Miami Heat Rumors: Which Rumored Free Agent Should They Pursue?
One thing is for sure as the NBA prepares for free agency on December 9.
The Miami Heat will not have the impact that they had a year ago. There won't be any big time stars taking their game to South Beach this year, but they can still make an impact.
With all the guys (mostly big men) connected to the Heat in free agent rumors, only one truly makes sense both on the court and financially.
That's center Samuel Dalembert.
The Heat need a presence in the middle. Someone to just rebound and play defense. You saw the impact that the Mavericks Tyson Chandler had on Miami in the NBA Finals. That problem needs to be fixed immediately.
Chandler would be nice for Miami to lure away from Dallas, but he is more than likely looking to cash in instead of taking a pay cut in search of another ring.
That could make Dalembert an even better fit. He's stated his desire not only to play for the Heat, but to play close to his native country of Haiti.
In Dalembert the Heat would get a guy that could contribute a little bit offensively, but could primarily be a rebounder and a shot blocker. He posts career numbers of 8.1 points, 8.9 rebounds and 1.9 blocks per game.
Not only would Miami get a decent presence in the middle, but it would also allow Joel Anthony to return to the bench, which is a better fit for him. You also have to remember that Chris Bosh will log some minutes at center when he and Udonis Haslem are on the floor together.
Should Samuel Dalembert be the Heat's top free agent priority?
It's those other minutes where the Heat can be exposed. A guy like Dalembert solves many of those issues.
Now there is the issue of Dalembert having to take a huge pay cut from the $13 million he made last season (Yes, he really made that much money).
How much does playing in Miami where nearly 50 of his relatives currently live?
Enough to pass on the full mid-level exemption or even more from someone else to take a portion of that from Miami?
I guess we will find out around December 9.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?