I don't know about the acceptance criteria for ERC grants, but from the peer reviews I've read from one of my professors papers it feels like there's a bias towards accepting novelty of all else. My joke with ideas was meant more general, i.e. that you can have a few billion dollar ideas, but executing on them is much harder (due to lack of funds, time or skill).
Additionally, depending on the demand of the field I can imagine it being easier to obtain funding for resarch. Imagine being in machine learning right now lol.
I wasn't talking about grant acceptance though, but purely what kind of ideas can get you published and what data you have to fake in order to get there. In the case of Francesca Gino it doesn't sound like her fraudulent resarch was so costly that she would have to have applied for large grants in order to conduct it.
I can see how in other fields, e.g. biomedical, execution could be more challenging and ideas more plentiful.
Anyway, I don't think ideas (read: good ones, because obviously anyone can have nonsense ideas) can be a commodity in any field. It is quite widely accepted that, e.g., when applying for an ERC grant (the highest-regarded individual research grants in Europe), having a good idea is as important as the CV if not more. This wouldn't be the case if coming up with good ideas were so trivial.