I'm not sure I understand why someone would say this, even in jest. It seems to me that if indeed the rite is invalid, that would not be something to salivate over. I think that it is very serious matter to even claim such a thing to be possible, and we should not have this attitude.
If something is invalid, but held by almost all to be valid, they have been deceived and the Innovators have touched something they ought not to have touched.
To eagerly await the vindication of God's glory (which is directly involved), which is effected by a sound rebuttal of a false argument supporting something which is invalid (as if it were valid), would not be inappropriate.
I am not up on the whole idea, as I have not even read the articles in The Angelus, but I can guess what they say fairly well (although if anyone has a link, I would appreciate it). Since I guess the articles contain (very likely) more fuzzy Sacramental theology from the SSPX, I would also like to see any necessary corrections made.