There are 56 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

The Official Miami Heat Bandwagon Thread

Originally posted by Jigga:
I, for one, am trading Lebron for D12 in a heartbeat. You'd be silly not to.

Absolutely, and it isn't about LBJ being better than D12, or vice versa. It's quite simple. D12 would fit better on this Miami roster than does LeBron.
i would trade Kobe in his prime for Howard
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by Jigga:
I, for one, am trading Lebron for D12 in a heartbeat. You'd be silly not to.

Long term you're better off building around Lebron. Wade's an aging player. You're window is alot smaller than it is with Lebron.

If we're playing fantasy GM here I'd trade Bosh and Wade for Howard and role players before I'd trade Lebron for Howard. That trade favors Orlando too. You insert Lebron into Orlando and you have the same situation you have with Howard, and the same situation with Lebron and the Cavs. An unhappy Lebron surrounded with a bunch of overpriced garbage. With Wade and Bosh you get 2 players to build around and you remove 1 or 2 of your bad contracts.

I don't understand why the championship window with a 27 year old LeBron & and a 30 year old Wade is wider than a 26 year old Howard with a 30 year old Wade.

You're not building around Wade long term, you're building around Howard. He's the best defensive player in the league regardless of position, one of the 2-3 best rebounders, and now one of the 5-7 best post up options. You're not sacrificing talent, it's a MUCH better fit, and Howard's a year younger.
wade might be more likely to get injured i guess
Wow, man...a few of you guys are just not comprehending how important having a competent Big is as compared to a competent swing man. I don't care which era of basketball that you are referring to...but 99.5% of the time, you take the dominant center over the dominant Small forward.

Lebron is great, no question. But I'll run the risk of displacement. Subtract Lebron and insert D12...certainly a totally different type of team. But I envision a team that's more equipped to win a stretch of titles than currently constructed.
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by Jigga:
I, for one, am trading Lebron for D12 in a heartbeat. You'd be silly not to.

Long term you're better off building around Lebron. Wade's an aging player. You're window is alot smaller than it is with Lebron.

If we're playing fantasy GM here I'd trade Bosh and Wade for Howard and role players before I'd trade Lebron for Howard. That trade favors Orlando too. You insert Lebron into Orlando and you have the same situation you have with Howard, and the same situation with Lebron and the Cavs. An unhappy Lebron surrounded with a bunch of overpriced garbage. With Wade and Bosh you get 2 players to build around and you remove 1 or 2 of your bad contracts.

I don't understand why the championship window with a 27 year old LeBron & and a 30 year old Wade is wider than a 26 year old Howard with a 30 year old Wade.

You're not building around Wade long term, you're building around Howard. He's the best defensive player in the league regardless of position, one of the 2-3 best rebounders, and now one of the 5-7 best post up options. You're not sacrificing talent, it's a MUCH better fit, and Howard's a year younger.

Wade's skills are already on the decline.

You can build around Howard, Bosh, and milk the last productive years of Wade or you can build around Lebron and Howard both in their primes and both are the best defensive players in the league at their position.

Neither one of those scenarios is a losing proposition. You make either one of those trades you are the odds on favorite to win it all.

I think you'd have a hard time arguing that this trade isn't better for Orlando though. You can pick up Bosh and Wade and let's say remove yourself from the Gilbert Arenas contract.
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
The revisionist history just cracks me up.

Very few people thought Orlando would beat Cleveland in '09. Very few people thought Boston would beat Cleveland in '10. Very few people thought Dallas would beat Miami in '11. Yet looking back on it, some would have you believe that it was inconceivable for those teams to go any further than they did. It's amazing how the story has changed. I can't be the only person that remembers this. Some of you are completely full of s**t.

The "almost singlehandedly carried his team to 127 wins in 2 seasons" argument is even funnier, considering those Cleveland teams won more games than Miami did this year. So we're either forced to conclude that either...

A) Cleveland's supporting cast was better than Miami's.

B) Maybe regular season wins aren't the best metric.


By this logic, San Antonio had an incredible year this year.

