>Firstly, you ignore the possibility that adding Love could
>result in the same thing as keeping Wiggins, i.e. no chip, in
>which case two years from now Cleveland wouldn't just be a
>struggle situation for Bron, but in the Love scenario a
>struggle situation with less flexibility and a dimmer future.
>More or less the same situation he just left in Miami. He
>also could be in the Finals, possibly even winning, with
>Wiggins. We don't know how good Wiggins is.

We know how good Love is. With Love, the Cavs would be odds-on favorites to win the East. They would be championship contenders immediately. Not on any unspecified timeline. If they don't *win* the title, I don't think LeBron, who stressed his patience in the letter, will bail just because of that. If they spend the year bowling with the bumpers on because they have a bunch of kids, then yes, he will have a wandering eye. Your argument is a relativist one and the comparison to Bear Stearns is, frankly, really fucking stupid. We are not talking about a 31-year-old mercenary with Love, we are talking about a guy in his mid 20s who is already balling. It's a fine move for the future.

>You act as if there are two choices: add Love and become
>champs, or keep Wiggins and don't become champs. That's just
>a completely ridiculous way to frame the options.

No, the choice is between acquiring Love and contending for a title or keeping Wiggins and risking a return to the dark ages. In a way, that is an even more dire proposition. I really like Wiggins, but a college freshman with some raw elements to his game is not the lynchpin of a title team right today. They don't have tomorrow to wait for. They have two years, and maybe just one.

>Secondly, you seem to assume Cleveland's only hope of
>retaining Bron is winning championships, when there's
>absolutely nothing to support this. I thought it was pretty
>transparent that the 2-year deal is in order to maximize his
>earnings after the new TV deal kicks in, and at that time
>Cleveland will be able to offer him the most years and the
>most money. Why shouldn't Cleveland proceed confidently with
>a strong shot at winning the East this yearr, while still
>putting themselves in position to compete at the highest level
>for years to come?

Oh really? That's apparent? Then why can he opt out after one year? This is LeBron we are talking about, not Tony fucking Gwynn.

>Basically you're framing this as "get Love or lose Bron" when
>there really are many, many more scenarios than just that.

There are but almost ALL the favorable ones include them acquiring Love. Love is not a short-term rental, he is a cornerstone for a long time. Wiggins might be that, but we aren't sure, and he is certainly not that immediately. You're trading prospect for proven and small for big. In what fucking universe is that a difficult decision???