I hear dat but length of prime matters too. AI prime years could be considered from 97 to about 2008/2009 which is an incredibly long time for player of his stature. While Wade's prime would be like 2004 to 2010 which is much shorter and thus a reason I could see someone taking Chuck over him. And AI probably wouldn't be willing to do what Wade has done cuz at 30 and 31 he was still near the top of his game and probably wouldn't want to take a backseat to anyone.
Which would limit his teams championship potential. AI definitely wins the longevity battle however I am not sure how much better off your team would be after 12 years of AI and his physical limitations and unwillingness to alter his game and fit in it with other talent players and inability to have an impact outside of scoring and dominating the ball vs. 6/7 years of Wades' all around brilliance with comparable scoring and his willingness to take the backseat while still stepping up when needed not to mention his recruiting/player connections.
Larry Brown tried to help him put some discipline in his game and he fought him every step of the way. At a certain point grown ass men gotta take responsibility for what they do or don't do. AI had opportunities with talented players and teams to change the tune and he wasn't interested.
You have gone on and on about the 15 win season in MIA and gave AI props for ensuring that his team only had lower lottery picks
. The shyt has been ridiculous. I was just giving you benefit of the doubt that you had something of substance but it's become pretty clear that you don't and now you are just resorting to feeble attempts to change the argument or act like you didn't say what you said. There is no substantive argument for AI and you know it but hey feel free to continue going in circles alone.
im just replying to your repetitive posts.

@ the bolded.
BTW you have just pulled of the message board trifecta:
