PDA

View Full Version : Would Miami Have Been Better Without Shaq?



MPScribbles
07-13-2009, 06:34 PM
Give me time to explain.

We all know that Shaq came in and the next season they won a title. Problem is, however, that shortly after that the team was atrocious. If you look at the squad they had in Wade's rookie year before the Shaq trade you see they had a LOT of talent and could have definitely made some noise without the trade. Plus, the meat of my argument, their core would have been made up of talented, versatile and YOUNG players.
Wade at 22
Lamar Odom at 24
Caron Butler at 23
Rafer Alston at 27
Udonis Haslem at 23

This as opposed to renting Shaq for a couple useful years could have set them on a path of consistently contending instead of the smash and grab they pulled in that one title year. I'm not saying that this alone would have won them a ship but tweak it a little and add some depth to the frontcourt and this is a title contending team, IMO.

Lastly, if they had a talented team of guys all around the same age instead of a bunch of guys that were very near retirement, they probably wouldn't have to worry about the prospect of Wade leaving because the team around him isn't strong enough.

So, again, would Miami have been better off had they never traded for Shaq?

Bruno
07-13-2009, 06:40 PM
Good question, that squad would have no doubt been better than the 2007 Cavs, who made it to the finals. If Wade ends up leaving Miami, then maybe it was a bad move. But they won a title, it's hard to argue against that.

Chronz
07-13-2009, 06:41 PM
No, they wouldve been in salary cap hell with Brian Grant on the books for like 3 more years. They wouldve been what the Lakers were for 3 years. Rafer wouldve regressed after a few years. Haslem was at his best with Shaq. Wades health could go either way.


Good question, that squad would have no doubt been better than the 2007 Cavs, who made it to the finals. If Wade ends up leaving Miami, then maybe it was a bad move. But they won a title, it's hard to argue against that.
The Pistons were a better squad than those Cavs, it wasnt a team dominance that got them to the Finals, it was Brons inhuman performance along with Boobies fluke game that got them there. As for the 2 teams, could the Heat have been as good defensively as those Cavs were?

J_M_B
07-13-2009, 06:43 PM
Riley wanted didn't want to be patient and wait for players to develop. They won a title I don't think they are complaining.

Lakers4ItAll
07-13-2009, 06:43 PM
They won a title with Shaq so no since there is no guatentee that they would have won without him.

Your question should have been would Miami have been better off keeping those players and competing each season but more than likely not winning or winning 1 year then sucking

mrs rose
07-13-2009, 06:43 PM
heat fans go at it about this...
me i wish he didnt come to be honest, it was a one year dance and dade. and like 3 to 4 years of pain. he quit on miami, talked smack about wade after calling him the best player in the world. i think he made wade a lil bit more cocky as well. i still wade but hey its the truth. it left us with marion ewwwww. and jo back knees with a bad contract. with c butler, odom and all of those they had great chemistry. i wish we never did it!

Hoopsadvocate
07-13-2009, 06:54 PM
No, they wouldve been in salary cap hell with Brian Grant on the books for like 3 more years. They wouldve been what the Lakers were for 3 years. Rafer wouldve regressed after a few years. Haslem was at his best with Shaq. Wades health could go either way.


The Pistons were a better squad than those Cavs, it wasnt a team dominance that got them to the Finals, it was Brons inhuman performance along with Boobies fluke game that got them there. As for the 2 teams, could the Heat have been as good defensively as those Cavs were?

:clap: Exactly and back then Kobe was a polished player with caron + odom, while wade was in his second year still on the rise!! That should be proof enough that the right move was made to get shaq.

MPScribbles
07-13-2009, 06:55 PM
They won a title with Shaq so no since there is no guatentee that they would have won without him.

Your question should have been would Miami have been better off keeping those players and competing each season but more than likely not winning or winning 1 year then sucking

No. I'm talking about long-term franchise planning. Winning one championship is great but the fact is that they had a young team with lots of talent. They very well could have come together and won a championship without Shaq. Also, you're ignoring the final point in my question. If they still had those players playing at their current level of play the team would be better and therefore would have a much better chance at retaining Wade. The way is stands they got their title and sucked. Now they could lose Wade and suck a whole lot worse. Is one title worth being really bad for a long time? I don't think it is. I would rather be a fan of a team with the recent accomplishments of the Pistons(minus the one championship) which went to 6 ECF in a row than a team that got one title and then put me through years of agony as a fan.

MPScribbles
07-13-2009, 07:01 PM
:clap: Exactly and back then Kobe was a polished player with caron + odom, while wade was in his second year still on the rise!! That should be proof enough that the right move was made to get shaq.

You are being so short-sighted. Right now wouldn't the Heat be better off? I'm not talking about the very next season or even the one after that. I mean in the long run. They very well may lose Wade. Is that title that they won worth a decade of sucking and costing them their franchise player?

Chronz
07-13-2009, 07:02 PM
:clap: Exactly and back then Kobe was a polished player with caron + odom, while wade was in his second year still on the rise!! That should be proof enough that the right move was made to get shaq.

