idk. it's pretty hard to make unexpectedly great moves these days.
in order for NYI to move on, they'd have to get significant return for their very scarce assets. and those scarce assets do not include a winger who scores on the PP, but was awful at even strength (Palmieri), or a 2nd line C who is a good complimentary scorer, but is streaky + doesn't bring a lot of speed or jam (Nelson). Certainly a 3rd line C who had an awful defensive year, and a defensive D who seems to be suffering from core/back problems shouldn't bring significant value.
NYI do have assets that are scarce - a RHD who is a transition star, a LHD who is a legitimate deterrent to puck carriers, and a goaltender who had a down year, but the skill is evidently tip-top. Barzal isn't as scarce as these, perhaps, but he's pretty exciting.
To significantly change direction while gaining assets (as opposed to mere cap space), NYI would have to trade rather than waste their scarce assets while moving lower-value pieces instead.
Folks can say NYI should have traded depreciating players (Pelech? Palmieri? JGP?) to gain cap space to add free agents, but imo that depends on assuming other GMs are incompetent or that UFA deals are certain. Neither assumption is reasonable.
I do understand criticizing NYI spending assets as recently as the 1st for Romanov, and the haul for Horvat. But imo moving on then would involve strongly considering moving on from Barzal and/or Sorokin. Sorokin would be a waste for a rebuilding team.
People can say that mediocrity is awful, etc. I guess it can be pretty bad. But can you imagine what it'd be like if the Islanders become the next Sabres, or Senators?
What I'm saying is that it would be a far bigger/more consequential/riskier decision to change directions than I think the media is considering. And I feel fairly confident that the criticism of NYI would be much harsher if they decided to rebuild.
