Sure, I'm hopeful about what Harris can do relatively speaking, my point is simply that there's a pretty clear limit to what a good GM can do on his own without at least average $$. There's also a limit to what $$ can do, that's not an answer in and of itself, though spending a lot of money consistently like the Yankees does at least ensures a pretty consistently good team -- though of course the Yankees and Dodgers and Red Sox are the few teams that can do this due to their market bases, and success in W/L is never exactly proportional to $$.
The answer to all of these questions (scouting v stats, $$ vs development, development v trading, etc.) is that the answer for sustaining success is at least a good amount of each thing. For what it's worth, I've been saying that the answer is in a balanced approach since at least 2015; my consistent suppport for any owner willing to spend his or her $$ and my opposition to the tanking crowd makes me a target for some who want to paint me as a spend-first/spend-big advocate.
I always supported Mike I's spending in the heyday, and it should be noted that a billionaire can spend whatever he wants if he's willing to use resources from Pizza Business X to support winning for Team Y, but I also have consistently acknowledged that a balanced approach is more sustainable.