They have stated a few times they want to be good for as long as possible, and I take them at their word on that... alongside that, their actions indicate as such. As a fan, I am fundamentally biased in thinking they should put the best team forward as much as they can while they can. I don't have to pay the bills for those consequences though. Well over half the NHL (likely including the Avs) are to some extent budget teams. Meaning if they don't consistently succeed revenue wise, the budget will decrease. It may not be directly related to cap... could be buyouts, off the ice facilities, travel cutbacks, etc. We know the last time the Avs went through a major rebuild, the belt got tightened. There is a good chance they want to avoid that and would rather be a good, but short of elite team for 7-8 years vs being an elite team for 2-4 years, good for another 1-2 then bad for 5-6 (at least.
All teams are different in this regard and very few have blank checks. Winnipeg wrestled with this for years, and they clearly don't have the base to survive a full rebuild. Columbus has been similar. Honestly, even Chicago was a team that got pretty close to some major issues before turning the corner after the lockout.