Wade: "We have guys that got paid a few times."

[GreenHat]

As I've said before while everyone was kissing Arison's ass, Arison is the cheapest billionaire owner. Who is cheaper? Before when he refused to pay the luxury tax the excuse was "Well he helped make the rule so it would be hypocritical if he was paying it" which made no sense and we now can see was just to keep more money. Any of the other billionaire owners in this position wouldn't have given up pretty much our only chance to get another premiere guy for extra money in his pocket while making so much money off of the team and seeing the value of the franchise go up exponentially over the years. Could you see Prokorov doing this in this position? Or Allen? Or Cuban? Or Buss?

This is so dumb it's beyond belief.

1. Prokhorov is spending, true, but he's not spending very wisely - he's letting Billy King do the spending. It's like asking Lamar Odom to buy your groceries. He'll come back with tons of candy, but no vegetables, no meat, no fruit, no pasta/bread/rice. And Billy King buys old, nearly expired candy.

Which has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Arison is clearly cheaper than Prokhorov. That's all I said.

And you don't wanna know how he made his money.
To be a billionaire in Russia in the '90s/2000s you must have some KGB/FSB connections and/or Russian Mafia connection. Probably both. Otherwise, your cars might happen to get extra air holes (the size of AK bullets), your houses might suddenly get verticals bigger than Jordan's etc.

Yeah you're right that definitely makes him cheaper as an owner. Oh wait no it doesn't. You can argue who the better guy is, this isn't the argument.

2. Buss refused to pay Shaq in 2004. He chose Kobe (good choice at the time), but part of the reason Shaq left was because Buss wouldn't pay him. No Shaq meant a few bad years, and if Gasol wouldn't have fallen in their lap, Kobe would have still had 3 titles, not 5.

Except Buss would have given Shaq the same contract that Arison gave him. You're probably too young to remember this but Shaq was going to get 100 mil over 4 years but ended up taking 100 mil over 5 years to save Arison money. This move ended up hurting us and we would have been better off cap wise giving him 100 mil over 4 years. Arison chose the route that was expected to be cheaper rather than the route that would probably be more expensive but was better for team building.

3. Cuban amnestied Mike Finley. Maybe you're too young to remember, or your memory is not that good, but he did. And he lost an important piece to save money. Finley went to the Spurs and won a title with them.

Do you really lack the logic to see how this isn't comparable? Sure it did save them money but it also had positive team building components as well. Amnestying Miller did not help the team at all. It was all about saving money at the expense of the team.

4. Bennett refused to pay the luxury tax, so OKC traded Harden for Martin, then let Martin go. That after just making the finals. How would you have felt if Arison traded Bosh for Millsap after the 2011 finals loss and then left Millsap go for nothing after a 1st/2nd round exit ?

Clay Bennet is nowhere near a billionaire so he is irrelevant in a conversation on who the cheapest billionaire is. Arison has at least 10 times as much money as Clay.

5. Allen was (and might still be - not sure) the richest owner in the NBA, and the Blazers are not paying the tax and are pretty averse to spending. The JailBlazers experience seemed to have soured him, and apparently there are a bunch of power struggles in his organisation. Like Dolan, he hasn't been able to put the right people in charge, despite a willingness to spend. And now he doesn't even want to spend anymore.

He's not paying the tax now because they suck. Arison wouldn't pay the tax if we sucked either. When they've had good teams he has never let money dictate moves and would spend whenever possible.

6. De Voss (Magic) spent a ton, but let a moron handle it, and that ended with everything crumbling. Worst move: trading Hedo for Vince Carter. 2nd worst: giving Rashard 8 to 10 mil/year more than he was worth. 3rd worst: not being able to bring a competent play maker next to Dwight. And let's not forget he got SVG by mistake, since SVG wasn't his first choice.

So what does this have to do with him being cheap? Nothing at all. You're proving me right, thanks.

Also, Arison (together with Cuban and a few others) fought the current CBA, from what I read.

Yes Arison fought the CBA SO HE COULD TRY TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Schocker.

