By this point, the term "bridge year" has been completely stretched, bent out of shape, and distorted to the point where it no longer has a recognizable definition. I'm pretty sure that, originally, the phrase was not intended to mean the bolded above, but rather the opposite - that rookies would be integrated, but short- and middle-term veterans would be acquired so that the team could compete while integrating developing young players.
I don't mean to single you out at all. I understand many of us, and fans and the media, now equate the term "bridge year" with something like what you are saying, basically a white flag that near term success takes a back seat to long-term development. It just seems worth mentioning again that use of this term is problematic, especially since it can be taken, even with good intentions, to have two opposite meanings.