A handful of e-mails will be flagged every week for group discussion. But be sure to include your first and last name and city of residence if you want your question to be answered. Seriously, friends. Announce yourself to the masses.

To the mail ...

	The Raptors won't say goodbye to Hakeem Olajuwon's contract until the team settles his finances.

Q: Hakeem Olajuwon has, I believe, two years left on his contract. He is retiring. Now why are the Raptors obligated to pay him for the remaining two years (it's quite a bit of money, around $12 milllion, right?) if he is quitting? I mean, if you sign a contract, isn't part of the deal that you actually play? If you quit, how much BS is it that a team still has to pay you? Am I missing something here?
Robbie Gower

A: You're absolutely right, Robbie. Which explains why Hakeem hasn't officially retired. If you formally retire -- like the late Bison Dele did -- you forfeit the balance of your contract. Hakeem hasn't. A player isn't officially retired until he sends a retirement letter to the league office and very few players in recent years (Chris Mullin, Ron Harper and Clyde Drexler are just a few examples) have taken that step.

Insurance will cover 80 percent of Dream's remaining salary if a team of independent doctors determines that his back trouble is indeed career-ending. That's how the Raptors will be spared from paying most of the $12 million, although the numbers won't immediately drop off the salary cap.

You'll note that the Rockets retired Dream's No. 34 on Saturday night, but that Dream's name is still right there on the Raptors' roster. He's on the injured list. By the letter of the law, he's still regarded as an active player and I'm guessing he'll stay that way until the finances are settled because Dream doesn't plan to give away one cent. Expect a similar scenario if Terrell Brandon has to "retire" in Minnesota -- it won't happen until the doctors rule that insurance has to pay off 80 percent of Brandon's contract.

Q: I've seen various references in the last few years to the watered-down NBA, how there are "too many teams" and how expansion is diluting the game's quality. For example, I think there were 16 NBA teams in the 60s compared to the 29 today. Just curious: Have you or anyone else ever looked at U.S. population statistics over time? It occurs to me that maybe the numbers of potential NBA players (let's say all males aged 20-40) have also expanded. In other words, the increase in NBA franchises has paralleled population growth. And if that's true, is the league really watered down or do we just perceive it to be that way? If it is watered down, I'd venture to guess that it's not because of the number of teams. Rather, it could be an erosion in skills and development.
John Frangos
Chicago, Ill.

A: Interesting take, John. You have a future on David Stern's advisory panel. Commish always comes back at any of us in the media who say the league is diluted, pointing out that the 60-plus players from foreign countries account for five extra teams on their own. Your point also supports the case for expansion … if the population numbers are indeed parallel to franchise growth. In the interest of time, I'll take your word for it.

I'm not against a 29-team league so much as it kills me to see the standard of shooting in the modern game, which speaks more to your point about skill erosion. Where have all the shooters gone? It's early, sure, but a case can be made that shooting has never been worse.

Through Saturday's play, five teams had failed to score even 70 points in a game this season -- yes, that means less than 70 -- and a whopping 11 teams were shooting .419 or worse from the field. The "leaders" in that category: Raptors (.373), Lakers (.393) and Nuggets (.395). No wonder only nine of the 29 teams are scoring more than 95.5 points per game, which was last season's average. It's all criminally sad.

	Jordan

	Bryant

A: Tell your friend to get out his wallet, Mike. According to the NBA, via Elias Sports Bureau, MJ has done it three times. The details:

