1. The team objectively sucked last year, and when I say 'objectively", I'm going beyond just the W-L record. The offensive and defensive efficiency numbers explain why they didn't win many games. And by the way, year one - which everybody now remembers somewhat fondly - had putrid analytics, too, though admittedly slightly less putrid.
1A. A personal viewpoint not shared by many - I am not interested in or impressed with any player's individual production when the overall team efficiency is that bad. Can you make the team better, yes or no.
2. 54% of the minutes left the team, the lion's share from two starters who each played over 30+ mpg. There's two sides to that coin, and both are true - 1) change is needed because the group you had objectively sucked (see #1), and 2) that's a lot to replace and unless those replacement minutes are an upgrade (however that's defined), it probably won't get better.
3. That second side of the coin is what's being debated in this thread. I think both the optimists and pessimists have valid arguments, and none of us have a crystal ball.
The optimists fervently believe in that first side of the coin and see change as the hope. Maybe they think the replacements are more talented, but I'm more swayed by the thought that the replacements will be able to play better as a team. I don't think there's any real evidence of either the talent or the ability to play as a team, but neither is there evidence of the converse. It could happen.
Pessimists see that the talent has not obviously upgraded, and may have even downgraded. There's a bunch of players that are being counted on that have either not been seen, been injured, or are being counted on to be a better version of what they were in the past. It inspires skepticism, not confidence.
When I weigh the arguments, I come down on the pessimist side, but I do understand and appreciate the possibility that the optimists could be right. No one knows they're right. But people on both sides act like they do.