You still haven't made a salient argument as to how he traded for players and gave up next to nothing.
To do so, you would need to explain why McGriff, Fernandez and Kent fit the description of "next to nothing"
If your only logic is "the Jays won 2 WS" as the explanation...that's a different argument. That would be a justification for trading valuable assets in return for other valuable assets. It doesn't not support or explain your initial claim.