Sure, it’ll happen eventually, but wouldn’t you rather start that process now instead of being a team in no man’s land the next 2-4 years? Is it worth being stuck in purgatory just to get something out of suter/praise? You couldn’t get what you needed out of those guys when they were in there prime, do you really think you’ll get that now?
Yes, you’ve got a decent defense now, but you’re about to lose spurgeon and Suter will only decline from here.
Rebuilds are always gambles and there’s a luck component, but as you acknowledged, it’s inevitable. The only way this team can become a cup contender is if it starts from scratch and sooner rather than later.
Spurgeon's likely staying and Suter's decline should be pretty gradual, unless his foot injury becomes a chronic thing. And it's a decline that we can manage when the rest of the top-4 is as good as it is.
I think there are a lot of assumptions about what "the process" has to look like with a rebuild. People on here have very specific ideas about what a "rebuild" looks like, but what Fenton's done with the Granlund and Coyle trades is turn two older, more expensive players that have tapped out their potential for younger, cheaper players that still have a lot of room to grow. There's a risk that neither turns out to be as good as what we gave up, but risk is the name of the game with rebuilding (or retooling, or whatever you'd like to call it).
I think there are also a lot of assumptions about which strategies are viable. It's hard to look at what the Bruins have been doing for the past decade and tell me that a full-on rebuild is the only path to success. And it's hard to look at what the Coyotes, Panthers or Oilers have done over the same span and think that a very destructive rebuild is a wise investment.
So Compete vs Rebuild is a false dichotomy. Doesn't mean that what Minnesota's doing is going to work or that the moves are the right ones, but I don't think the entire approach is doomed from the get-go either.