What has changed is that we are no longer able to sign a max player in free agency, as we were last summer. That ship has sailed. As you pointed out, Kyrie's extension hadn't yet kicked in -- that's how we were able to afford Love's contract. But it will be kicked in for next season, which means that even if we don't sign Love, we won't have the ability to add a free agent to replace him. That is the biggest thing that has changed since last off-season.
Love's true value to us right now isn't Kevin Love specifically -- it is the ability to resign a max-quality (or close to it player). If we refuse to give him what he's asking, and he walks, that asset disappears, and cannot be replaced.
But what is unknown/unknowable by any of us is how much DG is willing to spend. If we knew he had a definite cap in mind, and that he will not spend the money to sign Love and keep all those other guys, then we'd have something to debate. But we don't know that.
Whether or not that is true for the Cavs is sort of irrelevant. What matters is what kind of contract Love wants -- short or long term. Because whatever he wants, if we don't offer it, he's very likely gone. Personally, if I was his agent, I'd tell him he's better off getting the longer-term deal. But either way, it's really not our choice. So the core question is: if he demands a max long-term deal, do we pay it, or tell him to walk?
Wet-dreams of Laker Nation aside, I can't fathom why Love would want to go to a train-wreck of a franchise that has to give up it's only real asset -- the No.2 overall -- to get him. That's also the problem with trading him for other high-picks -- the teams that have those picks generally aren't contenders, and he wants to go to a contender.
Exactly what is the opportunity cost of giving up Bird rights on a max player, for a team that is going to be over the salary cap no matter what? Exactly what do we gain by passing on Love if he demands a long-term deal?
I don't think anyone would be philosophically opposed to a sign and trade deal that would bring us someone like LMA. But my guess is that such opportunities are very unlikely. If he demands a max deal and we refuse, he may just sign somewhere else and leave us with bupkis.
The key fact which will ultimately determine the validity of either side of this argument is what dollar figure the Cleveland Cavaliers determine they can budget for player salaries and still meet net profit targets. No one commenting here has this information.
In the end, this is a for-profit business and my assumption is that the championship pursuit will be tempered by the need to also maximize net profits in this unique point in Cavalier history. This is especially true since NBA operates in an environment that is specifically designed to discourage unfettered speeding; a regime Dan Gilbert was instrumental in implementing.
The assumption brought to bear by the 'max-Love' crowd is that Gilbert will spend endlessly to not only max-out Love, but also re-sign the players surrounding the "big three" at long-term market rate contracts. This may be our desire as fans, but I don't believe anything similar has ever been done in the history of the NBA: i.e. three max players, plus multiple high-level market-rate supporting players (Mozgov, Shumpert, Thompson, Smith, Dellavedova).
Many forget that prior to the trade, the Cavs were on the bottom end of the league in defensive effectiveness; anyone who watched the games saw that even with Irving, Love and James the team was severely deficient in both perimeter and at-the-rim defense.
IMO, that team was going nowhere, but that was the team that had budgeted for three max contracts. What the quoted post still did not address is that the
changes made to move the team to championship contention require significant adjusts to the pre-midseason trade player salary budget.
I have not looked at specific numbers, but it seems to me that in order to retain Mozgov, Shumpert, Smith, Thompson, Dellavedova would essentially amount to an adding dollars at least equivalent to a max-salary for a player because many of these dollars will be subject to luxury taxes. The Varejao contract was a significant misstep by David Griffin, as this is $10M on the books in 2016-17 when this situation becomes particularly pronounced.
Arguments that speak to Gilberts' willing to spend at these levels are without foundation, as these expectations take us into unknown NBA territory. As a fan, I hope you are right, because with a healthy Love and Irving, I do think the Cavs solidify their championship chances; this is I why I would like to see the team with all on board next year before the final decisions are made.
What I don't want to see is eviscerating essential championships components (perimeter and at-the rim defense) in order to appease Love's max contract demands. There are other paths to glory.