And it seems over the last 2-3 years he kinda broke even.

Just like every basketball team said they were losing money during the lockout, yet team values continue to go through the roof. Have you seen sale prices of NBA teams lately?

I would have liked him to keep Miller, too. I really did think the Heat would keep Mike.
But you can't accuse the guy of being the cheapest owner, or even the cheapest billionaire owner.

When did I ever say he is the cheapest owner? Or even close to that? Who has ever said that?

And please name one billionaire owner that is cheaper.

At least 90% of owners are much worse. Sterling and Reinsdorf have been making 35-50 million in PROFIT every year for the last 10-15 years, and still refused to pay the tax. Sterling changed his tune a bit recently, but he still has a LONG history of cheapness. And look at what the Bulls are doing with Deng. Alienating him and Thibs in the process. Their hard negotiations don't make them too popular among players, and you see the results: they are not able to attract top level FA's despite the huge market, history etc.

More than 90% of the owners are nowhere near Arison financially.

Reinsdorf has no place in a billionaire conversation. Again Arison has almost 20 times the net worth. You're trying to refute my billionaire comment and you keep including non-billionaires which was my specific qualifier. I included one qualifier in my argument and you keep ignoring it.

Sterling is a billionaire so I will concede that point. I didn't realize that he was but apparently with the rise in real estate prices in Los Angeles and the rise in team value of the Clippers he has broken into the billionaire club. I will now only contend that Arison is the second cheapest billionaire owner and not the cheapest.

So chill and think a bit before posting preposterous **** like this.
Arison is a top 5 or even top 3 owner if you combine willingness to spend with the ability to spend wisely.
And this is why the Heat have been a very good to elite team most of the last 20 years.
If not for a bad break here and there (especially with Zo's health), the Heat might have another 2-3 titles over this period.

Arison doesn't make the basketball decisions (unless they can save him a buck). That's one of his strengths that he doesn't get involved as much and I like that about him. Again who is arguing he is a bad owner?

All I've said is that he has made many moves for financial reasons that had negative team building implications and that he was the cheapest billionaire owner which another poster fraudulently tried to twist into me saying he was the cheapest owner.

Over the last 10-15 years, I'd rate the owners like this:

1. Buss: his work in the past put him in an excellent position to attract talent, free agents, coaches. I'd say the biggest coup of the 90's and 2000's for him wasn't landing Shaq or Kobe, but landing Phil. Without Phil, I doubt Shaq and Kobe win anything.

2. Arison: not necessarily spending much, but spending wisely. Wisest move: bringing Pat Riley and allowing him to do his thing (again, unlike Dolan and others, who stick their noses and override the GM).

3. Spurs's owner: not spending much, again, but spending smartly. Got lucky in draft, lucky with Parker and Manu, had excellent euro-scouting and a great coach.

4. Cuban: willing to spend, but not very smart about it sometimes. Threw money at problems, trying to fix them, but it doesn't work like this. Still, a great owner and passionate about winning.

5. Boston's owners: spent a lot and got results. If not for KG's injury in 2009, they might have a couple of titles. But then again, KG is a huge asswipe, so I am not sorry for him.

Which again is irrelevant to who the cheapest billionaire owner is. I have said in the past that Arison's biggest positive was that he didn't get involved and I have never said that he was a bad owner.

I just said that he was the cheapest billionaire owner. Now that I am aware that Sterling is a billionaire as well I have amended that to second cheapest billionaire owner. If that is so preposterous then please throw some names out (that are actually relevant and accurate). I have shown that I am willing to concede when I am wrong in this very post.

Saying things like Bennet and Reinsdorf are cheap is not relevant to who the cheapest billionaire owner is because they are not billionaires.

Trying to imply that Cuban is cheaper than Arison because he amnestied Finley just isn't accurate.

Connecting Prokhorov to the KGB has nothing to do with cheapness.

Trying to shoehorn wise spending into the cheapness argument doesn't make any sense either. I spend money more wisely than Paris Hilton. I can assure you that I am still cheaper than her.

