This is such a laughably elementary analysis. There are numerous reasons for us winning 25-30 games the last few years. Ownership, GM, revolving coaching door with terrible coaches, a completely unbalanced roster which doesn't complement player's talent, and a somewhat empty arena many nights. The idea that's a reason to let one of our top two talents leave, without any inkling of a plan to replace that level of talent, and to do so before that player has a chance to play under new ownership, new coach, with better fitting teammates is asinine at every level. Not to mention there's practically zero chance of getting a talent like Reke if he left unless trading Cuz. We most likely won't have top 5 picks for years to come, we've never signed a FA guard with his level of talent and no one on our roster would yield a similar talent in return unless Cuz is involved. Or, we grossly overpay for a FA.
Whether we win 25, 35 or 45 games next year or the year after has little to do with offering Reke 9M or 11M. And you truly think if we sign Reke to say, 11M that we'll be winning 25 games a year? And team salary isn't static, it changes, we'll have player contracts expiring every summer going forward. And the only reason signing Reke to more than 9M would bring us close to the cap is because of idiotic contracts handed out to failures like Outlaw and Chuck, overpaying guys like MT, and trading for a guy like Salmons. And none of those players are worth losing Reke unless someone comes along and offers a 13 or 14M contract. You keep Reke and let the crap contracts expire or move them.
What's the argument here? We let Reke walk if offered 10-11M because Petrie/Maloofs were idiots and took on Salmons, overpaid MT and took on Chuck/Outlaw? Yeah, that sounds like the right road to take.