Yea I was thinking they had more depth all around with Eddie Jones and Rafer in place of Chucky and Smush, but Wade wasnt at that level yet. And I think Rafer wouldve left the team regardless of the trade so they wouldve been around or beneath that level, luckily in the East they would still make the playoffs.

Chronz
07-13-2009, 07:04 PM
You are being so short-sighted. Right now wouldn't the Heat be better off? I'm not talking about the very next season or even the one after that. I mean in the long run. They very well may lose Wade. Is that title that they won worth a decade of sucking and costing them their franchise player?
Well yea, but thats stretching it. What if Wade wouldve gotten tired of losing beforehand and left you high and dry only without a title to show for it.

MPScribbles
07-13-2009, 07:13 PM
:clap: Exactly and back then Kobe was a polished player with caron + odom, while wade was in his second year still on the rise!! That should be proof enough that the right move was made to get shaq.

Probably going to hate myself for opening this can of worms but here goes...
In Wade's second year, his first with Shaq, he had almost identical production as Kobe's last year with Shaq.
Wade
24pts 5rbs 7ast 1.6stl 1.1blk
Kobe
24pts 5rbs 5ast 1.7stl 0.4blk

That is as fair a comparison as can be made between those guys. The numbers look pretty damn similar to me. Actually, it looks like you would have to say that Wade appears to be the slightly better player.

Please don't let this become another Kobe vs thread. That was not my point.

MPScribbles
07-13-2009, 07:18 PM
Well yea, but thats stretching it. What if Wade wouldve gotten tired of losing beforehand and left you high and dry only without a title to show for it.

True. However I find that far less likely, if what he says is true, due to the solid assumption that the pre-Shaq team would have stayed competitive instead of instantly getting old and turning to a lottery team. That is what he says he wants and that is what that team most likely would have been if they had stayed together.

mrs rose
07-13-2009, 07:21 PM
You are being so short-sighted. Right now wouldn't the Heat be better off? I'm not talking about the very next season or even the one after that. I mean in the long run. They very well may lose Wade. Is that title that they won worth a decade of sucking and costing them their franchise player?

i tell him this all the time.
you are :horse: on this matter, but i see what you are saying and i co sign to it. shaq was better off not coming to miami, hell miami was better off not taking him, i think the suns feel the same way as well! right about now lets see if the cavs join that list!

3RDASYSTEM
07-13-2009, 07:24 PM
Yea but MIAMI also would have repeated if WADE dont hurt his ribs or some type of injury he had in SHAQ first yr,they were up 3-2 against PISTONS, and SHAQ should have won league MVP...trust me a championship is hard to win and yall almost had TWO, so it was a great trade for trying to win now, and it all about now no matter wat the future holds,i bet WADE would rather have the DIESEL ONEAL right now than the other one who is gettin paid 20mil also

Chronz
07-13-2009, 07:28 PM
Probably going to hate myself for opening this can of worms but here goes...
In Wade's second year, his first with Shaq, he had almost identical production as Kobe's last year with Shaq.
Wade
24pts 5rbs 7ast 1.6stl 1.1blk
Kobe
24pts 5rbs 5ast 1.7stl 0.4blk

That is as fair a comparison as can be made between those guys. The numbers look pretty damn similar to me. Actually, it looks like you would have to say that Wade appears to be the slightly better player.

Please don't let this become another Kobe vs thread. That was not my point.
Kobe was a different player his last year with Shaq, than he was when he carried that core group that Wade would have around him. Any way you slice it, Wade wouldnt have done a better job carrying the team at such a young age as Kobe in his prime.



True. However I find that far less likely, if what he says is true, due to the solid assumption that the pre-Shaq team would have stayed competitive instead of instantly getting old and turning to a lottery team. That is what he says he wants and that is what that team most likely would have been if they had stayed together.

Why do you think they wouldve stayed competitive. Kobe had the same core group of players and it took him carrying them to make the playoffs and he was a better player then than Wade was in the years following. He almost forced his way out.

Rafer was leaving. Brian Grant had his last adequate season with the Heat that year. The sole saving grace is that Caron was hurting that year and was sure to rebound, but without a decent bigman who plays center for them? A frontline of Caron, Odom, and Udonis would be pretty bad defensively. Whos your PG, Damon was decent because of Shaq, Eddie Jones got old quick. You need atleast 1 beefy body to compete, even if they arent all that good(Kwame helped the Lakers just by being decent defensively even though Caron was a better player), Brian Grant was undersized but he had the muscle and the heart to compete.

blastmasta26
07-13-2009, 07:29 PM
The Heat would have been off better long term undoubtedly, and would win a championship unless injuries occur. When Shaq was traded to Miami, D-Wade was the main man. Butler and Odom went on to become better in different areas. But D-Wade at SG, Butler at SF, Odom at PF, Rafer Alston at PG would be very good. They could've picked up a center through a trade and definitely would've won a championship.

