Even if the Cavs keep LeBron James, owner Dan Gilbert's retooled organization is further away from a title than it was under Danny Ferry and Mike Brown.
If trying to devise a scenario that keeps LeBron James in Cleveland is a head-scratching task, Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert has made it clear that he's making the big decisions in trying to keep the franchise healthy.• The LeBron rumor mill: Free-agent tidbits found on the trail of 'World Wide Wes'
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Dan Gilbert says the unknown is "just that."
Actually, it's potentially more than just that. It could bring an upgrade, a downgrade or even a disaster.
For now, the "Cav-O-Meter" isn't exactly pointing in the right direction. What's happened to the Cavs in just a few weeks has been overshadowed by what could happen -- LeBron James leaving.
That doesn't make it any less swift and stunning.
Gilbert would no doubt argue that nothing has really happened yet other than a reorganization. Then again, nothing fatal happened to the Cavs in Game 5 vs. Boston, either. But how'd that end up?
Some of the greatest college football coaches in history subscribed to the theory that three things can happen when you throw the football and that two of them are bad. Yes, I know. That became outdated a long time ago. But it still has potential applications to the Cavaliers throwing the head coach out of his job and letting the GM walk after so much success.
If you argue that James was primarily the reason for the success, and that coach Mike Brown and GM Danny Ferry were basically oversized jockeys, then the blame for the pulling up lame against Boston should go to the Cavaliers' horse, too.
But Gilbert's actions don't speak to that, only to Brown as a flawed coach and to ownership's need to do whatever it feels it must to make this a place The Coddled One wants to play for beyond July 1.
In addition to firing Brown, Gilbert justified Ferry's departure as a case of changing dynamics. By that, he means he didn't want to cede any control at a time when owning the Cavs must feel less like involvement in a sport and more like a big casino play with James' free agency ahead.
It might be difficult to blame Gilbert for turning the status quo on its head. After all, his Top Five payroll didn't bring a title under Ferry and Brown. He's the one who stands to lose the most should James' free-agent tour lead to a tattoo of another city's area code on his arm.
Gilbert was a run-the-show businessman long before he became a NBA owner. Those instincts are at full throttle five years later. In replacing Ferry with the able but not established Chris Grant, Gilbert is ready to flex ownership muscle like never before.
Ferry didn't need the job. He would've walked without the authority Gilbert ceded in negotiations five years ago. Grant is in a different place in his career, and the Cavs are in a different place with July 1 looming.
Interestingly, Yahoo Sports quoted a friend of Ferry's saying the Cavs GM was "miserable" for the past few years in part because of the organizational kowtowing to James. True or not, what we can say for sure is that Ferry certainly learned in a different atmosphere in San Antonio. Then again, Tim Duncan made his reputation as the Big Fundamental, not as one of the Four Horsemen surrounded by cronies.
Convincing James to stay would be a huge business win for Gilbert. But even if that happens, it doesn't move the Cavaliers any closer to a title than they've been.
Is Gilbert organization building? Or superstar enabling?
Working off estimates of how much the value of the franchise will drop if James leaves, that's the $100 million question.