John Hollinger wrote:Let me throw out an even crazier proposition -- Minnesota. The Wolves will have the cap space to make a run at LeBron, depending on a few variables -- or at the very least can get there fairly easily if they know there's a chance for a player of this caliber. (Declining an option on Ryan Gomes, for instance, is done much more easily if it allows you to replace him with the best player in the league.)
Minnesota is generally thought of as one of the NBA's least-desirable relocation options, but let's consider it from a winning perspective. Who would you rather play with for the next five years: Al Jefferson or Anderson Varejao? Kevin Love or Ilgauskas? Ricky Rubio or Mo Williams? Jonny Flynn or West? Ramon Sessions or Daniel Gibson? Next year's fourth pick or next year's 24th? It's obvious, isn't it?
And as Howard Beck points out in today's New York Times, the advantages of one city over another are minimal from a financial perspective -- it's as easy to put Cleveland, Minnesota or Sacramento on national TV as it is the Knicks. Really, the main considerations are who LeBron wants to play basketball with and whether he can handle living in that city day-to-day.
Neither I nor Hollinger is saying that he should or will. But if LeBron's only concerns were 1) max salary and 2) winning as much as possible for as long as possible (in other words, remove weather and market size from the equation), could anyone top Minnesota's supporting cast? In my opinion, only Miami with a re-signed Wade could.