Padres Son
07-13-2009, 07:30 PM
This is ridiculous. THEY WON A TITLE! Of course it was the right move. If you end up sucking for 10 more years, that's not Shaq's fault, that's because you have a ****** GM. A good GM should be able to rebuild the team in just a couple years.

I don't think a team of Wade, Odom, Butler, Alston, and Haslem would be that great anyway.

MPScribbles
07-13-2009, 07:30 PM
Yes Ben, you're right, championships are hard to come by. I'm not saying that it was terrible. I'm saying that I feel it is up for debate and my position is that Miami would have been fine without Shaq. Maybe not champions but definitely better than they are now and project to be if they lose Wade because the team around his is awful.

Chronz
07-13-2009, 07:32 PM
i tell him this all the time.
you are :horse: on this matter, but i see what you are saying and i co sign to it. shaq was better off not coming to miami, hell miami was better off not taking him, i think the suns feel the same way as well! right about now lets see if the cavs join that list!

If the Suns had the chance of trading Marion for 2005 Shaq, they wouldnt regret it so your point is moot.

blastmasta26
07-13-2009, 07:35 PM
This is ridiculous. THEY WON A TITLE! Of course it was the right move. If you end up sucking for 10 more years, that's not Shaq's fault, that's because you have a ****** GM. A good GM should be able to rebuild the team in just a couple years.

I don't think a team of Wade, Odom, Butler, Alston, and Haslem would be that great anyway.
Wade - All-Star
Butler - All-Star
Odom - inconsistent, but borderline All-Star talent
Alston - solid PG
Haslem - decent forward, would come off the bench

If they found a way to trade some players/draft picks and just picked up a decent C that team would be better than the championship team.

MPScribbles
07-13-2009, 07:37 PM
Chronz, you know your basketball and I know that you know over half of the league is terrible at the center position. That would have been the same for this team, unless they either drafted or traded for someone like you describe. I wouldn't suggest Haslem starting at center. He would be my first big off the bench. But honestly a big body to rebound and alter/block shots is not all that hard to find. They would have had plenty of scoring and defensively I think they would have been pretty good. Championship not guaranteed but very competitive.

mrs rose
07-13-2009, 07:42 PM
If the Suns had the chance of trading Marion for 2005 Shaq, they wouldnt regret it so your point is moot.

you are going on a thing that didnt happen! but
lets talk about what happened: he declared the sun would rise in arizona, and that they will get a ring, he would make amare better. and guess what he didnt! he is nothing but MOUTH now.. i wasnt a fan of kobe in the kobe vs shaq madness, but after watching shaq's antics with miami (after the championship) and him going after guys suchs as bosh, and d howard for NO REASON! and poor van gundy his antics off the court are more news than his play. well if u wanna count a all star game.. or when the whole team is injuried ie: what happened with the suns last season. and he played ok, point is shaq wasnt a good move for miami. i rather we kepted the team we had with odom, butler, and the other young guys. but thats just me! but i guess that makes my point MOOT.:)

chisox..YES!
07-13-2009, 07:44 PM
They won a championship so... HELL no

tr3ymill3r
07-13-2009, 07:52 PM
They got a ring and that trumps all. Once you get a ring it buys you time in the future to suck.

ctitus45
07-13-2009, 07:56 PM
championship.

WoodbridgeSkins
07-13-2009, 07:57 PM
Miami would not have won the title without Shaq. As soon as he one-up'd kobe, he got lazy.

MPScribbles
07-13-2009, 07:58 PM
Kobe was a different player his last year with Shaq, than he was when he carried that core group that Wade would have around him. Any way you slice it, Wade wouldnt have done a better job carrying the team at such a young age as Kobe in his prime.




Why do you think they wouldve stayed competitive. Kobe had the same core group of players and it took him carrying them to make the playoffs and he was a better player then than Wade was in the years following. He almost forced his way out.

Rafer was leaving.

Of course Kobe was a different player those two years. He had to a completely new role. I am not saying that Miami would have won immediately. Please understand that. Yes Kobe probably did do a better job carrying that team than Wade would have. The difference is that Wade wouldn't have had to carry them. They had several good players. Caron and Wade could be the 1-2 punch with Odom allowed to do what he does- look great some nights and so-so others.

Rafer leaving wouldn't be such a big deal just like Grant retiring- like he did shortly after- because they could have addressed those needs in the draft/free agency. They would have a VERY good SG, SF and PF (big 3). Add a decent PG and a decent C and what do you get? Sounds a lot like the makings of last year's champs.

Chronz
07-13-2009, 07:58 PM
Chronz, you know your basketball and I know that you know over half of the league is terrible at the center position. That would have been the same for this team, unless they either drafted or traded for someone like you describe. I wouldn't suggest Haslem starting at center. He would be my first big off the bench. But honestly a big body to rebound and alter/block shots is not all that hard to find.

The level of crappiness varies from team to team you cant just clump up half the league into terrible and the other half what? The Heat without Brian Grant wouldve been beyond terrible. Literally every team that made the playoffs in 2005 had better centers than the Heat wouldve without Shaq. Bigmen make a bigger difference than you can imagine. And trading for a big to defend and rebound isnt as easy as you think, the Lakers had the same needs the Heat would have, and it cost them Caron Butler to get Kwame Brown. Hes not a big who can rebound, but he can defend bigs 1 on 1. It was a dumb move, but it was still a move that made them better defensively and Kobe picked up the scoring slack.


