Everyone with an outlet to talk about it says LeBron James will start the 2010-11 season with one of three teams:

-Cleveland (because it can offer him $30 million more than any other team)
-Chicago (because many people believe the Bulls, with point guard Derrick Rose and big man Joakim Noah, would be title contenders if they got James)
-And New York (because it's supposedly the "Mecca of Basketball, even though the squad that calls New York home hasn't reached .500 in nine years ... or won a title in 38)

Those three teams, along with the L.A. Clippers, Miami, Minnesota, New Jersey and Oklahoma City will have the most cap space this off season, meaning they can offer LeBron - and guys like Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh and Amar'e Stoudemire - maximum contracts, which would net each player about $20 million/year for 6-7 years.

Once teams start discussing sign-and-trade options, everybody becomes a player in the "Summer of LeBron." His best option, though, may be one no one has mentioned yet.

James should sign on to player with the Los Angeles Lakers for the rest of his career. It makes sense for so many different reasons.

The Lakers are my favorite team
Ok. Now that that's out of the way ...

Contract not a big deal
The contract aspect can be summed up fairly quickly: great athletes, namely NBA players, make the majority of their cash from endorsement deals. If a player is marketable, like LeBron is, since he had a $90 million deal with Nike before he played a game in the NBA, he can make 3-5 times his salary in endorsements EACH YEAR.

For the first 10 years of his career, Michael Jordan, the greatest pitchman in the history of the world, averaged about $3 million a year in salary from the Chicago Bulls. In 1992, Jordan made nearly 11 times that in endorsements. That was nearly 20 years ago. Think how much money LeBron could rake in playing for the Lakers now. The possibilities are endless: spots with Magic, spots with him playing pick up games on Venice Beach ... more puppet commercials with Kobe. Being in L.A. could also aid in LeBron's quest to become a "Global Icon."

So what if the Lakers have more than $80 million in contracts locked in for each the next two seasons. LAL is one of the few teams in the league not afraid to pay the luxury tax. And owner Jerry Buss is worth about $3.2 billion, which may have something to do with that.

Let's say L.A. signs James for the midlevel exception this summer, which will be about $6 million. His total earnings for the year would still top $40 million, if you go according to what James made in endorsements in 2008 ($35 million).

He wants to win titles, right?
Here's what LeBron will have around him if he goes to ...
New York: Eddy Curry, Danilo Gallinari, Wilson Chandler, Toney Douglas, maybe David Lee and/or maybe Chris Bosh
Chicago: Derrick Rose, Joakim Noah, James Johnson, Taj Gibson, Luol Deng and Kirk Hinrich (assuming the last two aren't used as trade bait to bring in a bigger name)
Cleveland: the same sad squad he played on this year ... with the same absent-minded coach
L.A. Clippers: Baron Davis, Eric Gordon, Blake Griffin, Chris Kaman and a lottery pick from next month's draft (Actually, that doesn't look like that bad an option until you remember it's the Clippers. LeBron would probably tear both ACLs and his Achilles at his introductory presser).
L.A. Lakers: Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum, Ron Artest (as a sixth man!!), Lamar Odom and Phil Jackson

That should say it all right there. Plenty of players have waited until they were on the downside of their career to latch onto a team in the title chase (Karl Malone, Gary Payton, Alonzo Mourning, Bob McAdoo). Why not play the next decade for a perennial title contender? James would have a good start to that decade, too, as he'd most likely play the first 3-4 years with one of the seven best players of all time (Bryant) and the best coach of all time (Jackson). What's the downside to that?

I understand this happening is as likely as me paying good money to go see "Sex and the City 2," but I can dream, can't I?