Marion must opt-in or opt-out by Tuesday

[LEIF]

I agree Brand > Marion 10 times out of 10 but if that isnt on the table and we keep Beasley, I think Marion could prove to be a perfect compliment to the Wade_Beasley duo

[Heat11114]

I'm with Heatfansince88 on this one. There is no way we don't talk to Brand or Boozer if we have max space this year (If Marion opts out, unlikely as it is) or next year (when Marion expires). If we talk and can agree on terms there's no way Riley says (Nah, lets see if I can get Lebron or Bosh next year).

I'll still go out there and say there's no way we resign or extend Marion short of trading #2 for a star and then building around what we have.

[SJ2100]

But, if Marion does opt-out, giving us max cap space, and we come out of the draft with Beasley, who plays PF, you would still target Brand in FA?

I agree that Brand is the best player available in FA, should they both opt out. But, if we end up with Beasley, it would be more logical to target somebody, not necessarily Marion, who doesn't play PF. The chances that the Heat wait until the first week of July to sign Beasley are extremely small, so signing Brand at the start of FA would be repetitive, and we would not be allowed to trade either of them for months. Instead, we should target players in FA who could help fill out our team at PG, SF, C. If Marion opts-in, then cross SF off that list, and find a PG who can shoot and a C who can play D, just like we have been saying for weeks.

Maybe we end up trading Beasley for Brand on draft night, which would be great, but pairing Beasley and Brand in the same frontcourt seems like a bad idea. Teams will recognize that we would need to make a deal involving one of our PFs as well, decreasing their value as we become more desparate to trade.

[HeatSince88]

You're too worried about needs, and not worried enough about collecting valuable assets.

If we went into drafts worried about needs, we'd be rebuilding around Chris Kaman, TJ Ford, or Kirk Hinrich right now instead of D-Wade. Fortunately, management saw the value and freakish potential in D-Wade, didn't worry that Eddie Jones was already here locked up at SG longterm, and so they made the right call.

Same thing applies to the Lamar Odom signing that year. We already had a good PF locked up making BIG bucks (Brian Grant). And a good young SF in Caron. So should we have used the cap space on Mark Blount or Jerome James because they fit better? Or should we have used it on Brand and Odom, despite it already being a position of strength? Obviously, we went for value and impact, which always works out for the better.

So trying to make things fit would've gotten us TJ Ford and Mark Blount, rather than D-Wade and Lamar Odom. You should always take the best assets when you have the chance. Brand is a better asset than Marion, hands down.

[HeatSince88]

BTW, I disagree with the assertion that if we have Brand and Beasley, that'll drop their trade value because we seem "desparate." The best deals are gotten when every team knows someone is available. That makes it so every team can put in a bid, then rumors leak about their bid, so others have to up the ante to beat it.

The worst deals are gotten when no one knows someone is on the block. Look at the Pau Gasol deal - most of the league was shocked by it. And I remember some anonymous GMs saying stuff like "If we knew they were going to trade him for that, we would've offered much more."

If he were to land Brand (again, not gonna happen this offseason IMO) and already drafted Beasley, Riley will play it coy and say he plans on Beasley paying SF and how it'll work because of his range, handles, and lane agility times or whatever. Or that Brand will play center and it'll be fine because he's our best shot-blocker and has a great standing reach. Then, behind closed doors, he's working the phones seeing what the best deal is to get himself a traditional lineup. That's the same thing he did going from Wade/EJ/Caron/Odom/Grant to DJ/Wade/EJ/Haslem/Shaq. He took the best values regardless of need, played things patiently, then grabbed the Big Asset when he came available.

[JoeHova]

I dunno, I don't like relying on "if" scenarios when I don't have to. When there's a franchise player available, I get him and don't look back.

Rather than playing the "if this 6'7" 19-year-old rookie is an immediate 20/10 post guy, then this 31-year-old SF who shoots 30% on jumpers and who's demanding a long contract would fit better with him." I say you just always get the best player and asset you can when you can and don't look back. To me, and probably to Riley, that's Brand/Boozer over Marion.

- The Celtics didn't sit around saying "If Al Jefferson stays healthy and improves defensively, if Theo Ratliff can block some shots for us..." they just went and got KG and thus a 17th championship.

- The Lakers didn't just say "If Bynum gets back healthy, and if Turiaf develops some offense off the bench, then we'll play for the title" ... they had a chance to get Gasol and they did. And of course played for the title. probably the first of many with that core.

- Just like after our Wade/Caron/Odom year, Riley didn't say "If we draft David Harrison and/or sign Mark Blount, and if they turn into good centers for us, then we might be playing for championships." He just went and got Shaq, and got us a championship.

- When Riley first took over, he didn't say "if this rookie Kurt Thomas can play like he did in college, and if Bimbo Coles can prove to be a full-time PG, then we might be good". He just went out and got Zo and Timmy then, bam, we're contending for years.

Teams that rely on "ifs" to come true in their building plans, rather than snatching an obvious great player when available (ahem Paxson) never go anywhere IMO. I certainly wouldn't pass on a chance to upgrade from Marion to Brand (talent, impact, and age) based on an "if" scenario involving a teenager.

I agree with you in general, but in this case, you're the one counting on the "if" scenario. If Brand isn't irreparably damaged. Look at how the Hill contract set back Orlando for years. That could be the Heat if they are trying to sign a guy who is already injured to a huge contract. Obviously injuries can happen to anyone, but Brand missed already missed a whole year. Until he proves he's back up to 100%, I'd rather have Marion because he is the sure thing in this scenario.

Put it like this- if the Heat trade Marion for Brand and Brand is washed up, Wade is likely gone because a long-term max contract to a guy who can't play anymore will cripple a teams' ability to bring in talent, especially when that team has a cheap owner like Arison.

[BBallFreak]

JoeHova,

You'd have to think that if Riley we're going to sign Brand, it would be because he believed that the guy was indeed 100%. The Heat are not run by morons...

[JoeHova]

JoeHova,

You'd have to think that if Riley we're going to sign Brand, it would be because he believed that the guy was indeed 100%. The Heat are not run by morons...

sure, but presumably Orlando wasn't being run by morons either when they signed Hill.

[GameTime_3]

JoeHova,

You'd have to think that if Riley we're going to sign Brand, it would be because he believed that the guy was indeed 100%. The Heat are not run by morons...

sure, but presumably Orlando wasn't being run by morons either when they signed Hill.

Yes and No. Grant hill got the injury and you never saw him return, Brand on the other hand returned this season and showed that he was healthy. Another thing to consider is that its orlando, They just Signed Rashard Lewis to 125million, When no other team was going near 86 for him.