Skip to content

Heat may be forced to break up superstar core due to league’s upcoming payroll taxes

Dec 8, 2012, 9:30 AM EDT

Miami Heat v Boston Celtics Getty Images

The lockout that shortened the 2011-12 NBA season was about money above all else. The owners were willing to scrap the season if they didn’t secure a much larger share of revenue in the new collective bargaining agreement, and that’s exactly what they were able to do, even if it took holding the players and the fans hostage for a while to get that accomplished.

While helping the league secure a more parity-driven system that focused on competitive balance wasn’t the ultimate goal, the new payroll tax system put into place that will take effect at the conclusion of the 2014-15 season may eventually cause that to be the case.

Teams like the Miami Heat, for example, may simply not be able to afford to keep LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh together to make multiple runs at the title, or, at the very least, they may not be able to surround them with anything more than minimum-salaried players.

From Ian Thomsen of Sports Illustrated:

As a repeat taxpayer, the Heat will be facing the highest incremental tax rates in NBA history. If, for example, the luxury-tax threshold is established at $75 million — a highly optimistic gain of roughly $5 million from this season — the Heat could be faced with a tax bill approaching $48 million. In total, they would be paying $141.3 million for 12 players.

“They’re going to have to break up their team,” predicted a rival general manager who has done the math.

Unless the NBA’s financial circumstances improve over the next couple of years, Arison will be faced with two unhappy choices: The Heat could run a big deficit in 2014-15 to pursue the championship, or he could break up their winning roster by way of trades, amnesty or by not re-signing James, Wade or Bosh, should they exercise their options to become free agents in 2014.

Thomsen’s piece breaks this all down in much more detail, so it’s definitely worth checking out in its entirety.

The bottom line, though, is this: We can expect the league’s superstar talent to spread out a little bit more in the coming seasons, as opposed to congregating in the league’s largest markets that have with the best weather and the brightest nightlife, as we’ve seen in recent years.

We’ve already seen teams begin to plan for this; New York didn’t want to sign Jeremy Lin to a large contract because of tax ramifications, and the same was true for Oklahoma City where James Harden was concerned.

The repeater-tax may not have been at the top of the list of demands when the teams went to the bargaining table with the Players’ Association last fall. But it may end up slowly having the affect that fans desire, which is to give more teams in more cities a legitimate shot at winning a title, thanks to the dilution of talent that will follow once those higher financial penalties for exceeding the salary cap are put into place.

  1. siege102 - Dec 8, 2012 at 9:44 AM

    Good. This is one of the core reasons the NFL is more enjoyable than the NBA IMO, because almost every year, your team has a chance to get into the playoffs and make a run. And if they don’t have a chance, it’s a fairly quick process to become a contender, in comparison to the NBA, so long as you have the right people in charge.

    I know a lot more people are fans of the Heat, Lakers, and Knicks than my Bucks so they won’t want as much parity, but this will be good for the small markets.

    • blueintown - Dec 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM

      The NBA works the same as the NFL. Draft well, navigate free agency effectively and efficiently, exploit the trade market when advantageous, and you’ll be a successful franchise. Citing parity is the pillar of acknowledging your franchise lacks the ingenuity to compete.

      • source7769 - Dec 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM

        better take another look at the nba contracts buddy everyone has dead money players on their team hence the reason 85% of the teams used their amnesty clauses and the players being drafted are more mediocre and busts than what the nfl produces which can easily be cut with no cap implications after a year or 2 unlike nba where they sit on the bench with dnp coach decisions

      • blueintown - Dec 8, 2012 at 10:31 AM

        Then stop acquiring dead money players. If your basketball operations department has stacked its roster with mediocre players with inflated contracts, get a new basketball operations department. I find it laughable that some have the audacity to complain about elite teams stacking their roster with elite players. You’ll notice that, in general, the truly elite teams have yet to exercise their right to amnesty a player. That’s not a coincidence.

