Would SpaceX dare to put legs on this stage already?

Would be awesome! And would be very good reason to keep cards even closer to chest.

Imagine the media hype if, on launch day, the webcast suddenly reveals a rocket with legs....



1-Is there enough performance margin ? Putting legs on without fuel to perform the re-entry and landing burn wouldn't make any sense in my opinion. Legs add weight, requiring S1 to burn a little longer on the way up, on what it looks like a fairly tight mission to begin with.2-Wouldn't it be better to use any performance margin to test the re-entry burn (without the legs) ? My impression is they wouldn't even have enough fuel to perform a long re-entry burn like the Cassiope mission, even without the legs. But the gossip is the SES-8 1st stage only broke up at MaxQ, so even a small re-entry burn might save the stage. But it seems like they don't know how much they need to slowdown the stage, so they need to experiment. What I'm saying is on the F9 v1.0 missions they didn't reorient the stage for re-entry with the nozzles facing the heat, so they always lost the stage early through re-entry. The SES-8 didn't performed any burns but turned the stage around to re-entry with the same orientation as expected for re use, and even without any burns it seemed as was just a small slowdown from surviving re-entry.3 - The CRS mission will be quite differently, since they will have lots of performance left it makes sense they would focus on making the whole thing work, so legs, longer re-entry burn, perhaps even landing in the water close to the cape. Not worth risking doing too short a re-entry burn and loosing the stage.The reuse tests on F9R launches are a test flight program where it's ok (and normal) to loose the test stage (it already put the payload in orbit at that point). So on each launch they should be trying something new, gathering as much data as possible, within the constraints of fuel margins.