[aquaadverse]

Nope that's not my argument at all.

And if that doesn't matter why would you bring up something so stupid as liquidity into the argument? Its really not relevant.

I've covered the "Denver is already paying" part multiple times. If you want you can go back and read.

Yeah, and spending based on net worth is.

It is when the argument is based on the sum being an "insignificant amount" to the player. If the amount is an insignificant amount to the player than it is obviously much less significant to the owner who has at least 500 times the amount of assets. That is completely relevant.

How liquid those assets are is completely irrelevant.

Unless the employer is the guy writing the check. The players aren't taking a 3 to 1 hit on every dollar they sacrifice. If Arison is liquidating assets to pay the players, he loses out on the future value on that money for the immediate amount.. He doesn't ever get that back unless he sells the team during the period he pays those guys. When the players leave or retire there goes his investment.

You keep using the net worth argument to rationalize spending money. How about shoe contracts and endorsements ? Owners have significant overhead, have to spend far more building an infrastructure while keeping it intact. LeBron got $90m in income from a shoe contract as a 17 year old for a couple of commercials, that means it's the same.

I feel bad for your clients.

[GreenHat]

Yeah, and spending based on net worth is.

It is when the argument is based on the sum being an "insignificant amount" to the player. If the amount is an insignificant amount to the player than it is obviously much less significant to the owner who has at least 500 times the amount of assets. That is completely relevant.

How liquid those assets are is completely irrelevant.

Unless the employer is the guy writing the check. The players aren't taking a 3 to 1 hit on every dollar they sacrifice. If Arison is liquidating assets to pay the players, he loses out on the future value on that money for the immediate amount.. He doesn't ever get that back unless he sells the team during the period he pays those guys. When the players leave or retire there goes his investment.

You keep using the net worth argument to rationalize spending money. How about shoe contracts and endorsements ? Owners have significant overhead, have to spend far more building an infrastructure while keeping it intact. LeBron got $90m in income from a shoe contract as a 17 year old for a couple of commercials, that means it's the same.

I feel bad for your clients.

Do you really think Arison is liquidating assets to pay the players? Or is this just another one of your completely unrelated tangents?

And yes I was including shoe contracts and endorsements, do you not realize that is included in net worth?

That overhead was included. How much money each party has is relevant to an argument on how significant an amount is to either party. Do you really not understand this basic concept of money?

Lebron got 90m from a shoe contract as a 17 year old which is still nothing compared to what Arison inherited so no it is not the same. What are you even trying to say is the same?

And besides we were talking about Chris Andersen anyway. If an amount of money is insignificant for him, anything close to that amount is insignificant to Mickey Arison as well.

I feel sorry for your clients as well. Of course judging by how terrible your comprehension is, I don't want to imagine what kind of clients you would even have.

[truthiness]

As I've said before while everyone was kissing Arison's ass, Arison is the cheapest billionaire owner. Who is cheaper? Before when he refused to pay the luxury tax the excuse was "Well he helped make the rule so it would be hypocritical if he was paying it" which made no sense and we now can see was just to keep more money. Any of the other billionaire owners in this position wouldn't have given up pretty much our only chance to get another premiere guy for extra money in his pocket while making so much money off of the team and seeing the value of the franchise go up exponentially over the years. Could you see Prokorov doing this in this position? Or Allen? Or Cuban? Or Buss?

This is so dumb it's beyond belief.

1. Prokhorov is spending, true, but he's not spending very wisely - he's letting Billy King do the spending. It's like asking Lamar Odom to buy your groceries. He'll come back with tons of candy, but no vegetables, no meat, no fruit, no pasta/bread/rice. And Billy King buys old, nearly expired candy.

Which has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Arison is clearly cheaper than Prokhorov. That's all I said.

No you didn't. See above. You said Arison is THE CHEAPEST billionaire owner.
Stop lying.

And just FYI everybody is cheaper than Prokhorov.

