You do realize we're one of the oldest clubs in the league and still would be with Sid 30, Kessel, 30, Malkin, 31, Horny, 30, Reaves, 30, Letang, 30...
Yes - at this point of writing we have an enormously homogenous group with most everyone in or around their prime.
But I don't believe that we will be "old" compared to any genuine rivals if you look at players actually signed for next season.
http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_AverageAge.php
Scroll down a bit and you'll find age break downs from last season, where we had the 5th oldest team (weighted average looking at who actually played and how much), just ahead of Ottawa and Nashville, with Caps also in the "top 10" to mention a few of the other successful teams.
Even if you look at the future teams such as Edmonton, Toronto and Tampa, their average age was just 1 year and change younger than ours, and this is before us looking like shedding most the seniors.
Columbus btw. was the only genuinely young team that didn't suck.
Anyway, what I am saying is that for shorter term contracts, it doesn't matter that you add a +30 player or two to a team that is contending right now, as long as those players can play and fit our needs and we have enough hungry youth that push them.
Also there is actually a difference (usually) between guys just around 30 and those at or on the other side of 35. Don't discount the importance of Dad, Kunitz, Hainsey, Daley and such in our room. I think our core is mature and pro enough that it is not explicitly needed, but at the same time I would certainly welcome having a grizzled vet or two with personality (who can play) on the roster.