      • pudgalvin - Dec 8, 2012 at 11:50 AM

        I guess, but you’re telling me that Milwaukee has the same shot at competing as Los Angeles? Look at how these teams stacked there rosters. They either ended up with a top 2 pick and got one of maybe 8 truly elite players in the league (OKC, Chicago, San Antonio), or used their market and ability to pay the tax to lure players (Miami, Lakers, New York, Brooklyn, Clippers). Sure they’re well run teams, but it takes more than that to win in the NBA. Indiana is a very well run team, but they don’t have a legitimate shot to win the title. You could even say the same about San Antonio at this point. They’re as well run as any team in the league, but don’t really have a legitimate shot at the title.

        The other end of the spectrum is Los Angeles. Someone here pointed out that they have three players on their roster making more money than Kevin Durant. Small market teams can’t throw money at anyone they want in hopes that it works out. Imagine if Minnesota had 15 million tied up in World Peace, Steve Blake and Chris Duhon. They’d be ridiculed to no end for having that amount of bad money. But because they’re the Lakers, they can afford to sign mediocre players to bad contracts with minimal consequences.

        You can cite teams like Cleveland and Orlando that had there chances and blew it, but I think it’s as much the fault of Lebron and Howard’s idea that they should be winning when they’re 25. It caused their teams to make silly moves like signing Shaq and Glen Davis to crippling contracts in an effort to win immediatly to appease their superstars instead of investing in young players that could grow together.

      • blueintown - Dec 8, 2012 at 12:16 PM

        Fair points, pudgalvin. I don’t intend to imply there aren’t some competitive disadvantages relative to market size, but it is incumbent upon ownership and management to navigate accordingly.

        San Antonio is actually a good example. It’s not a “desirable” market like L.A., New York, Miami, etc., but they have thrived for years because they have an elite basketball operations staff. Additionally, the Spurs model has thrived under Presti in O.K.C., and I suspect will do so under Demps in New Orleans in due time (neither of which enjoy substantial market advantages). They draft well and they do an outstanding job of developing players. Do they have to analyze cap structure with a more critical eye? Probably. But the logistics remain the same: The really good players make a lot of money.

        I know it’s not popular, but if a franchise is located in an area that renders it unable to keep up with the costs of fielding an elite team, then they need to find better ways to generate revenue or find a market that can sustain them.

      • raidmagic - Dec 8, 2012 at 12:50 PM

        Look again my friend, if you sign a guy to a large contract in the NFL and he washes out you can cut him, not the case in the NBA

      • blueintown - Dec 8, 2012 at 1:05 PM

        If he was signed prior to the last C.B.A. you can amnesty him. If not, the answer is to stop giving out exhorbitant contracts to mediocre players.

      • miamatt - Dec 8, 2012 at 1:32 PM

        @blueintown: Spot on. Not every team can lure top free agents, but San Antonio and Oklahoma City prove that it’s all about playing your hand correctly. San Antonio scouts internationally like no one else, and both teams draft exceptionally well- and not just when they win the lottery. The other piece is having a coaching staff that develops the entire roster.

        It’s true that at the start of any given season more NBA teams are effectively out of it than in the NFL. But reality is so many NBA teams grossly mismanage free agency, often in a desperate attempt to make up for their poor drafting or lack of player development. Conversely, the Knicks and Clippers have all had long stretches of mediocrity in spite of having such apparently overwhelming advantages.

        Also, it’s no surprise that a fan whose NBA team is the Bucks and NFL team is the Packers would have a more favorable view of the NFL’s current state of affairs. As a die hard Dolphins and Heat fan, I’d be facetious to say that the NBA doesn’t seem just a tad more compelling to me these days.

