When you have a surplus of talent at one position and a weakness at another I agree pretty much every GM is going to trade that surplus talent for talent that can potentially make the team better as a whole right now. So I agree with you on that.
While I think most GM's would agree with your thoughts on position player value ( i.e. right fielder more valuable than 1st base) it seems short sighted to me in some ways. Let's say for the sake of argument we believe that our weakness is 1st base and we have a player who plays in the outfield but his bat and defense will play at 1st base. Why wouldn't we use them there if he makes the team stronger as a whole? Even though that player has more value in right or left field they still provide more value at your current weak 1st base position. I just think there are more ways to think about a players positional value when they have the flexibility to play multiple roles. They can still make your team stronger even if they aren't maximizing their skill set at their strongest position.
While I understand your position and it makes sense to me I just think that being more flexible about defining player value can be valuable as well.
Sure, I'm not saying it's possible to play 162 games with every player maximized perfectly.
For me though, my plan would be that Kiriloff is an outfielder, and if circumstances dictate that I MUST play him at 1B to get him in the lineup, then I will.
I won't plan for Kiriloff (one example, could be Raley,etc) to be a 1B though. When Mike says dump Austin because Kiriloff can play 1B, that to me is planning for Kiriloff to play 1B.
It's the same argument I have for Astudillo and Garver. I'd rather have them at 1B or DH than on the bench, but I'd really rather have them at 3B or C, where their bat actually gives you an edge over the league.