I've said this elsewhere but I think that either approach of "we need to tear down to the studs and rebuild" or "we have a good core and if we spend some money we can make a truly competitive team" is, at least, a defensible point of view.
What is not defensible is the current approach of "we refuse to do either, and magical thinking will carry us to victory on a budget." The front office's fear of just picking one of those paths and walking it will delay a genuine resurgence for the team by years.
Two addenda to this thought:
My point only makes sense from the fan standpoint that "winning is the point," and maybe less from the front office's standpoint of "we run a business."
I don't think everyone is agreeing on what "competitive" means. I see folks talk about competing and they say "we can still make the playoffs!" Playoffs are good, but if this squad does somehow make the playoffs does anyone really think they have the chops to win a title? That leaves us stuck in a place in which maybe making the playoffs is good enough, and prevents us from either rebuilding or beefing up. But at least for me personally, competing has to mean taking that next step and reasonably having a chance to, you know, do that thing Tom Beringer says.