      • dafranchise03 - Dec 8, 2012 at 2:27 PM

        I dont think you understand.
        -If a player can get 5 mil to either play in the big market or play for a small market, he will probably choose the big market team. To compensate for it smaller market teams would have to pay more to get him to sign. The price tag goes up even more for the borderline all-star players and so on. Look at Monta Ellis, Joe Johnson, and Andrei Kirilenko if you want proof. Kirilenko had it down to 2 options? Nets for the minimum or the Wolves for 20mil for 2 years. No one knows for sure if the Wolves could have gotten him for less. While this is an extreme example, this happens to enough teams to be more of a norm than exception.
        -Superstars will get paid the same anywhere but has any ever chose to sign for small team. By sign I mean choosing to sign for a new team and not resign with the team their are already on.

        Then you have to consider the consequence of paying these guys. If a player doesnt work out for the Lakers or Heat, it isnt as big a deal as the Bucks overpaying a player. For one reason they can still find other ways to get someone new. Sometimes players sign for less just to play for them. Bigger teams are also willing to go over the cap because they can afford to. For a team like the Bucks, they cant afford to go over the cap and they dont get the chance to sign valuable players below market price. For example, Ray Allen could easily get more than 3 mil from most teams.

        Then the other point about scouting isnt very accurate. Superstar make the players around them better. Spurs and Thunder do a good job recruiting but if those same players played for another team will they actually be just as good? The answer is no.

      • miamatt - Dec 8, 2012 at 3:53 PM

        @dafranchise03:

        I understand perfectly well. In fact, what you state about “small market teams having to overpay FAs” is precisely why well run “small market” organizations such as OKC and SA eschew that route. I also don’t understand how my point about scouting “isn’t very accurate”, basically because superstars make those around them better. Scouting includes all players- not just “diamond in the rough” types. How did those two temas get their respective superstars? By drafting them after they scouted them! Were they lucky in some cases by having very high lottery picks? Of course, but getting those right isn’t always a slam dunk. And they drafted well in years that they weren’t at the top of the draft as well. Not only that, but the best teams find players who fit their respective systems and develop them as such. Just because role player A on San Antonio wouldn’t play as well on other teams doesn’t mean they didn’t “scout and develop”. Precisely the opposite in fact! A front office’s job is to use the resources at hand- money, market, draft, trade, and FA- to build a winner. Finding players they can afford, who fit with team culture and indentity, is the priority of any well-run organization. That often means identifying players whose value on your team is greater than it would be on other teams.

        All else is folly, and just so many excuses.

      • pudgalvin - Dec 8, 2012 at 4:43 PM

        @miamiatt: It took some real genius for San Antonio’s scouting department to draft Tim Duncan. Same for OKC and Durant. If both didn’t end up with a top two pick in the draft to get 2 of the 5 best players over the last 15 years, they’d be in the same boat as every other small market team. Sure they did well in other areas of scouting, but without those two players, they’re just another team. As I said, Indiana is an example of a very well run team that can’t attract today’s free agents and hasn’t gotten lucky enough to get one of the 10 best players in the league. They have absolutely no shot of winning a championship in the next 5 years. That’s what’s wrong with the NBA.

      • dafranchise03 - Dec 8, 2012 at 5:04 PM

        @miamatt
        You mention SA and OKC but thats two teams out of 30. Throw in the Griz and that’s 3. That makes them the exception of whats going on. Other teams have even hired ex Spurs and Thunder associates to try to copy their success but failed. You make it sound a lot easier then it really is. Plus SA and OKC lucked out in drafting superstars. There was no debate as to who they should draft when it came to Duncan and Durant. Take away those those two and the great teams that the Spurs and Thunder built become forgotten lower level playoffs teams.

        Griz deserve a lot of respect. They did it the hard way. Traded their all-star to rebuild. Marc Gasol was a throw in the deal. Randolph was a risk that worked out. Conley and Gay were good draft picks.

        There are many teams that can make great draft selections and sign underrated players but it doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things. This still doesnt change the fact that there are 3 small market teams that have even the slightest chance of winning a championship and 2 of them have drafted superstars.

      • miamatt - Dec 8, 2012 at 5:44 PM

        @pudgalvin:

        I actually agree with you. The Indiana Pacers are well run, they really don’t have a legit shot, and that is a shame.