I think the main reason Miami didn't win more games was that it was their first year together (and they were just as bad, if not worse, than his Cleveland supporting cast at PG and C). And yes, there is more to basketball than regular season wins. I was just throwing it out there that I thought he happened to be the only guy that could do that (the 127 in 2 years). That's NOT implying that that's all that matters, however. If you disagree, who else do you think could have done that with that squad?

And the difference between them and San Antonio is that San Antonio had a great TEAM that could have been reasonably expected to go further. You can legitimately be surprised that they didn't. Who the hell is surprised that those Cavs teams didn't go further?
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by Jigga:
I, for one, am trading Lebron for D12 in a heartbeat. You'd be silly not to.

Long term you're better off building around Lebron. Wade's an aging player. You're window is alot smaller than it is with Lebron.

If we're playing fantasy GM here I'd trade Bosh and Wade for Howard and role players before I'd trade Lebron for Howard. That trade favors Orlando too. You insert Lebron into Orlando and you have the same situation you have with Howard, and the same situation with Lebron and the Cavs. An unhappy Lebron surrounded with a bunch of overpriced garbage. With Wade and Bosh you get 2 players to build around and you remove 1 or 2 of your bad contracts.

I don't understand why the championship window with a 27 year old LeBron & and a 30 year old Wade is wider than a 26 year old Howard with a 30 year old Wade.

You're not building around Wade long term, you're building around Howard. He's the best defensive player in the league regardless of position, one of the 2-3 best rebounders, and now one of the 5-7 best post up options. You're not sacrificing talent, it's a MUCH better fit, and Howard's a year younger.

Wade's skills are already on the decline.

You can build around Howard, Bosh, and milk the last productive years of Wade or you can build around Lebron and Howard both in their primes and both are the best defensive players in the league at their position.

Neither one of those scenarios is a losing proposition. You make either one of those trades you are the odds on favorite to win it all.

I think you'd have a hard time arguing that this trade isn't better for Orlando though. You can pick up Bosh and Wade and let's say remove yourself from the Gilbert Arenas contract.

I bet they could trade Wade straight up for howard
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by Jigga:
I, for one, am trading Lebron for D12 in a heartbeat. You'd be silly not to.

Long term you're better off building around Lebron. Wade's an aging player. You're window is alot smaller than it is with Lebron.

If we're playing fantasy GM here I'd trade Bosh and Wade for Howard and role players before I'd trade Lebron for Howard. That trade favors Orlando too. You insert Lebron into Orlando and you have the same situation you have with Howard, and the same situation with Lebron and the Cavs. An unhappy Lebron surrounded with a bunch of overpriced garbage. With Wade and Bosh you get 2 players to build around and you remove 1 or 2 of your bad contracts.

I don't understand why the championship window with a 27 year old LeBron & and a 30 year old Wade is wider than a 26 year old Howard with a 30 year old Wade.

You're not building around Wade long term, you're building around Howard. He's the best defensive player in the league regardless of position, one of the 2-3 best rebounders, and now one of the 5-7 best post up options. You're not sacrificing talent, it's a MUCH better fit, and Howard's a year younger.

Wade's skills are already on the decline.

You can build around Howard, Bosh, and milk the last productive years of Wade or you can build around Lebron and Howard both in their primes and both are the best defensive players in the league at their position.

Neither one of those scenarios is a losing proposition. You make either one of those trades you are the odds on favorite to win it all.

I think you'd have a hard time arguing that this trade isn't better for Orlando though. You can pick up Bosh and Wade and let's say remove yourself from the Gilbert Arenas contract.

We're talking about two different things, which is my fault. I was talking about a hypothetical LeBron for Howard swap, whereas you're talking about LeBron for Howard versus Wade + Bosh for Howard. Sorry for the confusion.

I agree with your position here on all counts, although I think an argument could be made that it would be difficult to put talent around a Howard/LeBron combo under the new CBA.
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
The revisionist history just cracks me up.

Very few people thought Orlando would beat Cleveland in '09. Very few people thought Boston would beat Cleveland in '10. Very few people thought Dallas would beat Miami in '11. Yet looking back on it, some would have you believe that it was inconceivable for those teams to go any further than they did. It's amazing how the story has changed. I can't be the only person that remembers this. Some of you are completely full of s**t.

