One has to be very careful about making "logical inferences." One cannot assume that there's only one logical conclusion from a smattering of incomplete evidence or indications. One also has to be very careful to try to keep one's own biases out of the process - and that's harder than we like to think.
As allentown notes, we usually don't "know." We suspect, we "think," we guess. Inferential reasoning tends to occur in the context of our own prior experiences, expectations, etc. In the case of watching the Phillies, that often means that we make inferences about current/future behavior on the basis of what we know about past behavior. (You can see signs of this in some of the posts here - talk about Phillies behavior "then and now," or "more of the same," for instance.)
The problem we have right now is that the organization underwent something of a sea change within the past two years. We're not certain how thorough that change was; we're not certain how the current management will approach various situations, as compared to past management. This adds a further level of uncertainty to an inferential analysis that's always uncertain anyway.
Some here have chosen to base their inferences on the assumption that, until the new management demonstrates/proves otherwise, we can expect similar behavior as under prior management regimes; others seem to base their inferences on a different assumption - that until the new management demonstrates they're "just like the old guys," they'll be assumed to be competent.
We don't know where reality lies. Given that, I think we should try to avoid thinking in terms of we/they - e.g., taking sides between those who assume it's business as usual, and those who assume that it's a new, and sunny day. I think we're really all over the map - both within the community, and I suspect within much of our own individual thinking.
My suggestion is that we just try to judge the new management on their results. The problem with that is that "results" are defined differently by some among us! Some are upset that management hasn't done enough to be competitive in 2017; others don't consider that to be a relevant measure, because they don't see current competitiveness as an important goal. Some focus on spending - not as an end in itself (I hope!), but because they see spending as an important proxy for effort; others question whether, at least in the short run, that's really a valid indicator. Then there's the debate about "how soon a rebuilding should/must come to fruition." I don't know the answer here; I have seen people digging into positions that, IMHO, are so rigid as to almost ensure the Phillies' rebuild is defined as failure.
I also think it's important to differentiate between results and process. Personally, I really don't care if MacPhail/Klentak follow a course that's different than I would - as long as they get results. Now, if your idea of an appropriate goal here is "competitive in 2017, rebuilt by 2018," then they've already failed; but as I noted above, that's a definition of goal/results that essentially assures failure.
Personally, I want to see signs of consistent, patient development and improvement. Note that does not mean, to me, always linear improvement with no stumbles, no "bumps on the road." I don't see reality as that simple, eh? But I'm not going to get worked up if they don't make a particular trade that has been rumored, or if they make a trade and bring back players who are not the ones I "wanted." Long term results. If they get those, then I don't care how, and I don't care whether that's with a very large payroll or not, and I don't care whether they sign Cubans or not. Results.
The thing is, one has to be patient. Long term results don't happen in the short run. (Duh.) So I tend to withhold judgment in the short run. I could make a range of inferential judgments, from short-term actions they take, about where the long run success may be heading; but then I'm guessing, frankly, and I'm dealing with my own biases about this management team, and the organizational culture, etc. This could be an amusing exercise, I guess... but I wouldn't kid myself, or anybody else, about the odds that my inferences would be correct!
