Q: With all the fickle fans wondering why Riley doesn't do this or that, does it ever frustrate you to answer questions that seem so obvious, to where this team is this year? My comment is that all the talk about Beasley and Chalmers is overdone. My opinion is that if Daequan Cook was playing at the same pace this season as he did at the beginning of last season, we would have a few more wins. He has been by far the biggest disappointment this year. Your thoughts? -- Paul.
A: I agree about Daequan, and I do sense that the Heat is running low on patience, as evidenced by Tuesday's lack of action in Portland. But I can also appreciate the questions about Beasley and Chalmers. Fans want them to be productive, because they understand how important the two are to the team's future.
Q: If winning matters so much, why isn't Arison inclined to take a hit on the luxury tax? Tinsley, Iverson and many others could have enhanced the Heat by at least five to 10 wins this year. What gives? -- George.
A: I think your estimate of extra wins might be overstated. But as much as the dollar-for-dollar luxury tax, the concern was eating into the time of Mario Chalmers and Daequan Cook. The Heat recognizes it will need low-cost supporting players once it spends its cap space next summer, which is why it so wants to make it work with Chalmers and Cook.
Q: So let's say the Heat keeps Wade and signs Bosh (best case), now what? Chalmers at point guard? Anthony at center? Jones at small forward? Do you really think that team will get past the second round of the playoffs? -- Walter.
A: What will happen is veterans who find little remaining cap space elsewhere will say, "Well, there are worse options than signing there for a little less." It also is why the Heat so wants to make it work with Chalmers and Cook, to at least have them available as low-cost depth.