I understand that the OP is generally and vehemently opposed to the organizational philosophy of valuing prospects (in lieu of the money the org doesn’t have vis a vis the big clubs) and long-term viability over big swings and “all-in” moves. This has been litigated and re-litigated elsewhere, in addition to this thread, and I doubt anyone is going to change anyone else’s mind on this point (not that the attempts on all sides have not been valiant).
What I find interesting is what started this round of the debate: Arnold giving a vague-sounding, wishy-washy answer to the media. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that trading whoever we need to in order to acquire a “big time bat” (however we want to define that) is the right move. In what universe does it make sense for Arnold to come out and essentially say to the world: “Our offense stinks on ice, I have no confidence in the players on our roster fixing that, and I am absolutely desperate for one, maybe two huge bats and I must get them—no expenses spared!”? I mean, I am loathe to re-ignite another Wisconsin sports debate that has been had ad nauseam, but being a general manager means, among other things, having to care about leverage (even writing the word makes me cringe after le affair de Rodgers). It certainly undermines one’s negotiating position to so blatantly advertise one’s motives. I would much rather they be cagey, as they have been traditionally. Stearns and company were usually working on their best trades when they weren’t saying anything of substance to the media.
Long story short, if I were in agreement with @JefferyLeonard on strategy, Arnold’s answer is exactly what I would want Arnold to be saying publicly. I find this funny and ironic, since I don’t really want any of the top-3 prospects going anywhere for anyone but Ohtani.