And you don't wanna know how he made his money.
To be a billionaire in Russia in the '90s/2000s you must have some KGB/FSB connections and/or Russian Mafia connection. Probably both. Otherwise, your cars might happen to get extra air holes (the size of AK bullets), your houses might suddenly get verticals bigger than Jordan's etc.

Yeah you're right that definitely makes him cheaper as an owner. Oh wait no it doesn't. You can argue who the better guy is, this isn't the argument.

Except that it's a bit easier to spend when you make money ripping off the state and you don't pay much taxes on the money you make.
And it's even easier to spend when you know all you have might suddenly be taken away, maybe by an unfortunate accident that involves polonium.

Same reason Abramovich (Chelsea owner) spends like a drunken sailor just to get titles.
How quickly can you lose it all ?
Ask Khodorkovsky. Doubt you even know who he is.

2. Buss refused to pay Shaq in 2004. He chose Kobe (good choice at the time), but part of the reason Shaq left was because Buss wouldn't pay him. No Shaq meant a few bad years, and if Gasol wouldn't have fallen in their lap, Kobe would have still had 3 titles, not 5.

Except Buss would have given Shaq the same contract that Arison gave him. You're probably too young to remember this but Shaq was going to get 100 mil over 4 years but ended up taking 100 mil over 5 years to save Arison money. This move ended up hurting us and we would have been better off cap wise giving him 100 mil over 4 years. Arison chose the route that was expected to be cheaper rather than the route that would probably be more expensive but was better for team building.

I wonder what route would have been "better for team building". You mean better than getting Lebron and Bosh ? Better than 3 finals in a row, a 27 game winning streak and a team that is making history under our eyes ?

If I was to take a wild guess, I'd say you're talking out of your ass, cause your claims are just crap.

3. Cuban amnestied Mike Finley. Maybe you're too young to remember, or your memory is not that good, but he did. And he lost an important piece to save money. Finley went to the Spurs and won a title with them.

Do you really lack the logic to see how this isn't comparable? Sure it did save them money but it also had positive team building components as well. Amnestying Miller did not help the team at all. It was all about saving money at the expense of the team.

Dat "team building".
Dat talking out of your ass again.

Finley's amnesty didn't get the Mavs cap space. They didn't get any team building bull **** out of it. But Cuban saved A TON of money.

But I guess you didn't read Cuban's blog post about the amnesty of Finley.
You probably didn't even know that post existed.

Oh, and you can claim Miller's amnesty allowed "team building". It allowed the Heat to add Oden and Beasley.

4. Bennett refused to pay the luxury tax, so OKC traded Harden for Martin, then let Martin go. That after just making the finals. How would you have felt if Arison traded Bosh for Millsap after the 2011 finals loss and then left Millsap go for nothing after a 1st/2nd round exit ?

Clay Bennet is nowhere near a billionaire so he is irrelevant in a conversation on who the cheapest billionaire is. Arison has at least 10 times as much money as Clay.

I'll give you Bennett not being a billionaire, but he still did make a ton of profits for about 3-4 years, and when it came time to pay for a winner, he took the cheap route.
Same with Reinsdorf.

They prefer to sell hopes instead of actually building a contender.
It's the fans fault for being so damn stupid. And they're even proud of their "loyalty".
Owners must be delighted at the idiocy of "I am proud of paying money for an inferior product".
That's as stupid as continuing to buy Pepsi/Coke after the CEO announced he's personally pissing in each bottle/can, just because you're loyal to the brand.

Morally, those owners got tens of millions of the fans money because they promised something.
At least some of those money should come back to the fans in the form of a better product/sustained quality of the product.

Instead, those owners decided to keep the money and make the product worse while charging the same.
In every other industry this would lead to consumers dropping the product in favor of the competition.

Apply this to Arison, he's breaking even (or even losing a bit of money) over the last few years.
I would love for him to pour more money into the team, but I can't blame him for not doing it.
Morally, he's a good guy: spending a bit to win and spending smart.
But you probably don't understand the concept of "smart".

