Even as far as albums I don't care for, I guess when it comes right down to it, I would only include albums that affirmatively tarnish a band's legacy. To take Queensryche as an example, since they have been mentioned several times:
Everything Queensryche did after Promised Land until they finally got rid of Tate, but especially Mindcrime 2. A couple of good songs apart, this should never have happened
I don't agree with the more general point. But I do think there are a couple of albums in particular that rightly fit the bill. Like them or hate them, I have to go with Mindcrime II and Dedicated to Chaos. Say what you will about the other albums the band did, but I wouldn't say they tarnished the image or legacy of the band.
I put Mindcrime II up there for a few reasons. First off, the execution of it was just so subpar compared with the first that it doesn't really "deserve" to have the Mindcrime name attached to it. The original is so revered in the musical community that it should not have had a sequel to begin with. And it if must have a sequel, the sequel had to been a lot closer to flawless. This wasn't. Second, it was clearly a cash grab. The musical integrity wasn't there. The desire to financially capitalize on the Mindcrime name clearly was. Third, and this is related to the second point, Tate flat out lied and tried to revise history in saying the band contemplated a sequel when they did the original. Unfortunately, he and the band are on record during that time period as saying the exact opposite. This album not only tarnished the band's legacy, but also somewhat tainted the original by association.
D2C and the Cabaret debacle: Do I even need to spell out why this tarnished the band's image and legacy?