They would have had plenty of scoring and defensively I think they would have been pretty good. Championship not guaranteed but very competitive.

I envision them being a decent or good offensive team with ZERO defense. Barely making the playoffs.


Honestly look at the Lakers for the barometer, now explain to me how the Heat are a better team than them. They had Chris Mihm/Kwame and Cook in the middle, those are upgrades compared to Michael Doleac. They had the same core group, and Kobe was a superior #1 man. If Kobe could barely get them competitive what hope does a young Wade have?

MPScribbles
07-13-2009, 08:00 PM
:bang::bang::bang:UGH. So many people just saying RING. I get it. They won one championship.

The point of the thread is would they have been better off overall and RIGHT NOW?

Chronz
07-13-2009, 08:01 PM
you are going on a thing that didnt happen! but
lets talk about what happened: he declared the sun would rise in arizona, and that they will get a ring, he would make amare better. and guess what he didnt! he is nothing but MOUTH now.. i wasnt a fan of kobe in the kobe vs shaq madness, but after watching shaq's antics with miami (after the championship) and him going after guys suchs as bosh, and d howard for NO REASON! and poor van gundy his antics off the court are more news than his play. well if u wanna count a all star game.. or when the whole team is injuried ie: what happened with the suns last season. and he played ok, point is shaq wasnt a good move for miami. i rather we kepted the team we had with odom, butler, and the other young guys. but thats just me! but i guess that makes my point MOOT.:)
Thats because your comparing a younger Shaq to the Shaqtus. Obviously different players, and the Suns wouldve greatly benefitted from a player of his caliber at that stage in his career.

Also Shaq did make Amare better, dont you remember how well Amare did the minute Shaq got there? The coaching staff is what killed Amares game.

WoodbridgeSkins
07-13-2009, 08:02 PM
Yes, they would have been better off now, but I couldn't see them winning a ring with the players they gave up for shaq. He was still dominant then. Miami would be a top 4 team in the east every year if the team had stayed the same before shaq. No ring though IMO.

Chronz
07-13-2009, 08:09 PM
Of course Kobe was a different player those two years. He had to a completely new role. I am not saying that Miami would have won immediately. Please understand that. Yes Kobe probably did do a better job carrying that team than Wade would have. The difference is that Wade wouldn't have had to carry them. They had several good players. Caron and Wade could be the 1-2 punch with Odom allowed to do what he does- look great some nights and so-so others.
Umm Kobe had those same players, plus a healthier Caron. How is a 1-2 punch of Wade and Caron, better than Kobe-Caron?


Rafer leaving wouldn't be such a big deal just like Grant retiring- like he did shortly after- because they could have addressed those needs in the draft/free agency.
Dude you have no cap space, without Grant you dont make the playoffs in 04, even less without Rafer. How would they adress them in the draft of free agency, you keep saying this but not offering any examples. Its not as easy as just adressing those needs, or else every team in the league would do it. There are implications to every move, salary cap matters, and in your scenario the Heat have very little to work with.


They would have a VERY good SG, SF and PF (big 3). Add a decent PG and a decent C and what do you get? Sounds a lot like the makings of last year's champs.

Doesnt sound anything like it to me, last years champs had a several expiring contracts and valuable youngsters not only in place to support the newly aquired BIG3, but to trade. Last years champs sound more to me like the 04 Heat that made the trade for Shaq, not like the team that stuck with its core.

Raps18-19 Champ
07-13-2009, 08:19 PM
They wouldn't even have won if Shaq didn't go to Miami.

tr3ymill3r
07-13-2009, 08:24 PM
:bang::bang::bang:UGH. So many people just saying RING. I get it. They won one championship.

The point of the thread is would they have been better off overall and RIGHT NOW?

So by your theory would you much rather have a good team for a long time and be a playoff team that gets bounced year in year out rather than one championship. If you said that to Barkley, Stockton, or Malone you'd be dead where you stand. Nobody cares about hypotheticals, it's all about championships not about just being good. Don't turn down 1 championship, you do what it takes to win and they did.

Raps18-19 Champ
07-13-2009, 08:29 PM
They wouldn't have been better off anyways.

I don't think Odom would have done anything he didn't do in LA. And Butler would probably been traded anyways

clehmun
07-13-2009, 08:31 PM
any time you win a title, you don't look back. there are franchises that have never won a title in their existence. so even if you have to suck for the next 10 years to win a title, most would franchises do it.