5. Allen was (and might still be - not sure) the richest owner in the NBA, and the Blazers are not paying the tax and are pretty averse to spending. The JailBlazers experience seemed to have soured him, and apparently there are a bunch of power struggles in his organisation. Like Dolan, he hasn't been able to put the right people in charge, despite a willingness to spend. And now he doesn't even want to spend anymore.

He's not paying the tax now because they suck. Arison wouldn't pay the tax if we sucked either. When they've had good teams he has never let money dictate moves and would spend whenever possible.

Or maybe they suck cause he doesn't want to spend, so they aren't chasing FA's, they aren't trying to trade up, they're just trying to be good enough to fight for the 7th-8th spot - the sweet spot of NBA profits, but NBA-hell in terms of chances of winning now or positioning for winning in the future.

6. De Voss (Magic) spent a ton, but let a moron handle it, and that ended with everything crumbling. Worst move: trading Hedo for Vince Carter. 2nd worst: giving Rashard 8 to 10 mil/year more than he was worth. 3rd worst: not being able to bring a competent play maker next to Dwight. And let's not forget he got SVG by mistake, since SVG wasn't his first choice.

So what does this have to do with him being cheap? Nothing at all. You're proving me right, thanks.

Unfortunately, your comprehension level is quite low.
I am trying to explain to you in as simple words I can, that spending isn't everything.
Voss and Dolan and Cuban have been spending, but unless you're doing it smartly, it's useless.

Also, Arison (together with Cuban and a few others) fought the current CBA, from what I read.

Yes Arison fought the CBA SO HE COULD TRY TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Schocker.

Actually, he fought the CBA because it became so restrictive when trying to build a contender.
The new CBA was partially driven by small market teams trying to avoid another 2010 (where 3 (super)stars go to a single team). Cleveland and Toronto surely were pissed at the Heat and wanted to break them up. Other small market teams feared losing their superstars in the future. Even if they don't really want to compete cough*Bucks*cough, they still want to sell tickets and advertising and they need a star for that.

IIRC, Arison didn't like the harsh luxury penalties (under the old luxury tax, he'd have probably kept Miller) and he didn't want to share part of his revenues (not profits) with smaller market teams - the same that don't really want to compete and wanted to break his team apart.

Him, Cuban and Buss (I think) were on the same side, and they are some of the best owners in the league. When they're all on the same side, I'll venture to say their side was probably more conducive to competing and less focused on just making money (that's the Bennett, Sarver, Reinsdorf side).

And it seems over the last 2-3 years he kinda broke even.

Just like every basketball team said they were losing money during the lockout, yet team values continue to go through the roof. Have you seen sale prices of NBA teams lately?

Sincerely, I don't remember how much I paid the last time I purchased an NBA team.

I would have liked him to keep Miller, too. I really did think the Heat would keep Mike.
But you can't accuse the guy of being the cheapest owner, or even the cheapest billionaire owner.

When did I ever say he is the cheapest owner? Or even close to that? Who has ever said that?

And please name one billionaire owner that is cheaper.

Right now, Allen IS cheaper.
The Blazers haven't been past the 1st round for 14 years and missed the playoffs for 8 of those 14 years.
How can you explain that when you have the richest owner in the NBA ?

You want some other owners that refuse to pay the tax despite being billionaires ?

Kroenke: they broke up the Nuggets so they won't pay the lux tax anymore

Herb Simon: Indiana hasn't paid the tax since 2006, and we'll see if they'll pay it now, when they have a contender.

Donald Sterling: the Clippers have NEVER paid the luxury tax. EVER. We'll see what they do in the future, but the past clearly shows Sterling as the cheapest NBA owner.

Robert Pera: Memphis just reduced their payroll last season and this summer they didn't even try to get the 3p shooter they so badly needed. They got Miller now, but that was luck and we'll see if they'll pay in the future. For the record, I consider them a contender, yet they're not willing to pay for one so far.

Glen Taylor: do I even have to detail the many ways in which the Wolves failed and went cheap ? They are not only a monument of incompetence, but they also lowballed Kevin Love, and he's 99.99% sure to leave as soon as he's an FA.

