I think you've fallen into the same trap as some other posters here of deluding yourself into thinking you speak for the masses because you agree with a few other people who are complaining on a forum.
The vast majority of players don't engage in discussions on a game's forums. Forums are the haven for the very vocal minority. Congratulations, you think you agree with a small portion of the vocal minority.
The problem is, you really don't. My impression of this thread is that most people aren't "repulsed by the idea" at all. Rather, it looks like posters have raised a few issues with the augments:
1. Some don't want to have a heavy grind to collect them. This is understandable, but quite premature given the prices and merit accumulation rates are far from finalized. And, as others have pointed out, what some see as a grind, others see as an incentive to play more. More people playing more means shorter queue times, better matchmaking, and a more diverse group of opponents to face. All good things, imo.
2. Some don't want people to be able to buy them with real money, resulting in a pay-to-win advantage. This has been addressed by the developers. Augments can only be purchased with merit.
3. Some don't want out-of-game factors to influence the game. That's certainly a valid opinion, but it's not an opinion I share. I love every possible avenue of customization a game like this can give me. I also happen to love the level of detail-oriented strategy some pre-planned bonuses can add to a moba. You claim that it's entirely illusory and that there's only one optimal build per champ, but I strongly disagree. In a well-designed system, there should be a variety of equally effective options and combinations of options. It's up to the devs to make sure that happens, and it's WAY too early to presume that they can't.
Nowhere in there do I get the impression that "most of us" are anything resembling "repulsed" by turbine's ideas. So not only have you incorrectly suggested that you speak for the majority, but you've completely misrepresented the "majority's" viewpoint.