The "almost singlehandedly carried his team to 127 wins in 2 seasons" argument is even funnier, considering those Cleveland teams won more games than Miami did this year. So we're either forced to conclude that either...

A) Cleveland's supporting cast was better than Miami's.

B) Maybe regular season wins aren't the best metric.


By this logic, San Antonio had an incredible year this year.

I think the main reason Miami didn't win more games was that it was their first year together (and they were just as bad, if not worse, than his Cleveland supporting cast at PG and C). And yes, there is more to basketball than regular season wins. I was just throwing it out there that I thought he happened to be the only guy that could do that (the 127 in 2 years). That's NOT implying that that's all that matters, however. If you disagree, who else do you think could have done that with that squad?

And the difference between them and San Antonio is that San Antonio had a great TEAM that could have been reasonably expected to go further. You can legitimately be surprised that they didn't. Who the hell is surprised that those Cavs teams didn't go further?

They were "as bad or worse" at PG and Center? So what? He had freakin' D-Wade and Chris Bosh next to him, as well as some nice role players. Was Miami's supporting cast better this year or not? Who cares if it was their first year together...you're certainly not bringing up Cleveland's continuity as a notch in their belt. It's simply just "the supporting cast sucked". Talk about picking and choosing your talking points.

As for the bolded, just about everyone who was watching those Cavs' teams at the time, by virtue of how heavily favored they were in '09 & '10, as well as how heavily Miami was favored over Dallas this year. Everyone was picking LeBron's team to win.

Then when those teams didn't win, the narrative turns into "how can anyone expect them to go further"?

[ Edited by LA9erFan on Jun 27, 2011 at 11:50:01 ]
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
The revisionist history just cracks me up.

Very few people thought Orlando would beat Cleveland in '09. Very few people thought Boston would beat Cleveland in '10. Very few people thought Dallas would beat Miami in '11. Yet looking back on it, some would have you believe that it was inconceivable for those teams to go any further than they did. It's amazing how the story has changed. I can't be the only person that remembers this. Some of you are completely full of s**t.

The "almost singlehandedly carried his team to 127 wins in 2 seasons" argument is even funnier, considering those Cleveland teams won more games than Miami did this year. So we're either forced to conclude that either...

A) Cleveland's supporting cast was better than Miami's.

B) Maybe regular season wins aren't the best metric.


By this logic, San Antonio had an incredible year this year.

I think the main reason Miami didn't win more games was that it was their first year together (and they were just as bad, if not worse, than his Cleveland supporting cast at PG and C). And yes, there is more to basketball than regular season wins. I was just throwing it out there that I thought he happened to be the only guy that could do that (the 127 in 2 years). That's NOT implying that that's all that matters, however. If you disagree, who else do you think could have done that with that squad?

And the difference between them and San Antonio is that San Antonio had a great TEAM that could have been reasonably expected to go further. You can legitimately be surprised that they didn't. Who the hell is surprised that those Cavs teams didn't go further?

They were "as bad or worse" at PG and Center? So what? He had freakin' D-Wade and Chris Bosh next to him, as well as some nice role players. Was Miami's supporting cast better this year or not? Who cares if it was their first year together...you're certainly not bringing up Cleveland's continuity as a notch in their belt. It's simply just "the supporting cast sucked". Talk about picking and choosing your talking points.

As for the bolded, just about everyone who was watching those Cavs' teams at the time, by virtue of how heavily favored they were in '09 & '10, as well as how heavily Miami was favored over Dallas this year. Everyone was picking LeBron's team to win.

Then when those teams didn't win, the narrative turns into "how can anyone expect them to go further"?

When I say how can anyone expect the Cavs to go further, it's based on the fact that LBJ was essentially a one man squad. The only instances of that to win it all were Hakeem in '94 and Duncan in '03, and even then, their supporting casts were way better than what LBJ had in '09 and '10, no? So even if they were favored to win, they were favored to win solely because of him, so to blame him for not beating Orlando in '09 or Boston in '10 is ludicrous. Those are 2 outstanding defenses that could afford to gameplan for him and only him and he's STILL supposed to beat them? Yes, he had Wade and Bosh next to him. But considering you called Bosh a top-20 player and the best #3 guy (and not even close) in the NBA, I feel you significantly overrate him. And Wade is great, no doubt about it, but he is essentially the same guy. That team isn't great at any dynamic other than what LBJ is great at. But again, they still beat 2 great teams in the playoffs and still at least won the conference. It's not like they were a first round flameout or anything. And fine, if I didn't mention it before, perhaps, yes, Cleveland's continuity was a factor in the 127.

