Well, I expect a "long term" rebuilding process to take some time. Some fans appear to be upset that we don't have a contender in 2017.
You suggest that year-to-year improvement is a "very low bar." What's a better yardstick? I would be very unhappy with something like a repeat of 1983 (e.g., spend lots of money on very good, very old players, have short-term success, then collapse utterly). I want to see improvement year to year; I want to see prospects move up through the system and become valuable players; I want to see the system re-stocked as prospects graduate, and as failures are weeded out.
I don't need to see a particular spending level, or spending pattern. I do need to see ongoing development. I want to see the club in a position where, every November, they have to make smart, hard choices about who to protect on the 40-man roster, and who to risk exposing to the Rule 5 draft (e.g., I want the system to have sufficient talent at that point that the GM is challenged).
As the big club becomes truly competitive, I want to see the occasional, smart compression trade, taking advantage of a deep farm system.
I may be wearing rose-colored glasses here... but overall, the above things are what we're seeing, to the extent that we can really evaluate them. We have credible prospects at multiple levels, who seem to be making progress. We have some prospects who have earned promotion to the Show, and others who are knocking at the door in AAA. We've seen our first Rule 5 cycle where "who to protect" was in fact a real challenge, and we'll be there again this fall. We've had several solid drafts in a row. We've signed real international prospects - even if they were not "big bucks" signings, but instead are "where did he come from" kids (e.g., most recently Sixto Sanchez, Daniel Brito).
What I'm seeing, though, is what I think of as "classic" negative Philadelphia fandom. All the above may be true, but what some fans focus on is what is "missing," not what's good. Examples: Bobby Abreu doesn't run into walls, doesn't dive for sinking liners, so he's panned - it doesn't matter that he's the best overall RF in the history of the franchise. Scott Rolen doesn't hit enough home runs for a cleanup hitter, so he's panned - notwithstanding the defense, the overall strong hitting. Pat Burrell doesn't run well enough, and is too patient at the plate, so he's panned - notwithstanding consistent OPS flirting with .900. In each case, we have an outstanding player, who for whatever reason isn't exactly what some entitled fans want him to be, so they dump on him.
There are good things happening with this franchise - finally. Yes, it is possible - it will always be possible - to find things that might have been done better, or differently. But constantly focusing on only the negatives, in an environment that is mostly positive? Seeing only the wart on the nose of an outstanding player? I don't get that.