I have always felt the idea of quantifying an exact number of wins to make up based on a current record, player WAR, X number of acquisitions is very flawed. For instance, let's say this is a 50 win team. In my opinion, Grifol has probably lost this team around 10 or 12 games. That could be low but I absolutely believe that based on what I've watched. With a better manager maybe this team right here wins 60 or 62 games instead.
Now let's say they have a closer. Not a great closer mind you, but just an actual closer and maybe setup man. I think they win an extra 8 or 10 games just right there. So now you're sitting at 70 wins. (Is this an exact science? No that's my point). But you add a bat that can hit you 30 hr via free agency, promote some talent that is ready (quero, schultz, maybe montgomery) and yes I think they can approach 80 wins at that point. It's not a billion dollars. This team is just absent basic necessities right now (closer, competent manager, a starting catcher not hitting .060).
So sure. You can rationalize how I have here to "make up the appropriate win numbers" but I don't think a record is ever truly indicative of how good or bad a team can be next season because of all of the x factors I mentioned. And sorry, but I'd rather they field a team that can win 80 + games right away then bank on them fielding a consistent 90+ win team in 5 years. They will fail again to do the latter.