ThEaIrUpThErE
07-13-2009, 08:50 PM
in retrospect i dont think you can look back and regret it the NBA is a win now type of league, shaq was still in his prime and one of the top players in the league at the time, its a little bit like boston i doubt they will be relevant in two or three years, because they traded for 30+ year olds ray allen and kevin garnett but i doubt they regret it, even thought they gave up jeff grean and al jefferson who are both young studs

Hoopsadvocate
07-13-2009, 08:51 PM
Probably going to hate myself for opening this can of worms but here goes...
In Wade's second year, his first with Shaq, he had almost identical production as Kobe's last year with Shaq.
Wade
24pts 5rbs 7ast 1.6stl 1.1blk
Kobe
24pts 5rbs 5ast 1.7stl 0.4blk

That is as fair a comparison as can be made between those guys. The numbers look pretty damn similar to me. Actually, it looks like you would have to say that Wade appears to be the slightly better player.

Please don't let this become another Kobe vs thread. That was not my point.

That proves the point even more!! If wade was about equal to kobe then the lakers with kobe+caron/odom would be a perfect example of how wade would have done with them.

Your other post said i was short sighted and down the road the HEAT could have been great, but what team stays the same for over 4+ years that hasnt come close to winning a ship?? NONE so its very safe to say even if we hadn't traded for shaq and kept caron/odom the HEAT would have been like the Lakers beginning of the Kobe era but in the EAST and that would have been constant 2nd round exits and MAYBE 1 conference finals appearence. So Wade might have gone elsewhere just like some say he might now if we dont compete. And we would be stuck with no championship. It was regarded as a great move and wade has a finals mvp and ring to show for it its foolish to think what ifs when the other option is a ring... i mean come on

WadeCounty
07-13-2009, 08:55 PM
i nvr was a shaq fan when he was with the heat, always preffered alonzo over shaq, and even if we wouldnt have gotten shaq zo would have come anyways giving them the center they needed anyways

Hoopsadvocate
07-13-2009, 08:55 PM
Yes, they would have been better off now, but I couldn't see them winning a ring with the players they gave up for shaq. He was still dominant then. Miami would be a top 4 team in the east every year if the team had stayed the same before shaq. No ring though IMO.

Thank you exactly my point. Ring would not be even close to a guarnatee if they had stayed the same. Plus before the HEAT had Alonzo, Hardaway, Marijle, Mashburn, P.J brown a pretty damn stacked lineup and they STILL couldnt win they only made 1 ECF appearence with keeping the core of timmy,zo,mash which is damn comparable to wade,butler,odom if not much better.

Hawkeye15
07-13-2009, 09:07 PM
no, cause you never would have had the talent to win it all in 2006. And their salary cap was going to kill them quick. Mortgaging the short term future for a ring was a good thing. Miami is attractive to FA's, and Riley is super intelligent. They will be back quick. They have cap space, and Beasley and Chalmers, not to mention some dude named Wade. They will be sweet again in a year or two

Chronz
07-13-2009, 09:16 PM
i nvr was a shaq fan when he was with the heat, always preffered alonzo over shaq, and even if we wouldnt have gotten shaq zo would have come anyways giving them the center they needed anyways

No he wouldve gone to San Antonio if the Heat werent contenders, the reason he left you guys in the first place was because he wanted to make a contender into a winner.

Chronz
07-13-2009, 09:19 PM
no, cause you never would have had the talent to win it all in 2006. And their salary cap was going to kill them quick. Mortgaging the short term future for a ring was a good thing. Miami is attractive to FA's, and Riley is super intelligent. They will be back quick. They have cap space, and Beasley and Chalmers, not to mention some dude named Wade. They will be sweet again in a year or two
Thank you, the Heat got Shaq at a bargain. Atleast when the C's got KG, they gave Minny an expiring and a young up and comer. He would have a very good thread if Brian Grant and Eddie Jones were coming close to expiring, but with those 2 saddlebagging the cap, the only option was to win now.

WadeCounty
07-13-2009, 09:19 PM
No he wouldve gone to San Antonio if the Heat werent contenders, the reason he left you guys in the first place was because he wanted to make a contender into a winner.

actually he always wanted to come back to the heat even if that ment coming off the bench I remember i read it in the news paper back in my freshmen year

Chronz
07-13-2009, 09:31 PM
actually he always wanted to come back to the heat even if that ment coming off the bench I remember i read it in the news paper back in my freshmen year
Yea once he was done playing for a contender. The only reason he came back to Miami was because they met his requirements. Trust me, he wouldve gone to San Antonio or some other contender, if he didnt care about winning, he wouldve never left you guys.

Now if he wouldve been fine with coming back to Miami around that time frame we were talkin about then we have a completely different Miami team, but he left for a reason. He may have been fine with retiring in Miami, but not during that time frame, and a 1 year rental of a near retirement zo doesnt solve the problems of being without a center for years.