Consecutive triple doubles; Dates; Player, team
(regular season only)
 9 03/08/1968 03/20/1968 Chamberlain, Wilt, Phi.
 7 01/01/1961 01/12/1961 Robertson, Oscar, Cin.
 7 03/25/1989 04/06/1989 Jordan, Michael, Chi.
 5 01/03/1962 01/11/1962 Robertson, Oscar, Cin.
 5 11/07/1961 11/14/1961 Robertson, Oscar, Cin.
 5 01/25/1968 02/02/1968 Chamberlain, Wilt, Phi.
 4 03/31/1987 04/05/1987 Johnson, Magic, LA-L
 4 01/05/1966 01/13/1966 Robertson, Oscar, Cin.
 4 02/11/1968 02/16/1968 Chamberlain, Wilt, Phi.
 4 02/13/1962 02/17/1962 Robertson, Oscar, Cin.
 4 10/21/1961 10/29/1961 Robertson, Oscar, Cin.
 4 03/28/1981 11/03/1981 Johnson, Magic, L.A.
 4 01/05/1965 01/09/1965 Robertson, Oscar, Cin.
 4 03/02/1967 03/06/1967 Chamberlain, Wilt, Phi.
 3 01/24/1987 01/29/1987 Lever, Fat, Den.
 3 02/10/1984 02/17/1984 Johnson, Magic, L.A.
 3 02/04/1968 02/09/1968 Chamberlain, Wilt, Phi.
 3 12/25/1963 12/29/1963 Robertson, Oscar, Cin.               
 3 02/23/1962 02/25/1962 Robertson, Oscar, Cin.
 3 04/18/1982 11/03/1982 Johnson, Magic, L.A.
 3 02/21/1961 02/25/1961 Robertson, Oscar, Cin.
 3 04/11/1997 04/14/1997 Hill, Grant, Det.
 3 01/14/1962 01/20/1962 Robertson, Oscar, Cin.
 3 12/26/1984 12/29/1984 Bird, Larry, Bos.
 3 04/09/1989 04/14/1989 Jordan, Michael, Chi.
 3 12/16/1966 12/21/1966 Chamberlain, Wilt, Phi.

	Baker

Q: Is there any chance that the Celtics could pull a Trail Blazers move (as with Shawn Kemp) and buy out Vin Baker's contract after the season? What are the salary-cap ramifications of this and do you know of any address where I could mail my contribution to the "Vin Baker Buyout Fund?" My checkbook is in hand.
Matt Dallas
Framingham, Mass.

A: There's no benefit for the Celtics to consider such a move unless Vin became such a divisive force in the locker room that he was hurting the team just by being there. And there's no evidence of anything that serious yet. Vin is simply coming along very, very slowly, as widely expected. Kemp's situation was different.

Kemp's presence in Portland probably was a distraction, or it certainly would have become one this season with Kemp's salary jumping into the $20 million bracket. Portland also has the financial wherewithal, with owner Paul Allen, to go the buyout route.

Now that it has taken the Baker risk, Boston might as well settle in and give it time and see if it can get anything out of Vin unless, again, things get really ugly. The money paid in a buyout still counts against the cap, so there likely wouldn't be any immediate bottom-line relief for the Celtics.

I'm sure fellow Celtics fans appreciate your generosity, though. They're undoubtedly wondering if you're still willing to chip in for a free agent point guard, since Paul Gaston won't let Boston add anyone (even a minimum-salaried free agent) until his ownership is transferred to the new regime.

	Sura

Q: What has happened to Bobby Sura? Ever since that "monster cap-killing contract" he signed a few years ago in Cleveland, he has not seen the light of day nationally. I'm not arguing that he's an All-Star or anything, but he is a big guard and a great athlete who can run the point. Gilbert Arenas seems to have all but locked up the one spot in Golden State and J-Rich will be at the two. Not to mention Dunleavy is going to have to play somewhere, and same with Welsch. Do you think that Bobby will ever get a shot at playing and, if so, will it be this year in Golden State or somewhere else?
Walter Weldon, III
Xavier University

A: That's what happens when you go to Golden State. But Sura is also off the map at present because he's been bothered by a strained calf since training camp. From everything I gather, Eric Musselman likes Sura's intensity and versatility, so don't worry. Sura should get a shot at minutes, in spite of the logjam, when he returns in a week or two.

Marc Stein is the senior NBA writer for ESPN.com. To e-mail him, click here.