That's not really telling the whole story.
Columbus had the same number of points as us despite considerable injury impacts and we played in an abnormal 5-game series in a crowd-less bubble in the middle of August.
Tampa had 110 points despite missing their best player for half the year and were the back-to-back Cup champs.
We were favourites against Montreal, but both teams were also much different teams in the playoffs relative to the regular season. Montreal went from sub-0.900 to Vezina-quality goaltending, and the Leafs were without Tavares, and later Muzzin, and had Matthews with a surgery-requiring wrist injury. Those things have an impact on the gap between the teams.
The only team to beat every single one of those teams was the Cup champs - two times in the Cup final. You can't argue that playoff outcomes are all that matter and then dismiss cup finalists because they got whatever points in the regular season. We stretched every series to the limit, outplayed the opponent in all of them, and outscored the opponent in 2 of the 3. We unfortunately faced 3 of the best playoff goaltenders of the past 3 years, and have received some bad luck and goaltending in critical moments, which has left people drawing ridiculously incorrect conclusions about our performance and potential to win moving forward.
What exactly is the "core"? We didn't have Tavares for one of them. Matthews was playing injured for one of them. We didn't have Muzzin for two of them. We may not have Muzzin going forward either, but are Sandin and Liljegren working their way into our core group? We also had different goaltending for all of them, which is pretty notable considering their impact on the end outcome. And considering that the core hasn't really been the issue, and the tiny margins we've lost by, I'm not sure why you'd dismiss the impact of changes to the complimentary group.
Treating the core as this unchanging factor also ignores how core players can evolve, learn, grow, etc.