See, I've been thinking over this in the arguments of where we should allocate team needs, and I'm increasingly of the opinion that I think that's not far off how most successful teams do it. It's how we did it for the double. Washington paid roughly the same amount to Eller and Beagle as we're about to do with Carter and Blueger only with 6m less of cap to work with, and had 5.5m of Orpik roaming the bottom six for reasons. Tampa have tried to get their bottom six cheap, but by chucking about 5 1st rounders plus at it in 3 years, which is a different type of expensive.
Players who can take hard match-ups and keep scoring aren't that common. Players who can ride shotgun as a third wheel on a scoring line are probably no more rare. And the savings between cheap players who matter and players who are at market value is considerable, while the difference between Brock McGinn and a minimum wage player is a little under 2m.
I guess Colorado executed a great studs and duds model this year, but then Lehkonen-Kadri-Nuke was a fairly cheap 2nd line that's about to get a ton more expensive, they had 4.9m Burakovsky in the bottom six, they had 10m worth of blueline playing under 15 minutes of 5v5 a night in Erik Johnson and Manson...
So... I don't see the disposition of the money as an issue. I see the fact we've no cheap high end talent worth a damn as an issue, and I see the make-up of the roster as an issue, and I see having an core that maybe requires more help than other cores/can't be relied on to stay fit at crunch time as an issue, but the basic model of looking for bargains who fit very well to round out the top six and being willing to seriously invest in who plays the hard minutes? Doesn't look like an issue to me. The fact we've spent the money on the wrong players is an issue, but not the philosophy.