I'm sure you've seen this by now, but if you haven't…
So I have an interesting question for you: is it better to have a crappy storyline that at least gets paid off (even if the payoff stinks), or to just cut it completely when you realize it's terrible?
Wrestling, as with soap opera, has the advantage of fans with short memories and a series of ongoing storylines that frequently change without people paying too much attention. Which is my way of saying, drop a bad storyline like a hot potato and move on. Better to lop off the offending gangrenous limb and hope something better grows there. Or some other metaphor that makes more sense. Like Scottish Kane, or Exploding Vince, or too many other examples to name.
Here's a general question leading up to RAW: What is a good example of a shitty storyline getting dropped and then a really great one replacing it? I'll start you off with Shawn Michaels blowing off the JBL storyline in a nothing match and then forgetting about it, only to launch into the awesome Undertaker storyline at Wrestlemania right after.