Different strategies on being aggressive. Some businesses operate by leveraging assets and recognizing the need for debt utilization for growth. Risky, sometimes, obviously, but that's part of the game. Then you would have more conservative and cautious business types who don't make a move unless all their ducks are in a row. Obviously can be wise, as well. For instance, teams walking into free agency with no cap space may offer a max contract to a player, then figure out how to make it happen if/when they accept. The more conservative takes a look at where they're at and says "we don't have money/cap to offer this contract," and so the option is never on the table. Of course, having the cap is a prerequisite. But there's a paradox here because one would have to be unreasonably unwise to go out and create that cap room before having any assurance that the plan can come into fruition. So because they're not willing to make a decision to open a door of possibility (a reasonable option), that option can't be there. And because making an offer for something they don't have available at the time goes against their principles, it makes it an easy defense for the critique of "why not?" But, ultimately, the options may be on the table. We've just superficially refused to open the windows. This way we can be forced to stay within a certain defined course, while also laying claim to "our hands were tied, look at our situation, we had no options." This is a fine strategy until one remembers that this is all for a game that's based on competition, taking risks, and with the ultimate goal of coming out on top.
This is partially why I hope Miami wins it all. Riley walks into the deadline with no assets and no cap space and walks out with a chip. But, by all means, 'slow and steady.'