        But it isn’t simply an NBA problem- in most professional sports, the leap from good to great is far more difficult than from awful to competitive. If you don’t emerge from your “bad years” with at least one superstar in the NBA, it isn’t going to work. Even taking my Miami Heat, if Wade isn’t in place and a believer, they don’t land LeBron or Bosh. Even the Knicks had to hand Stat a max deal and give up everything else they had to land Melo.

        The unfortunate reality for a team like the Pacers is that they would be better off blowing up the whole thing, getting whatever picks and young/low-cost players they can get with their assets, and hope that the lottery results of 2-3 years of stinking up the joint bears fruit.

        I don’t like that reality either, but that’s how it works. I think the bigger problem is not enough superstar talent for too many teams. Even if said talent is distributed more evenly , you will just end up with a somewhat larger pool of teams that can contend each year. Fully half the league will still definitively be “have-nots”. I don’t know how compelling a brand of basketball that will be, and teams like Indiana will still be better off tanking and and hoping for lottery magic. Look at the drop off from last year’s all star starters to the resrves. That slope is steep, and simply spreading out those 10 or so superstars among more teams does little to help most teams chances.

      • blueintown - Dec 8, 2012 at 7:43 PM

        Fair points, pudgalvin. I don’t intend to imply there aren’t some competitive disadvantages relative to market size, but it is incumbent upon ownership and management to navigate accordingly. One of the first rules of economics is scarcity, and there simply are not enough upper-echelon elite players to spread evenly amongst the league.

        San Antonio is actually a good example. It’s not a “desirable” market like L.A., New York, Miami, etc., but they have thrived for years because they have an elite basketball operations staff. It goes beyond drafting Duncan (which was, indeed, a no-brainer), and becomes more impressive with grabbing Parker at 28 and Ginobli 57th (57!!!!). Additionally, the Spurs model has thrived under Presti in O.K.C., and I suspect will do so under Demps in New Orleans in due time (neither of which enjoy substantial market advantages). They draft well and they do an outstanding job of developing players. Do they have to analyze cap structure with a more critical eye? Probably. But the logistics remain the same: The really good players make a lot of money.

        I know it’s not popular, but if a franchise is located in an area that renders it unable to keep up with the costs of fielding an elite team, then they need to find better ways to generate revenue or find a market that can sustain them.

      • borderline1988 - Dec 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM

        I hate when people point to OKC or SA and then argue that a team with good management can compete in today’s NBA.

        Both those teams got incredibly lucky with draft picks that netted them 2 of the best players of all time (I don’t doubt Durant will be that when he retires). Without those picks, neither team smells the 3rd round of the playoffs. And while I admit SA did some great work with drafting Parker and Ginobili, let’s be honest: How many times can you pull off those kinds of picks? SA certainly hasn’t done it since 2002. And no one else in the NBA has drafted a legitimate star outside of the lottery since. So basically, SA has relied on those 3 players for a decade. It’s not like the supposed best management in the NBA is drafting stars in the 2nd round every year, which is what some of the posters on this blog are implying.
        The funny thing is, if OKC had gotten the 1rst pick instead of the 2nd 6 years ago, they would also not be anywhere near where they are now. They got lucky; most teams don’t.

        The only team I’m actually impressed with is the Memphis Grizzlies. They really built that team from the ground up (i.e. didn’t rely on drafting a mega-superstar) into a possible contender. Possible.

        There is very little competitive balance in the NBA. It is practically impossible for any fringe team to build a real competitor, unless they can draft 2 superstars. What are the chances of that?

      • blueintown - Dec 9, 2012 at 9:48 PM

        So what is the solution, borderline? Forcibly rotate elite superstars to various teams on an annual basis? Create Frankenstein superstars to distribute evenly amongst the franchises? Forbid teams from acquiring more than one elite player? Restricting the available options of players who have honored their contracts and are now presented with choice?

