Given that we're talking about convincing me that your supposition about the organization's motives is correct, it's entirely possible that you cannot provide evidence that would convince me.
A statement from the organization to the effect that they just didn't have the money to spend on additional international allocations would work, but of course that's not going to be forthcoming. A credible media report to the same effect - not a speculation, but "according to Phillies sources" kind of thing. But again, if that were going to happen, it would have happened a year or more ago. So no, it's difficult to imagine what evidence you could muster at this point.
I don't, really. Why? Because if I had come into the situation Klentak came into, and was confronted with an international scouting operation whose quality I didn't really know, I think I'd have two options - either shut them down, to avoid mis-spending money, or allow them to proceed as they would have under prior management, and observe. I can't imagine turning these unknown people loose, giving them additional resources, until I had some confidence in their ability.
Add to that the fact that many of the most interesting international "targets" would already have been committed (e.g., agreements between organizations and buscones already set), it's not clear to me how this unknown international scouting staff could suddenly spend considerably more money than they had planned for, in a productive way.
If this was Klentak's take on the situation (e.g., no policy change in the first year, evaluate the staff), then in the second year I would expect to see either: 1) changes in the staff, if the evaluation of the first year is less than good; or 2) increased funding, if the staff appears to know what they are doing, and have identified opportunities/made deals with buscones to effectively use that increased funding.
What have we seen? Increased funding in the second year.
None of us is "sure" how much the philosophy has changed. But... they went outside the organization to hire both a President and a GM. A former silent partner essentially forced his way into effective control - and the other major "partner" also underwent change - generational change. No, we don't know whether these ownership changes are a harbinger of a real change in philosophy; but neither do we know they are not.
What have we seen in the past year or two that might suggest real change? You seem to say, "not much." (Let me know if that's not a fair representation of your position.)
What has changed:
We've spent basically to the limit (e.g., pool plus 5%) in the last two Rule 4 drafts. We didn't routinely do this prior to MacPhail/Klentak.
We have traded for international allocation dollars, to allow us to exceed our standard allocation for signing under-23 international talent. This isn't entirely new (Jhailyn Ortiz), but it certainly wasn't routine in the past. I suspect is is going to be routine going forward (but obviously I don't "know" this, in the absence of evidence).
We have committed large amounts of money in the short term to players to fill out the major-league roster, and with the hope (not always realized, but it's a risky business) of flipping some of them in trades for prospects. We have not accrued long-term commitments in this process. We have not traded away prospects to add on the margins to the major-league roster. We have been willing to just release non-performing players and eat multi-million dollar contracts. All this is a break with past behavior.
We've committed substantial resources to building a real analytics department, which is a sea change for this organization.
What have they not done (at least as yet):
They haven't successfully gone all out to sign a posted Japanese player (e.g., pay a large posting fee, negotiate a large multi-year contract), or to pursue a (potentially non-existent) over-23 Cuban with star potential. It's not clear to me that there have really been much in the way of credible targets in the past year or so, but regardless, this box is unchecked.
They haven't spent big bucks on an elite major-league free agent. I don't think it would have been appropriate to do so, given what was out there, but again, box unchecked.
What else?
Overall, when I see a change in effective ownership, in overall front office management, and in the General Manager's chair, my instinct is to give the new people the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they're not all just going to maintain "business as usual" - that's not what created the need for all the management changes. That said, there certainly was a period of more or less business-as-usual, as the GM took some time to gauge what he had to work with - and he was explicit, coming in, that this was his intention, so I don't see how one can see this as a surprise, or a disappointment. But the premise Klentak laid out coming in was, a period of evaluation of the current organization and approaches, followed by whatever changes (personnel, policies, spending patterns) he deemed appropriate.
That seems to me to be what we've seen; they evaluated, and they're moving forward. They're spending to the limit on the Rule 4 draft. They're spending above their allocation on under-23 international prospects (To the limit? Don't know yet.) They haven't signed an over-23 international free agent - but that's tough right now, given the rules change. They haven't pursued a top-tier domestic free agent - but given the rest of the roster, that really seems like it would be premature.
A year or two from now, we'll have a much clearer picture. Will they push to the limit on under-23 international prospects? Will they pursue "over 25" international free agents, when whatever 23 and 24-year-olds there are out there biding their time become eligible for the payday? Will they go after elite free agents to fill holes as their homegrown roster becomes more competitive? We don't know; there's no way we could know, at this point. There's no way to infer that they will - or that they won't.