WadeCounty
07-13-2009, 09:36 PM
Yea once he was done playing for a contender. The only reason he came back to Miami was because they met his requirements. Trust me, he wouldve gone to San Antonio or some other contender, if he didnt care about winning, he wouldve never left you guys.

the first time he left was because he needed surgery and it was highly doubtful that he'd come back. after years later he decided to return to basketball but the heat didnt have space for him letting him go play with the nets, then i believe he went on to get another injury leaving the nets. Then years later decides to return and wanted to return to the heat but this time they did have space:)

itsripcity32
07-13-2009, 09:46 PM
yea!!! that way the heat wouldnt have won a title!!!!!!!!

dee279
07-13-2009, 10:04 PM
I dont think so because Wade said his self that Shaq really helped him in his development eventhough Wade was going to be a star, Shaq did help him become better. Also, who knows what the team would look like now.

ldawg
07-13-2009, 10:08 PM
It was a bad trade future wise but at that moment it was a good one because of the rings they got. Miami team with Shaq was never a good one. I remember them sucking and everyone jump on thier case, they went on and loose to all the above .500 teams and beat all the below .500 ones. Being that the East was suck at the time they made the playoffs. Once in the playoffs they got push by the young bulls, D wade beat Detroit and got the nba on thier side to beat Dallas. I still don't think they beat dallas but was given to them. Dallas up 3-1 And MVP Dirk was man handle in the paint but when Wade went in it was an automatic Whistle. sorry but those games were fixed.

McPeak92
07-13-2009, 10:11 PM
they would be better current day but they wouldn't have won a championship so no not better off without Shaq

HiphopRelated
07-13-2009, 10:17 PM
NO, end of story

b_rad23
07-13-2009, 10:25 PM
NO, end of story

This is exactly what I think on the subject as well.

ldawg
07-13-2009, 10:32 PM
NO, end of story

That is not a fact you never now who they could have gotten to goin them pau, Camby, Armari, Kg, Elton brand, Boozer, Draft Bynum? you will never know the other side of the street because you did not take it. The only fact we know is nba give them a ring because they sucked. So for those who think Pat Rily could have relive A version of la showtime with a young athletic talented team so be it. Detroit won without shaq, Kobe won without Shaq and so did Tim Duncan so what makes Wade a lesser Player. I do admit they would have had to wait for the last year of Brian contract to trade it just like lakers did.

RaiderLakersA's
07-13-2009, 10:42 PM
I'm not sure that I understand the position. Would you rather give back that title and have a team that would be in the hunt for the title now, with no guaranty that you'd ever actually win it?

Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. Let's say you were a mail clerk, but after two years, out of the blue, the Board of Directors decides to make you a CEO, complete with the 7 to 8-figure revenue sharing salary, key to the company G8, etc., that goes with that.

Are you saying that you wish the owner would have never given you the title and forced you to toil for the next decade with only the faintest glimmer of hope that you'd ever reach CEO status???

ldawg
07-13-2009, 11:11 PM
I'm not sure that I understand the position. Would you rather give back that title and have a team that would be in the hunt for the title now, with no guaranty that you'd ever actually win it?

Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. Let's say you were a mail clerk, but after two years, out of the blue, the Board of Directors decides to make you a CEO, complete with the 7 to 8-figure revenue sharing salary, key to the company G8, etc., that goes with that.

Are you saying that you wish the owner would have never given you the title and forced you to toil for the next decade with only the faintest glimmer of hope that you'd ever reach CEO status???

This is basketball you have a tallented person in D Wade(allstar status or you woud say CEO status) a little better than Lebron not as good as kobe but top 10 or so at the time. You get him a vet coach and suround him with players to complement him and you grow from there. now like i said they won a ring so it was a success not pretty but a success. but just maybe they could have put a well coached young, athletic, talened team together and compete. Not for sure but might win atleast 2 championships because the window of opportunity would have been wider. Look at Orlando A better coach they Probly push Lakers to 7 Games and could have won. Detroit After Larry they went down hill coach makes a difference.

cowboyz180
07-13-2009, 11:16 PM
no, they would've been worse.

ldawg
07-13-2009, 11:18 PM
no, they would've been worse. oh like Dallas:) soon uall going to look like that Charles Barkley tmobil commercial old men with canes.

ldawg
07-13-2009, 11:30 PM
can't say well coach but a young athletic talented Orlando team made it to the finals, Why Miami could not have done the same? Detroit Was not even athletic and the won a ring playing deffence somthing pat is good at. If he made shaq play out side his normal 10 sec in key game quite sure he could have got a young team to play some.

JordansBulls
07-14-2009, 12:00 AM
Give me time to explain.

We all know that Shaq came in and the next season they won a title. Problem is, however, that shortly after that the team was atrocious. If you look at the squad they had in Wade's rookie year before the Shaq trade you see they had a LOT of talent and could have definitely made some noise without the trade. Plus, the meat of my argument, their core would have been made up of talented, versatile and YOUNG players.
Wade at 22
Lamar Odom at 24
Caron Butler at 23
Rafer Alston at 27
Udonis Haslem at 23

This as opposed to renting Shaq for a couple useful years could have set them on a path of consistently contending instead of the smash and grab they pulled in that one title year. I'm not saying that this alone would have won them a ship but tweak it a little and add some depth to the frontcourt and this is a title contending team, IMO.

Lastly, if they had a talented team of guys all around the same age instead of a bunch of guys that were very near retirement, they probably wouldn't have to worry about the prospect of Wade leaving because the team around him isn't strong enough.