      • classicfootballplease - Dec 10, 2012 at 4:52 PM

        The NFL is allowed to lie to its players, sign them to outrageous deals (they have no intention of ever paying in full), and cut them at any moment with very little compensation for the player or impose real consequences for the team. Yes, I know about signing bonus and cap hits. Let me tell you this, they are harsher in Madden then in real life. NFL teams sign “dead money” players everyday, and clean house every year of cap casualties. Most of these guys can still play, just not at the level they were signed so bogusly for. The NFL shouldn’t be the role model for any league, the NFL is a role model only for large coprorations who get away with abusing their employees.

      • ludachrisgsx - Dec 28, 2012 at 1:27 PM

        @raidmagic – yes, you can cut a player in the NFL if he doesn’t work out, but you still likely are paying a signing bonus which is guaranteed over a couple years, which eats into the cap space. There’s still less risk in the NFL. Up until they recently changed things in the NFL, teams were paying top pick rookies way too much money in guaranteed money for a player who hadn’t played a game in the pros – while top performing veterans on the team was making less. It made no sense. At least the NBA has had a limit on rookie contract pay for a little while, even if the full contract is guaranteed.

        Scouts and GM positions will become a lot more important in the coming years – and have been extremely important for the smaller market teams for some time now. Hell, look at the money ball story in baseball. There’s never going to be a perfect situation with the big and small market teams. I think this new luxury tax and repeaters tax will help a great deal though. The big market teams won’t want to be paying that much money out in taxes.

      • nard100 - May 14, 2013 at 10:46 AM

        I’ve been a Sixer fan since 1979. They have one ring in all the years I have watched them. They have squandered opportunities over and over. Bad drafts. They are in major market, yet what superstar wants to play there? Exactly. While some luck may play a role, the truth of the matter is the front office if the difference. Were the Celtics just lucky in the 80’s? There are two teams in LA, yet where does everyone want to go? The Lakers. Why? Because year after year they put a team out there that competes and it has been so since the day Jerry B bought the team. In the NFL you have the Steelers. They are in one of the smallest markets in the NFL, yet everybody know who they are and they travel very well to. Were they just “lucky” to get 6 superbowls? People harp on Miami, but I remember when they were the doormats of the league. What happened to change all that? Pat Riley that’s who. It aint luck and it’s not the market. It the people who make the personnel decisions that are the difference. In fact if you play your cards right over a period of time, you can build a large market for your team. Think that sounds crazy? In the NFL, Jerry Jones bought the Dallas Cowboys for a paltry 140 mil. How did one of the most popular sport organizations in the country get sold for so little? Yep, you guessed it, the front office did such a poor job that even with an icon like Tom Landry they still couldn’t get it done. Squandered 20 years of winning season and the club was worthless. How ’bout now? Exactly. It’s now one of the most valuable sport franchises IN THE WORLD. It aint luck folks, it skill and when you got it, you win. The franchises that win don’t make excuses, they get results.

    • beagle11 - Dec 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM

      You wouldn’t have this opinion if Andrew Bogut turned out to be a Duncan type 1st overall pick and the bucks were able to solidify its roster with late round gems like Parker, Ginobli etc etc. The Lakers traded for a mid lottery pick for Kobe and took Bynum (who they turned into Dwight Howard) in the mid-late lottery. The fact of the matter is you need to be extremely lucky, but you also need the front office personnel in place to capitalize on that luck

      • ludachrisgsx - Dec 28, 2012 at 1:43 PM

        Exactly – everyone points at the Lakers and complains about what they’re able to get in free agency and trades. Yet, nobody gives their front office much credit for drafting star players (or key trade assets). Bynum turned out to be a great draft pick (who they used to get Howard), as did Kobe (technically he was traded for, but it was more like a draft pick), as did Fisher, as did Divac (who they turned into Kobe), as did Magic, as did Worthy. They tend to do better than most in trading for stars, but their big championship runs have had a lot to do with good drafting.