Are there enough cheap billionaires for you ?
If you rage like this against Arison, what'd you do if you were a fan of one of those teams ?
You'd probably flip your **** and go berserk.

At least 90% of owners are much worse. Sterling and Reinsdorf have been making 35-50 million in PROFIT every year for the last 10-15 years, and still refused to pay the tax. Sterling changed his tune a bit recently, but he still has a LONG history of cheapness. And look at what the Bulls are doing with Deng. Alienating him and Thibs in the process. Their hard negotiations don't make them too popular among players, and you see the results: they are not able to attract top level FA's despite the huge market, history etc.

More than 90% of the owners are nowhere near Arison financially.

Reinsdorf has no place in a billionaire conversation. Again Arison has almost 20 times the net worth. You're trying to refute my billionaire comment and you keep including non-billionaires which was my specific qualifier. I included one qualifier in my argument and you keep ignoring it.

Sterling is a billionaire so I will concede that point. I didn't realize that he was but apparently with the rise in real estate prices in Los Angeles and the rise in team value of the Clippers he has broken into the billionaire club. I will now only contend that Arison is the second cheapest billionaire owner and not the cheapest.

Ok, so we're starting to get somewhere.
Now let's check the "90% of owners are nowhere near Arison" statement:

http://hoopshype.com/owners.htm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper ... re-owners/

Prokhorov and Allen have 3-4 times more money and De Voss is pretty close to Arison.
There's 10%.

Then you have Kroenke with 3+ and Gores and Cuban with 2+.
That's around 1/2 to 1/3 of what Arison has. Not really that far off Arison.

And another 7 with around 1.5 billion.
Yet only 6 teams paid the luxury tax this season, with Miami having the 2nd highest tax bill.

All these other supposedly not-cheap billionaires were pretty happy receiving luxury tax money from the Heat, Lakers and Nets and collecting profits from their teams while sometimes not even making the playoffs.

Trying to shoehorn wise spending into the cheapness argument doesn't make any sense either. I spend money more wisely than Paris Hilton. I can assure you that I am still cheaper than her.

Spending less != being cheaper.
When considering who's cheap, I take into account the resources available.
That's why I keep mentioning Bennett and Reinsdorf, who have made tens and tens of millions of dollars in profits off their teams, but refuse to invest anything back.

That is way cheaper than wanting to reduce your luxury tax bill and your losses.

Just to make it clear, I am NOT a pro-owner fan.
I was sometimes laughing at the pro-owner idiots during the lockout, sometimes getting very very annoyed at their sheer stupidity.
But, objectively speaking, Arison IS one of the best owners in the NBA all things considered.
3 titles and 4 finals over the last 7 or 8 years says I am right.

[

[nbhadja]

Arison is cheap there is no way to deny that. Miller was valuable to the team and we could not even get anyone else for amnestying him. In fact, he would have been valuable as an expiring contract.

[DWadeno3]

truthiness understands the difference between spending wisely and being cheap.

[narmerguy]

I'm not sure how you can say amnestying Miller is "spending wisely" unless you only mean for Arison's bottom line. Sure, it's possible we could still win without Miller so amnestying him could be a wise choice if Arison gets all the benefits of winning without the extra money spent on Miller.

However, there's no way you can argue that amnestying Miller helped the team, and if by spending "wisely" you mean making wise decisions for the team, I can't see how that's a "wise" choice. It's a cheap choice. It's placing bottom line above maximum product on the floor. Maybe Arison decided that Miller was expendable and we wouldn't lose much by losing him...but others argue that he wasn't going to lose much by paying him either.

I'm not saying whether the choice was right or wrong, it's his money. But let's not pretend this was some kind of shrewd basketball decision when it wasn't, it was a purely profit-driven decision.

[DWadeno3]

I'm not sure how you can say amnestying Miller is "spending wisely" unless you only mean for Arison's bottom line. Sure, it's possible we could still win without Miller so amnestying him could be a wise choice if Arison gets all the benefits of winning without the extra money spent on Miller.

