Do the Miami Heat even care anymore?

The Heat did have some difficult competition in keeping some of the core players though. James Posey had seemingly worn out his welcome and the thought of playing with a Big Three like KG, Pierce and Allen was obviously more appealing than an uncertain future in Miami. Eddie Jones is at the point of his career where he's looking to join a team he feels has a good shot at winning a championship, Gary Payton is probably close to making his retirement official if he doesn't sign on somewhere for a makeshift half-season farewall tour, Zo of course was injured and in the Antoine Walker/Ricky Davis trade, the Heat and Timberwolves basically swapped players who had worn out their welcome plus a few other spare parts.

personally i would be willing to throw out my teams future 5 years or so so 1 title (which is probably gonna be the case with the celtics anyway, and they might not even get the ring) so as far as that goes i still say the heat did the right thing.

Andrew, yeah, loosing posey was a disaster! off-topic: Andrew, i couldn't send PM, and i don't see any sigs?!

personally i would be willing to throw out my teams future 5 years or so so 1 title (which is probably gonna be the case with the celtics anyway, and they might not even get the ring) so as far as that goes i still say the heat did the right thing.

I agree whole heartedly. The Lakers don't look too bad now, but the Heat did win a championship. It was Miami's first championship ever, wasn't it?

I'd say that's more than worth sucking for a couple of years and repeating the cycle of climbing on top. LA's doing it right now.

personally i would be willing to throw out my teams future 5 years or so so 1 title (which is probably gonna be the case with the celtics anyway, and they might not even get the ring) so as far as that goes i still say the heat did the right thing.

but you're talking from a Celtics' perspective....you guys stunk it up at bottom of East for half a decade & there was no guarantee your current core could even compete for playoffs in the Least....Celtics had more or less no choice but to make deals....good deals though....they have mortgaged the future somewhat, although Garnett had more left in his tank than Shaq did when he arrived over....

the thing with the Heat was they were a young & up & coming team who had just made the 2nd Round of the playoffs with a rookie named Dwayne Wade....I can understand why they went for Shaq....I was just wondering if it was a hard pill to swallow to see Butler go elsewhere & have to give Shaq $20 mill per year for next couple of years, which essentially ties you down for even longer....

I guess you all know my perspective....I would've preferred to see Heat not trade for Shaq....I'd prefer to see Heat as top team in East over a decade rather than 2 years....but I guess I'm alone in these thoughts....

Apparently, since the point of playing is to get a ring, and they got one.

I'd prefer to see Heat as top team in East over a decade rather than 2 years...

A couple of years from now, when the Heat are back to being (semi) good, will the average basketball remember all the teams that were a top team but couldn't win a ring? Or will they remember Miami bringing in their first championship?

Look at it that way and one outweighs the other.

Remember the context. The Butler they traded was not the one of this season, or even of last season. Odom had put together his first legit year. You are offered the best big man in the league.

And I don't know (behind this obsessive desire to pick only one team as a "trade winner") why the Lakers supposidly made out so well from the trade. $22.5 million for Kwame and Odom, vs. $20 million for Shaq? The Lakers are winning inspite of the trade, not because of it.

I don't care what anyone says, Butler was always going to be good....he was a very good college player & his body & game figured to translate well once he made the transition....Lakers were idiotic to trade him, & it was clear at the time they traded him that they were idiots....

I don't know, I guess I'm the exception when it comes to this....I'd prefer to support a team like Suns or Mavs....teams that build themselves into elite teams & stay there....they are built to have as many chances to win as many titles as possible....I would use a team like the Pistons as an example....forgetting the title they won a few years back, they more or less built a team from the ground up....they are in a situation where they can lose a piece or two (Ben Wallace) but can replace them through trades, draft & free agency & stay near the top....

but yeah, I can't fault anyone's logic to go for the title....can't fault the team's logic....can't fault the fans for wanting to have a 2 year window....it is about winning it all, so can't fault them....

I guess it's too early to tell how quickly the franchise will bounce back....they could be back in as little as a year or two....otherwise Wade could bolt town....that would be good....

anyways, I'm happy Heat aren't doing well & teams like Hornets, Blazers & Hawks are moving up....

I'd prefer to see Heat as top team in East over a decade rather than 2 years...

A couple of years from now, when the Heat are back to being (semi) good, will the average basketball remember all the teams that were a top team but couldn't win a ring? Or will they remember Miami bringing in their first championship?

Look at it that way and one outweighs the other.

amen.

personally i would be willing to throw out my teams future 5 years or so so 1 title (which is probably gonna be the case with the celtics anyway, and they might not even get the ring) so as far as that goes i still say the heat did the right thing.

I agree. There'll always be ups and downs through the years and as such there'll be stretches where a team might build up to the point where they'll always be mentioned amongst the contenders and make Conference Finals and the like, but for most teams the opportunity to win a championship come by far less frequently. The number of repeat champions and the way in which a decade in the NBA tends to be dominated by the same few teams winning the title or making the Finals, the 70s being an exception (and even then the Knicks won twice).

I don't know, I guess I'm the exception when it comes to this....I'd prefer to support a team like Suns or Mavs....teams that build themselves into elite teams & stay there....they are built to have as many chances to win as many titles as possible....I would use a team like the Pistons as an example....forgetting the title they won a few years back, they more or less built a team from the ground up....they are in a situation where they can lose a piece or two (Ben Wallace) but can replace them through trades, draft & free agency & stay near the top....

