Are we talking about trades? Even if you're not on the same page as far as the "we don't know what was offered to us that we didn't take/ we don't know the trades that fell apart" thing (which I still believe is something you have to consider), here are some good examples of stuff that did happen:
Montreal got PA Parenteau for essentially nothing.
Chicago got Versteeg back at half price, for essentially nothing in return.
Hurricanes got Sekera for essentially nothing.
Penguins got Jussi Jokinen at half price for essentially nothing.
We weren't in on Bouwmeester because of salary.
Leafs got JVR for essentially nothing.
Phoenix got Z. Michalek for basically nothing.
We don't make any of those trades, because salary. All of those guys make us a better team, right now... and with the exception of Bouwmeester, all could have been had for an absolute song, provided you were ok with the salary coming back.
Even granting that we had the wherewithal or even the interest to pull these deals off, with the exception of Parenteau, you are reaching into the distant past to fill holes we have now that we didn't necessarily have then. Could it not be that these deals were not made because they were deemed frivolous or (in Bouwmeesters case) too steep a price in non-monetary assets?
At this point, you can criticize this team for failing in its stated objective of finding superior value given the seemingly steep drop-off of some of the veterans that they've invested in to help in our transition. We gave money to the wrong people. What was to stop them from not re-signing Michalek and instead going after another $4m dollar player other than the fact that they believed that Michalek was the best use of that $4m?
Ok, let's then focus on what we do know.
Since the start of the cap era, there has been only one team who was at the bottom of the league in spending and still made the playoffs.
One.
That team is the 06-07 Penguins, who had Crosby, Malkin, and Fleury looked up on ELC deals that were each under a million. The total cost of those three contracts was $2.83 MM. That Pens team was blown out 4-1 in the first round of the playoffs.
That works out to 1 playoff appearance leading to a total of 1 playoff game won over the past 9 seasons. The results were similar pre-cap as well, although one bottom spending Minnesota Wild made a run for a couple of rounds in the early 2000s.
Is that tangible enough for you?
Or were all of those teams simply not trying to win, and no players/trades were available to them?
Teams that do not spend do not acquire good players and end up sucking. It all there if you look back at what happened to bottom spending teams in the past. The thought that we are somehow different, and that our situation as a bottom spending team is different from every previous bottom spending team, is nonsensical to put it very, very mildly.
I don't really dispute any of this but remain confused as to why you (or management or anyone for that matter) expects outstanding results
this year after shortly exiting a rebuild and having the most inexperienced roster in the league. I look at a roster full of unrealized promise, of players that we can build a good foundation with and who I enjoy watching develop. Players whom we will eventually have to shell out for...or not, depends. Some will reach their potential, some won't. Reassess at the appropriate time.
All you seem to see is some magical dollar figure that we must have
right now in order to contend
right now. This seems silly to me and not really worth lathering myself into a rage over after every loss, spouting off "you get what you pay for" like some embittered and lonely yogi on a mountain top praying for rain.
This is who we are. We have been here before as an organization. This is not groundbreaking new territory unless you count the apparent hubris of management in expecting the current team to be anything approaching consistent at this point in time.