That mantra has never made sense anyways. More winning almost always means more profits. Wouldn't MLSE like the revenue from 6-12 extra home dates from a Stanley Cup finals run? Can you imagine the price of a ticket in the last row way up in the rafters for a Stanley Cup finals game?
I actually don't think profits have much to do with the issue with Shanahan. I think Shanahan (and Dubas) chose an approach and they want to prove that it can be successful, and be able to say 'I told you so'. It's a high stakes gamble - if it works they look great, but if next season ends essentially the same I think the entire group gets shown the door from Shanahan on down.
If Shanahan was to change GMs, he probably buys himself more time. If Dubas fires Keefe or trades one of the core, he might buy himself time. If they run it back, what justification will there be for ownership to keep them unless there is significant improvement in the playoffs next season?