Yes, you're such an intellectual heavy that your viewpoint was not decipherable. Jesus.
You've been vocal that the retool will not be successful long-term b/c Armstrong elected not to bottom out and it clouds your opinion of every decision. Your hypothesis will not be known for some time. I actually felt similarly in probably 2023 but I give Armstrong credit for navigating both the short-term and long-term objectives of the franchises rather successfully. They are not bottoming out so I don't understand why we are still having this conversation as a fanbase. That debate is over. Now it's time to watch and analyze the results of this decision.
Currently, Armstrong is trying to improve the team at the margins while not sacrificing any significant long-term piece. Perhaps it's an edict from ownership to stay semi-relevant. But trading a 2nd round pick for a stop-gap defenseman like Fowler that it no way blocks any significant young defenseman but also stabilizes the blueline (which has a core piece in Broberg who was starting to get overexposed) is not mortgaging any future. We're not trading Lindstein and 1st for Malkin. You seem to have difficulty making the distinction.
So you do understand, and you are just mischaracterizing my opinion to get some sort of rise out of me. Got it.
I have never said we should completely bottom out. I'd like the see that post you got that from. That would take trading away talent(Thomas) I don't want to trade and taking longer than our current core has (Thomas, Kyrou, Parayko). I advocating taking a few steps back (draft 5-10, 5-10, 10-15), then make playoffs.
Armstrong and Co actually did take a step back. I would have hoped for a few more (trade Buchnevich and Binnington) but they were willing to take a slower path to competitiveness. Then Broberg and Holloway hit and Monty came available. Now they are making moves again, and it seems with the Fowler trade they are trying to accelerate the plan. I don't see the justification.
The Fowler trade may not block any D but it does waste a 2nd. A big part of the plan, mine or Army's, involves drafting well and getting multiple shots at drafting well. There are great players available throughout the draft. But they are not as obvious after the top 10. If we do not have a top 5 pick, we need multiple late 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks.
We are trading another shot at a difference maker, even if its a long shot, for a guy who will be gone when it matters. And the only justification people in support of the move can say is we don't want to ruin the development of our young players by forcing them to play too early, while also saying he'll be gone before any of these young players are ready.
Maybe I'm projecting, but I feel like they just don't have the stomach for losing in the short term and are making excuses. Even if it's not a full-scale tank, I think there is benefit to staying the slow and steady course. That 2nd round pick could be the next Colton Parayko, ready when the current one retires. Instead we have Fowler for a year and a half where we have major holes in our roster like no middle 6 Cs at all, none.
