There is an enormous difference between 25/12 and 18/10, and you are talking about guys who aren't even doing that yet.
Sully was 13/8 last season. Olynyk was 9/5.
How is it hard to understand how actual performance is more valuable than wishful thinking? You say either of these guys 'can' put up 18/10. Well, they haven't.
If you wanted to make a well-reasoned argument, you would compare Love's history to Sully's history. For example, in Love's second season, he averaged 14/9. That is similar to Sully's 13/8, though Love did it in about 3 less minutes per game.
The problem with extrapolating from early career similarities is that there is not a uniform development arc for all players. Love has a very steep development curve, showing extreme improvement over his first 4 seasons. It would be naive to expect many players to improve at that rate, as most do not.
The 'going for numbers' argument may be valid, but it is also a convenient argument that anyone can use to support an argument because as it is just a judgment call. We can use that argument for anyone if it serves our purposes. It is also ironic to use that to put down Love while using it to support Sully and Olynyk, who played on a team much worse than Love's team. Minny have 40 wins in a far superior Western Conference, while we had 25 wins in a horrible East. Numbers on the Celtics were far more empty than numbers on Minny.