The question remains though, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY (NOT to say it's all that matters), do you think if you replace LBJ with anyone else in NBA history, those Cavs teams win the 127?
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by FreddyG:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Talk to me when LeBron wins 6 championships

Maybe he will. Jordan had ZERO Championships at the same age BTW. Just sayin...

but one after being in the NBA for 8yrs

At 26 Jordan had ZERO Championships. Bottom line...

did he go to the pros from highschool? thats like sayin LBJ sucks because he didnt win a college national championship..........
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
The revisionist history just cracks me up.

Very few people thought Orlando would beat Cleveland in '09. Very few people thought Boston would beat Cleveland in '10. Very few people thought Dallas would beat Miami in '11. Yet looking back on it, some would have you believe that it was inconceivable for those teams to go any further than they did. It's amazing how the story has changed. I can't be the only person that remembers this. Some of you are completely full of s**t.

The "almost singlehandedly carried his team to 127 wins in 2 seasons" argument is even funnier, considering those Cleveland teams won more games than Miami did this year. So we're either forced to conclude that either...

A) Cleveland's supporting cast was better than Miami's.

B) Maybe regular season wins aren't the best metric.


By this logic, San Antonio had an incredible year this year.

I think the main reason Miami didn't win more games was that it was their first year together (and they were just as bad, if not worse, than his Cleveland supporting cast at PG and C). And yes, there is more to basketball than regular season wins. I was just throwing it out there that I thought he happened to be the only guy that could do that (the 127 in 2 years). That's NOT implying that that's all that matters, however. If you disagree, who else do you think could have done that with that squad?

And the difference between them and San Antonio is that San Antonio had a great TEAM that could have been reasonably expected to go further. You can legitimately be surprised that they didn't. Who the hell is surprised that those Cavs teams didn't go further?

They were "as bad or worse" at PG and Center? So what? He had freakin' D-Wade and Chris Bosh next to him, as well as some nice role players. Was Miami's supporting cast better this year or not? Who cares if it was their first year together...you're certainly not bringing up Cleveland's continuity as a notch in their belt. It's simply just "the supporting cast sucked". Talk about picking and choosing your talking points.

As for the bolded, just about everyone who was watching those Cavs' teams at the time, by virtue of how heavily favored they were in '09 & '10, as well as how heavily Miami was favored over Dallas this year. Everyone was picking LeBron's team to win.

Then when those teams didn't win, the narrative turns into "how can anyone expect them to go further"?

When I say how can anyone expect the Cavs to go further, it's based on the fact that LBJ was essentially a one man squad. The only instances of that to win it all were Hakeem in '94 and Duncan in '03, and even then, their supporting casts were way better than what LBJ had in '09 and '10, no? So even if they were favored to win, they were favored to win solely because of him, so to blame him for not beating Orlando in '09 or Boston in '10 is ludicrous. Those are 2 outstanding defenses that could afford to gameplan for him and only him and he's STILL supposed to beat them? Yes, he had Wade and Bosh next to him. But considering you called Bosh a top-20 player and the best #3 guy (and not even close) in the NBA, I feel you significantly overrate him. And Wade is great, no doubt about it, but he is essentially the same guy. That team isn't great at any dynamic other than what LBJ is great at. But again, they still beat 2 great teams in the playoffs and still at least won the conference. It's not like they were a first round flameout or anything. And fine, if I didn't mention it before, perhaps, yes, Cleveland's continuity was a factor in the 127.

The question remains though, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY (NOT to say it's all that matters), do you think if you replace LBJ with anyone else in NBA history, those Cavs teams win the 127?

Jordan, Magic, Oscar...why not? But before you answer that, do you really wanna continue this particular argument when none of us has any statistical or empiricial evidence for or against?
Originally posted by Jigga:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
The revisionist history just cracks me up.