I see where you're coming from and ideally, a team that wants to win a title should be in the hunt every year so when that opportunity does come along and everything clicks, they'll be able to make the most of it. All the same, the Suns' status as perennial contenders, their 50 and 60 win seasons and two Finals appearances probably seem bittersweet to a lot of fans, particularly if they happen to have been Suns fans for 40 years.

I understand that it would be bittersweet, but for me I'd prefer to follow the Stockton & Malone Jazz era versus one or two shots at a title & then misery in the Shaq-Wade era....

I'd think that if you asked any Jazz fan what they'd choose, I would be surprised if it wasn't the former....I guess that was my point....but I guess with more player movement these days, maybe it's not a reality anymore....

I was a big fan of that Jazz team & it brought great viewing moments watching them trying to make deep playoff runs each year....it was gutwrenching when they were beaten by what I believe was an inferior team in 1998, but it didn't take away any of the joy in watching their run....I'm not a hardcore Jazz fan, or even that much of one, but it was great to see....

I guess I'm just too sentimental about these things, that's all....I'm definitely the exception & not the norm when it comes to these things....but that's alright though, nothing wrong with some sentimentality every now & then....

i dont know if you follow football or not but i will put it like this, would you honestly rather be the buffalo bills who dominated teams endlessly until the big game and blew it every single time, or that team that got it right, even if only for 1 year, and walked away as the best team in the world?

i dont know if you follow football or not but i will put it like this, would you honestly rather be the buffalo bills who dominated teams endlessly until the big game and blew it every single time, or that team that got it right, even if only for 1 year, and walked away as the best team in the world?

I do recall that the Bills made what, 3 or 4 straight Superbowls? But they choked everytime....that would've be hard for their fans to deal with....seems like the franchise never recovered....I'm sure their fans would've given up all of those Superbowl losses for one Superbowl win....

did anyone notice that wade gained a lot of weight. dont know if it's muscle or if he's outa shape but he's much slower and he lost that quick first step. as for shaq.... ive never seen a superstar lose it soo fast.

did anyone notice that wade gained a lot of weight. dont know if it's muscle or if he's outa shape but he's much slower and he lost that quick first step. as for shaq.... ive never seen a superstar lose it soo fast.

Wade has been injured....you tend to put on weight when injured....give him a break on it....as for Shaq, I actually thought Hakeem Olajuwon's decline was quicker....same with guys like Patrick Ewing....even Gary Payton's decline was pretty quick....

you are right, 4 straight superbowl trips and they lost all 4 times, and one of those 4 really must have hurt since it was an easy FG to end the game that missed. its my opinion that those buffalo bills are the most disapointing team in sports(american anyway) history. however, if the patriots do not win the superbowl they will take the crown from them

did anyone notice that wade gained a lot of weight. dont know if it's muscle or if he's outa shape but he's much slower and he lost that quick first step. as for shaq.... ive never seen a superstar lose it soo fast.

Wade has been injured....you tend to put on weight when injured....give him a break on it....as for Shaq, I actually thought Hakeem Olajuwon's decline was quicker....same with guys like Patrick Ewing....even Gary Payton's decline was pretty quick....

Add..scottie pippen, penny hardaway, tim hardaway, larry johnson and my main man sprewell to that list.

I understand that it would be bittersweet, but for me I'd prefer to follow the Stockton & Malone Jazz era versus one or two shots at a title & then misery in the Shaq-Wade era....

I'd think that if you asked any Jazz fan what they'd choose, I would be surprised if it wasn't the former....I guess that was my point....but I guess with more player movement these days, maybe it's not a reality anymore....

I suppose as a fan you're going to be disappointed either way and you're right, close to two decades with two of the greatest players in the history of the game and several years with the promise of a title is bound to be far more appealing to a lot of fans than nearly two decades of struggling and never coming close to a championship but then there's probably others that would trade a few of those years - certainly post 1998 - for a championship.

It depends what you consider more disappointing: Always coming so close but never actually winning it all or never really getting close at all. Every rabid sports fan would probably have a different opinion of that.

I understand that it would be bittersweet, but for me I'd prefer to follow the Stockton & Malone Jazz era versus one or two shots at a title & then misery in the Shaq-Wade era....

I'd think that if you asked any Jazz fan what they'd choose, I would be surprised if it wasn't the former....I guess that was my point....but I guess with more player movement these days, maybe it's not a reality anymore....

I suppose as a fan you're going to be disappointed either way and you're right, close to two decades with two of the greatest players in the history of the game and several years with the promise of a title is bound to be far more appealing to a lot of fans than nearly two decades of struggling and never coming close to a championship but then there's probably others that would trade a few of those years - certainly post 1998 - for a championship.

It depends what you consider more disappointing: Always coming so close but never actually winning it all or never really getting close at all. Every rabid sports fan would probably have a different opinion of that.

I guess I look at it from my perspective playing sports....I like to win every game I play....doesn't matter if I don't, but you aim to win all the time....kinda like the All Blacks....people say they are failures & chokers because they don't win World Cups....I'd prefer to win 85%-90% of my games for 3 years & 10 months & fail in big time rather than doing what some teams do which is tank it for a few years & always prepare for the next World Cup....for me that's not putting your fans first....of course it hurts to not win the big one, it hurts a lot....but that's due to high expectations being dashed....

I see what you're saying and I don't disagree, I'm just suggesting that some fans who are keen to see their team win a title might not take much solace in the fact that their team always seems to be in the mix but never getting over the hump.

Add..scottie pippen, penny hardaway, tim hardaway, larry johnson and my main man sprewell to that list.

Get your facts straight. Spree's game didn't decline. He's just too busy feeding his family to show off his superb game.

It should be noted that the Heat finally broke their losing streak a couple of days ago so there might be some pride left after all.