Interesting choice of words here. Deliberately pejorative?
I find this whole debate...curious? We all knew - we all knew - that cleaning out the roster of old, dead wood would result in a radically reduced payroll, in the short run. That action necessarily creates a situation where the organization is spending less...which pretty much tautologically leads to higher short-term profits.
We all also knew that recovering from the prior neglect of the talent pipeline would require a long-term strategy, and that results weren't going to be immediate. But it seems that "long-term" and "patience" mean different things to different fans.
Now, I understand that the current debate mostly focuses on specific, past (note this) inactions by the organization. But that's only the current debate. The arguments that the club is still "too cheap" are ongoing, have been going on for years - and have transferred the behaviors of the Giles/Montgomery era to the current era quite seamlessly, without waiting for any significant amount of data about the current era.
So... Klentak "was dithering," is not "in the real world" - because he didn't spend enough (in some minds) in one international signing season, and/or because he didn't spend enough (or didn't spend on the right players, depending on who's complaining) on short-term veteran roster fill-ins for the 2017 club.
IMHO, there is no credible evidence that Klentak has decided that a "6th best farm in baseball" is "good enough" - and this assertion is driven purely by the belief that Klentak "chose not" to sign certain 16-year-old Latin players who could (apparently) have been signed, willy-nilly, if Klentak had "chosen" differently.
The Phillies are a wealthy franchise. It's fair, IMHO, to discuss whether they're using their resources wisely. But (again, IMHO), "wise use" isn't a function of "How much did they spend? How much did they not spend?" I don't think it adds to that discussion to throw up straw men (e.g., Klentak "was dithering," has decided that the farm is "good enough").