However, there's no way you can argue that amnestying Miller helped the team, and if by spending "wisely" you mean making wise decisions for the team, I can't see how that's a "wise" choice. It's a cheap choice. It's placing bottom line above maximum product on the floor. Maybe Arison decided that Miller was expendable and we wouldn't lose much by losing him...but others argue that he wasn't going to lose much by paying him either.

I'm not saying whether the choice was right or wrong, it's his money. But let's not pretend this was some kind of shrewd basketball decision when it wasn't, it was a purely profit-driven decision.

I already stated that Miller's amnesty is one of the few moves I don't agree with. It's, however, the sole cheap choice I see of him and one that frankly doesn't affect our team much. Let's face it, as much of a Miller fan I am, the guy was more dead weight than anything and his output is replaceable, thus making his amnesty a move that isn't gonna break us and can't be used as sufficient evidence of Arison being cheap, especially not if we have the second highest payroll in the league.

[brent_strong]

And don't forget that letting Mike Miller go also opened up a roster spot for someone else. Only judging by what I've seen in preseason, I'd take both Beasley and Mason over Miller. You could definitely make an argument for keeping Miller instead of taking a flier on Oden, maybe, but with the amount of wing talent on the team, I'd still prefer Oden over Miller.

I think each of these moves would be defensible from both a basketball and CBA/business standpoint.

Beasley over Miller
Mason Jr over Miller
Oden's 25 year old bum knees over Miller's decomposing 33 year old body

What did Miller really bring that Mason, Rashard, Battier, Jones, and the potentially streaky hot shooting Cole, Chalmers, and Beasley can't provide?

[RexBoyWonder]

And don't forget that letting Mike Miller go also opened up a roster spot for someone else. Only judging by what I've seen in preseason, I'd take both Beasley and Mason over Miller. You could definitely make an argument for keeping Miller instead of taking a flier on Oden, maybe, but with the amount of wing talent on the team, I'd still prefer Oden over Miller.

I think each of these moves would be defensible from both a basketball and CBA/business standpoint.

Beasley over Miller
Mason Jr over Miller
Oden's 25 year old bum knees over Miller's decomposing 33 year old body

What did Miller really bring that Mason, Rashard, Battier, Jones, and the potentially streaky hot shooting Cole, Chalmers, and Beasley can't provide?

Well said.

The only guys Miller might have been a head of are Lewis and James Jones. If Lewis is healthy, I'd take him over Miller just because he can log minutes at PF which is a much more needed tool for us then another wing.
It's hard to make a case for JJ over Miller, but honestly from a basketball stand point it's a very small loss. definitely not worth the 18Mil$ cost of keeping Miller. as much as i like him. Probably not even worth half of that. The pure basketball impact of that decision is very minimal.

[truthiness]

However, there's no way you can argue that amnestying Miller helped the team, and if by spending "wisely" you mean making wise decisions for the team, I can't see how that's a "wise" choice. It's a cheap choice. It's placing bottom line above maximum product on the floor.

Spending wisely means deciding when to spend and when not.
Spending wisely means that if Arison has a certain budget for the Heat and doesn't want to pay no matter what, at least he chooses pretty wisely when to spend and on what.

Example: Bennett is cheap, but also stupid. He's still paying for Perkins, but traded Harden for an expiring and then let Martin go. So basically he gave Harden away. If he was smart, he'd agree to amnesty Perkins. But he probably doesn't conceive paying for a guy that doesn't play for him.

I already stated that Miller's amnesty is one of the few moves I don't agree with. It's, however, the sole cheap choice I see of him and one that frankly doesn't affect our team much. Let's face it, as much of a Miller fan I am, the guy was more dead weight than anything and his output is replaceable, thus making his amnesty a move that isn't gonna break us and can't be used as sufficient evidence of Arison being cheap, especially not if we have the second highest payroll in the league.

Agreed almost 100%.
The only part I don't agree with: Miller being dead weight. When he played, he usually contributed. And he always got heart, even when he could barely move.

I liked him staying on the Heat just for the karma. And the 3s. You gotta love the 3s.