Big-ticket players need to keep bags packed in fierce arms race

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 clicking here. Now let's get to it.

Which Carlos Boozer move was worse: what he did to Cleveland or what he is doing to the Jazz?
-- @nbabusiness

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 Paul Millsap this offseason -- who are looking to move him. Boozer's $12.7 million salary this season just doesn't appeal to them, not if they can pick up depth at other positions for the same money. But I'm not sure there is a big market for Boozer right now. Miami would take him (he lives there in the offseason) and probably give him the kind of money he wants in a new deal. But the rumblings of a Boozer-to-Miami deal have quieted down since Lamar Odom re-signed with the Lakers. The Heat are still the favorites to land Boozer, but any deal will probably take some time to put together.

Do you think the trickle of players leaving NBA for Europe is blown out of proportion?
-- @pistonsfan23

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 JoshChildresses, Linas Kleizas and Nate Robinsons. European clubs are willing to give that caliber of player a $5 million-per-year deal while NBA teams might balk at $3 million. But there is no chance -- repeat, no chance -- of the NBA's losing marquee stars to Europe. The Euro leagues helped themselves when Childress came back raving about playing for Olympiakos (which, after checking with sources close to Childress, I learned is true), but we have not reached the point where Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and Dwyane Wade are going to start threatening to go to Europe. Winning the NBA championship still carries a lot of weight, and that's one perk no foreign team can offer.

With Big Baby [Glen Davis] back and the likely addition of Marquis Daniels, the Celtics' most glaring need is a backup point guard. Do you agree and who fits the bill?
-- @brilliantcorner

I completely agree. The Celtics addressed nearly every need they had this offseason. They got a versatile big man (Rasheed Wallace) who can fill in at both power forward and center, they are about to add a nice wing player (Daniels) who should be able to give Paul Pierce and Ray Allen a few extra minutes of rest per game, and they solidified their bench with Shelden Williams and the returning Davis.

An extra point guard is a luxury, but one a championship-contending team such as the Celtics should try to get. Tyronn Lue is at the top of my list. Lue had a tough year playing with Milwaukee and Orlando last season. But the 32-year-old Lue is well liked by his teammates and comfortable in a backup role. Bobby Jackson and Blake Ahearn are two other guys I would look into before training camp.

And no, Stephon Marbury is not an option.