OK I think I see what you are saying. If we went with all unproved kids instead of guys like Quincey, Kindl we would likely do worse in the standings THIS year.
Yes, there is a possibility, but not by much.
As much as I want to think/hope/pray that Marchenko/Oullette/Sproul/etc. ultimately have a higher ceiling than Q or K. They're still highly unproven.
I think the likelihood of more mistakes made by an all rookie third pairing... (That, let's be honest has been suggested by some here on LGW, but would probably nevereverneverneverevernevernever happen under Babcock) ...by either poorly pinching in, or through defensive zone turnovers could lead to costly goals that could decide games leading to us falling in the standings.
...but still probably not enough to garner us a top-five draft pick.
I mean, that's what everybody wants when they say, "TANK IT." No?
...and just so that I'm not misunderstood. I don't think that having middling guys... what did I say before? "servicable"
...like K, Q, and Lash bogging down the third pairing is the way to go either.
Jettison one or two of the three. Hell, jettison all three and get an upgrade. Either way you can then rotate in a kid or kids.
Anyway you look at it, you're still NOT TANKING. It's just the difference between a realistic, and measured approach and an insane one. The previous of which, unbeknownst to some and contrary to the belief of many, is the way that the Red Wings Organization works.
They're not going to have a rookie third pairing just like the plan has always been that they're not going to tank.