Very few people thought Orlando would beat Cleveland in '09. Very few people thought Boston would beat Cleveland in '10. Very few people thought Dallas would beat Miami in '11. Yet looking back on it, some would have you believe that it was inconceivable for those teams to go any further than they did. It's amazing how the story has changed. I can't be the only person that remembers this. Some of you are completely full of s**t.

The "almost singlehandedly carried his team to 127 wins in 2 seasons" argument is even funnier, considering those Cleveland teams won more games than Miami did this year. So we're either forced to conclude that either...

A) Cleveland's supporting cast was better than Miami's.

B) Maybe regular season wins aren't the best metric.


By this logic, San Antonio had an incredible year this year.

I think the main reason Miami didn't win more games was that it was their first year together (and they were just as bad, if not worse, than his Cleveland supporting cast at PG and C). And yes, there is more to basketball than regular season wins. I was just throwing it out there that I thought he happened to be the only guy that could do that (the 127 in 2 years). That's NOT implying that that's all that matters, however. If you disagree, who else do you think could have done that with that squad?

And the difference between them and San Antonio is that San Antonio had a great TEAM that could have been reasonably expected to go further. You can legitimately be surprised that they didn't. Who the hell is surprised that those Cavs teams didn't go further?

They were "as bad or worse" at PG and Center? So what? He had freakin' D-Wade and Chris Bosh next to him, as well as some nice role players. Was Miami's supporting cast better this year or not? Who cares if it was their first year together...you're certainly not bringing up Cleveland's continuity as a notch in their belt. It's simply just "the supporting cast sucked". Talk about picking and choosing your talking points.

As for the bolded, just about everyone who was watching those Cavs' teams at the time, by virtue of how heavily favored they were in '09 & '10, as well as how heavily Miami was favored over Dallas this year. Everyone was picking LeBron's team to win.

Then when those teams didn't win, the narrative turns into "how can anyone expect them to go further"?

When I say how can anyone expect the Cavs to go further, it's based on the fact that LBJ was essentially a one man squad. The only instances of that to win it all were Hakeem in '94 and Duncan in '03, and even then, their supporting casts were way better than what LBJ had in '09 and '10, no? So even if they were favored to win, they were favored to win solely because of him, so to blame him for not beating Orlando in '09 or Boston in '10 is ludicrous. Those are 2 outstanding defenses that could afford to gameplan for him and only him and he's STILL supposed to beat them? Yes, he had Wade and Bosh next to him. But considering you called Bosh a top-20 player and the best #3 guy (and not even close) in the NBA, I feel you significantly overrate him. And Wade is great, no doubt about it, but he is essentially the same guy. That team isn't great at any dynamic other than what LBJ is great at. But again, they still beat 2 great teams in the playoffs and still at least won the conference. It's not like they were a first round flameout or anything. And fine, if I didn't mention it before, perhaps, yes, Cleveland's continuity was a factor in the 127.

The question remains though, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY (NOT to say it's all that matters), do you think if you replace LBJ with anyone else in NBA history, those Cavs teams win the 127?

Jordan, Magic, Oscar...why not? But before you answer that, do you really wanna continue this particular argument when none of us has any statistical or empiricial evidence for or against?

I can agree MAYBE Jordan. I'll give you that. And btw, I definitely do think MJ is the best ever, I'm not trying to pull a Pippen here. The logic for saying Magic, Robertson, etc. wouldn't have is that they never beat that mark even with WAY better supporting casts. They both had Kareem, etc. Yet if they couldn't beat that mark with those guys, how can you logically say they would have with Mo Williams and Andy Varejao? I can make it simpler and insteat of saying 127 over 2, how about 66 in one season. Do you think Magic would have ever won 66 games with that Cavs squad? Keep in mind even with those great Showtime squads he never won 66...

Again, not to say that LBJ>Magic. Magic's a top-5 player ever, I'm just not so sure if you take LBJ off the 08-09 Cavs and insert Magic, they still go 66-16.

[ Edited by andes14 on Jun 27, 2011 at 12:47:55 ]
this trade never happens, if it were two teams not in the same division it might happen, just dont see it, orlando knows what sending d12 to miami would do