I'd be the opposite - take the club as is and make my own mark. If that means dealing some NHL prospects away to get younger, so be it. I know they're my picks.
I'm going to guess you've never been involved with taking over an ongoing operation that you would be rebranding to fit your vision before.
If you have an ownership group currently on a soft footing with the fans it's easier for them to move out current vets, especially if any are fan favourites since they won't be around for the potential fall out the following season. A new group coming in and immediately start moving out fan favourites just when the team appears to be coming back to respectability would cost them fans on day one.
Any new group would want to make their mark, that's a given and when your starting the easiest way is to have a clean slate and assets to get you off to a running start. Carrying over players that aren't in your plans slows you down, especially when potential value is lost and cannot be recovered so they start with fewer assets.
If fan support is an issue now a new ownership group does usually get a bump the question is how big of a bump they get? Like I said if they have to play the bad guys by moving out the fan favourites in year one that won't be returning and take the team back a step or two they won't get much of a bump. If the team takes the hit this year, gives them future added value to start with they come in with fan support that has lowered expectations for the first year or two. With the added assets it allows them to generate excitement from the start without having to play the bad guys. A good young core in place, extra assets to add from the start, potential new management/coaching all creates a revived buzz around the team. Going into the season with a previous groups vision, limited assets leads to limited early success and potentially a further deterioration of the fan support.
It's easier to set your vision with a clean slate then it is to have to clear the slate.
Now before you throw out something that makes no sense. no, you don't get rid of the top young talent with a couple of years of eligibility left, you move on from the vets. The young talent sets the new foundation, the extra assets solidifies it and provides the potential for excitement since you are set up for an early run instead of having to finish off what someone else started then go right into the tank.
Any potential changes likely play a part in the deadline this year. How far along things are will determine how that plays out but as I said I hope the current group has learned their lesson. If this a possibility that's far from complete they have to follow their plans as if it's not going to go through. If it's a probability that just needs the final rubber stamp put on it, nothing that would give cause for concern like last time then you allow the new group their influence.
If you're buying a building for a restaurant and want to go with a particular theme do you wait for the current owner to renovate it to something completely different than what you want? it doesn't change the cost you're putting out for them, may even increase it but it also increases the cost to you when you have to rip it all out just to start over again. If they are willing to renovate to your liking, at an additional cost you pay for the work to be done as long as you have full input and control.