So, again, would Miami have been better off had they never traded for Shaq?

They got a title already. No guarantee they win with the lineup above.

king4day
07-14-2009, 12:19 AM
Props for the explanation.
I still can't say they'd have been better off simply because they won a ring. You can have a very talented team like the one you mentioned, but IMO, I don't think they were title worthy.
Wade was the main reason they won, but Shaq was right behind.

Vincent33
07-14-2009, 12:30 AM
No, you don't trade the title for a young, up and coming team that has no chance at winning it all.

Westbrook36
07-14-2009, 12:32 AM
Title > All

We don't know if Caron Butler would have became that good and a few other players

Chronz
07-14-2009, 02:04 AM
the first time he left was because he needed surgery and it was highly doubtful that he'd come back. after years later he decided to return to basketball but the heat didnt have space for him letting him go play with the nets
You got your facts wrong, the Heat have space for him because he was their free agent, you always have cap room for your own free agents, so long as they are willing to play for you, and their only motivation is to play for you, any deal can be worked out. Alonzo signed with the Nets because Kidd recruited him, the Heat were willing to offer Zo an extension, he just left to persue a title.


, then i believe he went on to get another injury leaving the nets.
No the Nets traded him to Toronto for VC, he squirmed his way out of a contract and the Heat had proven to be contenders so he signed back home.


Then years later decides to return and wanted to return to the heat but this time they did have space:)
I dont want to sound rude, but how old are you?

MPScribbles
07-14-2009, 07:41 AM
Ok, admittedly I didn't have the exact info on their salary cap situation so you have a valid point there but I still think that it could have been worked out somehow. As far as adding a PG and C they get two chances every year to do that in the draft. They found Chalmers in the second round so obviously it's not impossible. Also, if that team would have been so unimpressive like you say then they would be getting pretty good draft picks making this easier to do. I understand that title>all. I know that is why they play and it is hard to look back and say what if in a situation where the title was won. I'm a Bulls fan so I am a bit spoiled when it comes to championships and maybe don't value them as highly as someone whose team has never won one or hasn't in a long time. I know, Chronz, you're a Clippers fan so I'm sure that you guys would trade the house for a championship no matter where it left you after... or would you.
Ok quick scenario for you:
Today you guys trade Griffin for Duncan, Gordon for T-Mac and your other youth for Kidd and Marion.
Now you have a lineup of Kidd, T-Mac, Marion, Duncan, Camby and you guys tear up the league- get you a ship. Next year Kidd and Camby retire and T-Mac has career ending injury. Duncan and Marion are still ok players for another year but team sucks. You get to watch Griffin, Gordon and the rest of them become very good players on teams that go on to win titles. Would you have considered it a good offseason and that title to be worth what it cost you?

#17
07-14-2009, 07:52 AM
no. short answer for my first post :D

ldawg
07-14-2009, 08:55 AM
all teams that need a championship need Shaq end of story. He is the key to all rings you will never win one without him it is imposible. Shaq last years in La sucked, Shaq to Miami team sucked but won a ring don't ask me how they did it ask the refs, Shaq to Suns Sucked and Shaq to Cavs will suck. The best team in East is boston but if the want another ring they better get Shaq.

daleja424
07-14-2009, 09:00 AM
In short...no. They may have been in a better situation as of today...but they would more then likely be without a ring right now....so no.

HiphopRelated
07-14-2009, 09:05 AM
That is not a fact you never now who they could have gotten to goin them pau, Camby, Armari, Kg, Elton brand, Boozer, Draft Bynum? you will never know the other side of the street because you did not take it. The only fact we know is nba give them a ring because they sucked. So for those who think Pat Rily could have relive A version of la showtime with a young athletic talented team so be it. Detroit won without shaq, Kobe won without Shaq and so did Tim Duncan so what makes Wade a lesser Player. I do admit they would have had to wait for the last year of Brian contract to trade it just like lakers did.
Those are ALOT of what ifs, and Riley has never been the patient type to wait multiple years.

We can only go on what happened, and Miami won a 'ship. A 20 year old franchise has what much older teams don't.

Sportfan
07-14-2009, 09:25 AM
no who knows how this team would play? shaq was a big key for this team when they won the championship.

S-Dot
07-14-2009, 09:43 AM
They won a championship; how much better could it get. Hard to say they would have won one without him

