The Twitter questions came fast and furious this week. Here are the top five, with a reminder that you can read about everything that I'm hearing and send questions my way on Twitter by
I have always gone a little easy on Boozer for what happened with Cleveland in 2004, mostly because the Cavaliers were foolish for declining Boozer's third-year option that season. If they had picked it up, Boozer would have been under contract for just $695,000 the next season. In the end, they rolled the dice that Boozer would take their six-year, $41 million free-agent offer without testing the market. What kind of business decision is that? I can understand Cleveland fans feeling burned, but I can't fault Boozer for seeing an extra $27 million on the table and snapping it up, no matter how shady the circumstances.
The situation in Utah is entirely different. Boozer isn't against staying; it's the Jazz -- after committing to
The Americans-to-Europe storyline was the topic du jour last offseason, right around the time the economy started to tank and rich European owners started throwing Monopoly money at NBA players. My position hasn't really changed. The NBA is still at risk of losing the
I completely agree. The Celtics addressed nearly every need they had this offseason. They got a versatile big man (
An extra point guard is a luxury, but one a championship-contending team such as the Celtics should try to get.
There are personnel decisions that need to be made before then, starting with
I spoke at length with Rockets GM
So my answer is Shaq. I don't think O'Neal will play 75 games again, like he did last season. But I do think he will be in the mid-60s and in good condition when the playoffs start. The Cavs can win 60 games without him; they proved that last season. They want him fresh for the postseason so he can be a presence in the paint defensively and a viable low-post option for