        Most people knew it would be very tough for Miami to keep their big 3 together for more than a few years due to the salaries. These guys are going to be getting a big raise next year or the year after. Chances of them staying together are almost impossible. It’s funny to watch some people talk about them as if they will be together for as long as the Spurs nucleus. Not unless they choose to stay there and get paid far less than they’re worth elsewhere.

    • Mr. Wright 212 - Dec 8, 2012 at 3:44 PM

      Knicks will be good money even when this starts, we have no one on the books past 2014-2015 other than NOVAK.

  2. senorpapino - Dec 8, 2012 at 9:49 AM

    I disagree with this article. The largest markets have the most potential revenue from tv deals, advertising, endorsements, etc. Therefore, those cities can better afford to pay the luxury tax.

    • ludachrisgsx - Dec 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM

      They also have to share a lot of that TV revenue with the other teams. So even they it might give them some advantage, it isn’t much. And with the new luxury and repeaters tax, the advantage will be even less.

  3. 1972wasalongtimeago - Dec 8, 2012 at 10:11 AM

    I think this is the third article on PBT about the 2014-15 Heat. Can we just enjoy NYE 2013 first?

    • cantonbound13 - Dec 8, 2012 at 10:31 AM

      I now I’m enjoying it. 2 twenty point beat downs of your overrated team.
      “Not 1, not 2…. Hahahaha!!!

      • asuthyo - Dec 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM

        The fact that you are excited because of two early season wins shows how sad the Knicks and their fans really are.

      • cantonbound13 - Dec 8, 2012 at 3:59 PM

        I don’t live in the past. We’ll see who’s happy come June. I like my team’s chances.

  4. steelers4385 - Dec 8, 2012 at 10:24 AM

    Good. Cheaters.

  5. asublimeday - Dec 8, 2012 at 10:34 AM

    The NBA is simply more fun when each team has an alpha dog surrounded by role players. The Heat’s brand of basketball does nothing for true basketball fans who understand the game and how it should be played.

    • blueintown - Dec 8, 2012 at 10:42 AM

      So ridiculous on every conceivable level.

    • progress2011 - Dec 8, 2012 at 10:52 AM

      WELL !

      This has to be one of the ” STOOPEDEST ” comments you’ve ever made !

      If you understood the history of basketball, it was ALWAYS a TEAM GAME !!! Each player rendering equal contributions, at any time.

      FUNDAMENTAL Basketball, encompasses the involvement of all 5 players. It was never intended to have an “alpha-dog”.

      The Heat play the game correctly…compliments of the Best Player In the League LBJ. It’s a beautiful thing to watch.

      Please read more. Comprehend the FUNDAMENTALS of what bball is supposed to be. Or remain on of the “STOOPEDEST” folk, capable of speaking.

      New Progress2011 word – “STOOPEDEST”….look it up, there is a pic of you and other Faker Fans…ahahahahahah

    • miamatt - Dec 8, 2012 at 1:38 PM

      “The NBA is simply more fun when each team has an alpha dog surrounded by role players.”

      I’d like to know your evidence for this- perhaps you could cite a year or an era in the NBA when this was the case.

      I’d also like to hear more specific thoughts on “the game and how it should be played.”

      PLEASE, I need to know these things!!!

  6. 13arod - Dec 8, 2012 at 11:22 AM

    then trade bosh he isnt good anymore

    • cantonbound13 - Dec 8, 2012 at 11:46 AM

      You might want to get whatever you can for Wade, he’s all done.

  7. buffalowned - Dec 8, 2012 at 11:46 AM

    They should jump on that early by trading wade. ^ that guy is a clown for saying trade bosh he must have missed the playoffs last year

    • freudnumb - Dec 8, 2012 at 1:15 PM

      Sadly, I have to agree that Wade would be the first one to leave. Although he deserves to be the Paul Pierce of Miami, and he is one of the two Heat players (+Udonis) who were on both of the championship teams … but Flash is decelerating this season, while Bosh and James are just getting better and better. It will be weird to see him wearing a different jersey.

