Good post and food for thought.
Just off of recent memory there are a number of 'models' that have been admired for replication.
- Cup winners can influence that. When the 2011 Bruins and 2012 Kings sent a message that you had to be tough and strong. That it didn't matter how skilled you are if you didn't have BIG, MEAN players.
- Then there's today where everybody wants their small, speedy skill-guy.
- Developmentally, the failure of the Oilers "proved" that you couldn't just have young players thrown together without putting them in a winning environment. So, enter Lindennig saying that we had to win and develop at the same time.
- Well, how well did that work out? Our re-jig became a retool became a reboot became a rebuild and we're nowhere.
- For a while, the Detroit model was looked up to: slowly introduce players only after they have payed their dues in the minors, even if your high picks are there until their 20's.
- Now...get your kids in as soon as possible. In our case, Utica isn't even being used, really. We just go the college route.
Point is, a lot of this stuff seems reactionary, and in many cases that fails. You have to be proactive, and (just as you said) determine what the future is going to be like. Problem there? What if you're dead wrong? These people (scouts, GM's, etc.) are excellent at their jobs, but their not prophets, and don't possess a crystal ball. So, basically, if you guess wrong, you're hooped. Like in a lot of situations, I doubt there is only one way...but there are more and less effective ways. And after all that...I can't claim to know them.