There's no guarantee you can turn into a top contender in either case. Both sides of the scenario can be true.
Teams can turn into the current Blackhawks or the current Wild teams. I see a brighter future with the Blackhawks and a much more exciting one I would argue.
What you’re losing in all of this is salary cap. It’s fine to say Minnesota is an example of middling results over a long term… they’re also about to drop something like 13 million in dead cap space next year. Do you want to be the Blackhawks signing dusty veterans to round out a lottery team because they’ve got Bedard or the Wild with Kaprizov and co. and millions to round out the roster?
I’m not seeing how the Capitals, at this stage, will be doomed to mediocrity when they’re working off of a good structure and improving as-is. As for the post-Ovechkin era (and let’s fold Carlson in there too) it’s easy to factor in losing the players, but important to remember how flexible that makes them. That’s a bit over 17 million off the books, presumably by losing guys who no longer serve as NHL players.
depending on results you’re still talking about a team with some serious flexibility here. They’ve got arguably at least 2-4 quality newcomers in the next 2-3 years. Leonard, Cristall, and Miro should all comfortably see time at the very least, I won’t do a fan breakdown on prospects but these are very visibly NHL players to whatever extent. They only have a handful of long term contracts (Strome is already a bargain, Protas may join that group, Dubois and Roy arguably the only true question marks) as they exit the Ovechkin/Carlson deals….
Isn’t this just what a tear down rebuild would look like as it grows up anyway? Multiple intriguing prospects on the way, conservative cap situation, waiting to make the right moves or pay the right players… what do they need?
People love to talk about how you need high overall draft picks and then ignore the fact that Boston has been a thorn in everybody’s side for at least a decade. I’d take being Boston.