I think you are reading way too much into what I said. It is not that they would actually sign a long term deal. It is that the team (not the player) would be motivated to offer one. Kingery's case is unique. So let's go to Hoskins. A year ago we all would have signed him for 5 years if the price were right. Hoskins would probably have asked for $100 million though so the price was not right. I have always worried about signing Hoskins long term personally because he would be older when he hit free agency and he is not the athlete that Goldschmidt is for example. I think his offensive problems are fixable but I am no longer sure he is a long term player.
So Hoskins went from part of the future to a question mark. Herrera is no longer part of the future. Velasquez and Pivetta look shaky and I'd only go year to year on Eflin. And Neris might be a candidate to blow his arm out with his splitter so is he really someone you would want to count on in 3 years?
Now add in Crawford and Williams and Alfaro as young players that no longer factor into the future.
It is just an old team once you have crossed off the young players. While we have 2 top 100 prospects who could factor in the next couple of years (Bohm and Howard), most teams have a couple. Haseley is still projected as a tweener so again nothing to count on.
Your post took my statement way too literally. The real intent was to point out that we have a mediocre young core. We have either traded it, seen them fail, buried them in the system, or let them play and be mediocre. Much of it is a function of the choices Klentak made unfortunately.