If CEO can hire a 100$ scrum master to save a 1000$ failing team, it's much cheaper than hiring 2000$ successful team. That's probably what they're thinking
Sadly the $1000 team doesn't get saved by the $100 scrum master though.
You are 100% right that legacy management falls for the SCRUM sales pitch.
At one company I worked at the scrum salesman basically bullied the executive team by saying "You don't want to be the last company to adopt scrum do you?!!??!"
I don't think that's true at all. If there's time-to-market pressure (for example), then you really want that $2000 team to deliver on time. "Saving" the $1000 failing team with a $100 scrum master may not be good enough.
Also, please at least acknowledge that your numbers are completely made up and may have no basis in reality. It might be a $1000 team only if they deliver on time, but the overages might push that to $5000. Or whatever. See, I can completely make up numbers to support my point too.
You are 100% right that legacy management falls for the SCRUM sales pitch.
At one company I worked at the scrum salesman basically bullied the executive team by saying "You don't want to be the last company to adopt scrum do you?!!??!"