  8. rodge1 - Dec 8, 2012 at 1:34 PM

    Maybe Pat Riley talks them into taking pay-cuts again to keep the team together.

    • LPad - Dec 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM

      I agree and it may not even be Pat Riley. The three of them are friends, they make a ton of endorsement money (well maybe Bosh doesn’t), so there isn’t really motivation for two them to kick the third out.

    • ludachrisgsx - Dec 28, 2012 at 2:53 PM

      I don’t know that all three are going to accept new contracts that don’t include a bump in pay – and any bump in pay at that point will be crippling for Miami’s cap situation. It would be bad business in the eyes of the players union if they did, and those three would have to deal with that pressure from the union. Maybe not a max contract for Wade or Bosh but something long term with a little more than they’re making now, which will stress Miami’s cap situation when LeBron gets a max contract or something close to it. Unless they all take contracts that pay them what they’re getting now, it will be almost impossible.

      Who knows, maybe we’ll see a major change in philosophy where the top players accept far less money to keep a contending team together. It’s one thing when an aging player does it, like Tim Duncan, it’s completely different when players in their prime do it. And I’d imagine that all the small market teams would be more than just up in arms if Miami is able to pull it off. If players will give up tens of millions in salary to stay in the big markets, there’s nothing the NBA can do to stop them.

  9. barkley4life - Dec 8, 2012 at 2:33 PM

    With the state of DWades health the last couple years he’s not getting a Max deal again and neither does Bosh. DWade doesn’t alter his game to compensate on the wear and tear on his body he will phase himself out. If Shaq could leave LA Wade can be jettisoned out of Miami.

  10. BigBeachBall - Dec 9, 2012 at 5:22 AM

    Surround lebron with some d league talent, and we’ll see a less patient lebron in the future…

  11. bigwii - Dec 9, 2012 at 6:01 AM

    I can’t wait to see where all the Heat “fans” go after the big 3 gets broken up they could barely sell out their arena and their fans were not nearly as cocky and arrogant as they are now constantly taunting teams like Boston and L.A. that owned them in the past they didn’t say anything then now they say constantly taunt these teams the fact is the NBA is improving as far as competitive advantage but the whole era where teams NEED 3 stars to win like Boston, Miami, and OKC but now you see Boston and OKC both growing out of that and building teams around young talent and veterans and in OKCs case draft picks and smart trades but you look at L.A. where will they be when Kobe leaves or Miami do they think they can really get a lot for Wade who is on the decline the longer they wait to break up the Big 3 the more it will hurt them same with L.A. if they don’t sign Howard idk the NBA is slowly changing but I really do hate the fact that if you don’t have a roster full of at least 2 all stars your not considered a serious contender but teams like Memphis are shattering that mold I love how in the NFL most good teams can contend not just the same 3 or 4 every year or sane in baseball when a team like the Giants can win it all the NBA will get there but hopefully sooner or later

    • blueintown - Dec 9, 2012 at 4:21 PM

      Your thoughts are obtuse enough. At least have enough self respect to use some punctuation.

  12. omniusprime - Dec 9, 2012 at 8:56 AM

    Too funny, the seven year itch for Miami may be scratched after there seasons. Looks like the Heatstroke bit off more than they could chew and soon will have to break up the terrible three. Ha Ha!!! Go Lakers!!!

  13. fanz928 - Dec 9, 2012 at 8:26 PM

    Lebron forget heats and go to lakers

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Why can't Lakers have a player-coach?
Top 10 NBA Player Searches
  1. L. James (4049)
  2. K. Love (3983)
  3. D. Rose (3760)
  4. K. Bryant (2630)
  5. R. Allen (2318)
  1. C. Anthony (2184)
  2. K. Durant (2114)
  3. B. Griffin (1992)
  4. E. Bledsoe (1970)
  5. D. Wade (1876)