Chronz
07-14-2009, 01:57 PM
Ok, admittedly I didn't have the exact info on their salary cap situation so you have a valid point there but I still think that it could have been worked out somehow. As far as adding a PG and C they get two chances every year to do that in the draft. They found Chalmers in the second round so obviously it's not impossible. Also, if that team would have been so unimpressive like you say then they would be getting pretty good draft picks making this easier to do. I understand that title>all. I know that is why they play and it is hard to look back and say what if in a situation where the title was won. I'm a Bulls fan so I am a bit spoiled when it comes to championships and maybe don't value them as highly as someone whose team has never won one or hasn't in a long time. I know, Chronz, you're a Clippers fan so I'm sure that you guys would trade the house for a championship no matter where it left you after... or would you.
Ok quick scenario for you:
Today you guys trade Griffin for Duncan, Gordon for T-Mac and your other youth for Kidd and Marion.
Now you have a lineup of Kidd, T-Mac, Marion, Duncan, Camby and you guys tear up the league- get you a ship. Next year Kidd and Camby retire and T-Mac has career ending injury. Duncan and Marion are still ok players for another year but team sucks. You get to watch Griffin, Gordon and the rest of them become very good players on teams that go on to win titles. Would you have considered it a good offseason and that title to be worth what it cost you?
I know what your saying but if you hadnt noticed, I never once mentioned the words championship (or did I?, Im not sure but my main point is based on the premise that you guys wouldnt be as good without him), Im like the only guy not talking titles, but there are key differences in your scenario. We would have buttloads of cap space to help us rebuild, and we would be so bad once they were gone that our lottery pick would help us much more. You guys on the other hand wouldve been constricted and basically stuck with that team over the long haul. In fact I vividly remember telling Laker fans they wouldve been better off just letting Shaq expire than taking on Brian Grant and spare parts. It was obvious Caron+Odom werent going to offer HALF of what Shaq offered, and that they would be stuck with that team for awhile.

Now if Brian Grant and Eddie Jones were expiring that year, I would be inclined to think you guys couldve gotten more done, thats atleast 35 M in expirings , you can do alot with that kind of cash, and with the big3 core you had its not inconcievable to think you couldve become legit contenders.

Anyways with that core group I dont see you guys competing for 3 years, youd be basically what the Lakers were for 3 years. Brian Grant and Eddie Jones are to thank for this. With those 2 on the team the only viable option was to win now. The fact that the Heat sucked after Shaq was due solely to Rileys drafts and not doing anything in free agency, you guys had needs then that Riley was unable to fill, Not that there was much to do mind you, sometimes you just have to take your hits until the right opportunity comes.

Mortgaging your future to win now, has its cost, but every situation is different, some teams give up more of their future, others give up very little. In Miamis case, you guys got Shaq cheap, considering Pat Riley basically forced Kobe into playing 3 of his prime years on uncompetitive teams. Without Shaq thats all Miami becomes, the East version of the Lakers, a perennial 40-44 Win team. Id rather have a Chip, and a legit shot at one the year before. Theyre window closed pretty quickly but it came around the time Riley shouldve retooled.

His biggest mistake was extending Shaq at 20M.

J-Relo
07-14-2009, 02:59 PM
They won a title with Shaq so no since there is no guatentee that they would have won without him.

Your question should have been would Miami have been better off keeping those players and competing each season but more than likely not winning or winning 1 year then sucking

it's questionable if they would have developed like they are now? Caron? Lamar?... Wade?

What if? If?... those treads can never end....

so one more question- would Wade be so good as now without those years with Shaq?

^I really think that wins, final, glory pushed him a lot...

ldawg
07-15-2009, 08:52 AM
What if Kobe and Kg or Tim Duncan played together instead of Shaq. Will they have won more than 4 rings? They probly would have pass 6 by now but thats another story. what if D wade played in La instead of Kobe? life is full of what if they never end. If this was my team i would not have done that trade Business wise. They were a young up and coming team that filled the many once red empty seats of Miami. Heat was born again only to grow old over night. In an blink of the eye (2 year span) the seats are once again empty and lottery bound. but not only that they might loose the one person everyone pay to see. This will sink the team even further in the ground. So the question was, was it worth 1 cpampionship? Depends on who you ask. Some people simply like the trade because they won a championship even thou they were not a good team and barely made it to the playoffs. But somtimes it take luck to win or was it? being down 3-1 Miami did something only a few great teams manage, came back and won. Many scratch thier head and wonder, did i miss something here? While others were blind in celebration Dirk and Cuban was heated by what was going on. Only to find out a few years later Ref were trowing games. hmmmmmmmmmm :shush: dont tell no one. Could they have been a better team without the trade? Yes in my eyes, with a few clever trades and a better coach it was not imposible.

dee279
07-15-2009, 09:23 AM
They won a championship; how much better could it get. Hard to say they would have won one without him

Well, we could have won 2 rings. Not saying we would have but thats much better then 1 ring and then going to a first round knockout then, a 15 win season, and then another 1st round knockout. We might wouldnt have won that championship, but who knows the moves we could have made. We might could have gotten another big man, to go along with D Wade, Lamar, and Caron. We would definantly be better now.

ldawg
07-15-2009, 11:14 AM
Well, we could have won 2 rings. Not saying we would have but thats much better then 1 ring and then going to a first round knockout then, a 15 win season, and then another 1st round knockout. We might wouldnt have won that championship, but who knows the moves we could have made. We might could have gotten another big man, to go along with D Wade, Lamar, and Caron. We would definantly be better now.

yep could have been better than Majic and cavs not sure Boston depends on who they got. The funny thing is they went and got another broken Oneal how crazy is that? Whats up with him and old or broke foot players :hide: Pat