Commitment to winning or commitment to being mediocre, same difference it seems.
I want this team to commit to winning a Stanley Cup. Barely making the playoffs every year and then not going anywhere isn't success in my mind. And if the team can't realisitically compete for a cup that season, I want the team to put itself in a position to compete for it in the future. If that means cutting some veterans and letting the youth get a chance to learn the NHL game, so be it. If that means that a streak is sacrificed so the team doesn't throw away picks and prospects for bandaides, so be it. This move by Holland does not make this team a Cup contender, it makes it first round fodder, and it makes it a less viable team in the near future as well.
Yes, I think we fully understand your line of thinking. A commitment to losing now is a commitment to winning later. And, you think that automatically will turn Detroit into the new Pittsburgh and Chicago. The main problems that I have with that are that (as has been pointed out to you already), top draft picks do not always lead to Stanley Cups or even general success. There are more examples of teams that drafted high for multiple seasons and it didn't work out that well for them than the other. And, I don't think losing purposefully for any reason is respectable and I can not and will not buy into it. I don't root for my team to lose - that's what fans of the other teams do.