You're referring to a time before cap limits. There's no difference between now and ten or twenty years ago. We're actually better off than the Houle era, and this board was counting down the days for when Gainey and Gauthier would be fired. Rinse/repeat. I'm also a frustrated Habs fan, but this is actually the most hopeful I've been in a few years with our current core. We have good young players in all the key positions especially center. I see no value in blowing up the current project and I see no blueprint for guaranteed success other than the anti-competitive "tanking" which I do not support no matter the potential benefits. The other blueprint proposed is trading our veterans for prospects. That's also not a guaranteed path. The only guaranteed path is reducing the league to about 20 teams like in the 80s, living with a decrease in overall revenue, and doing away with the cap so we can sign whatever players we want. But neither the league nor the players union would ever accept that.
I honestly haven't seen much of a plan from the detractors on this board other than "I would have made that move instead of this move," or "I would have gotten a ppG center and top pairing D, etc," like they grow on trees and teams are lining up to give them away.
It sucks we're stuck in a league that encourages failure as a means of success, but that's the situation we're all in. I would rather re-incentivize success so that teams actually attempting to remain competitive are rewarded while truly mismanaged teams like the Oilers and Senators are punished. Instead, they are showered with the best young players.
As a matter of principle, I think we should never accept a plan that involves failing as a first step. It's just not... right. The system is wrong, not us.
