All fan bases have people with tear it down fetishes. The reality is that, like many markets, Boston ain’t gonna tear it down until they have to. They have retooled on the fly successfully before. But I don’t have to tell a Wings fan that sometimes that luck/ability runs dry and the rebuild is forced on you. Bruins haven’t reached that point yet, but they do need to push some buttons soon here.
Amen to this.
This place in particular, is obviously pretty bad about desiring these often impossible "tear it down rebuilds". Especially in markets and situations where there's just no mandate for that coming from ownership. And where...like Boston, they've got substantial "veteran" cap commitments to "good - but not good enough" players.
When you've got pieces like McAvoy, Pasta, Marchand, etc. you're not going to "tear it down". You might concede the season at some point, but it's always going to be more of a "retool" when you've got those, plus another few practically "unmovable" contracts (due to $$$, NTC/NMC protections, optics, etc.). Plus a 25-year old goalie they just signed to a huge long-term deal.
I think a lot of it is just ignoring practical considerations in the mechanics of how a "tear down" would even work.
The other part is just...somehow, despite watching a bunch of teams spin their wheels for half a decade, or a decade even...there's this delusional notion that teams can just "flip a switch" after a couple years of "tanking" and become great again. Just not understanding how long those sort of "rebuilds" really take. Or how teams typically end up there.
Where it's usually a long, slow, agonizing slide into it. As you wait on a locked in veteran core to "age out". Then you end up in the absolute cellar, and start to accumulate the cap flexibility and young talent to completely rebuild around a different new core.
