Washington Wizards Must Trade Andray Blatche, Not Amnesty Him
According to ESPN's Marc Stein, the Wizards will attempt to shop him until July 17, but then it's either amnesty or a paid leave for the power forward:
In other words Wiz have 'til July 17 to keep scouring for Blatche trade. Wiz choice then, I'm told, is amnesty or pay Blatche to stay home— Marc Stein (@ESPNSteinLine) July 10, 2012
Before amnesthetizing (I still think this should be the verb of choice) Blatche, the Wizards must try as hard as possible to swing a deal. Someone is bound to have a little bit of interest in the 25-year-old, especially because his contract is by no means ridiculous.
Blatche was immature and out of shape for the Wizards, but he still has a high ceiling if he can ever be motivated to play hard.
As a jump-shooting big man, Blatche can succeed if he's not cast as the primary option on a team and is allowed to take a backseat to a premier scorer. There are quite a few teams out there looking for a Robin to their squad's Batman.
Even if the Wizards are able to trade the 6'11" power forward for Jackie Moon and a laundry machine to go along with a pick in the nonexistent third round, they should do it. Receiving anything in return for his services would be better than using the amnesty clause.
Hypothetically, let's say that no buyer is found in the trade market and the Wizards do end up amnesthetizing Blatche. Although his salary wouldn't count against the luxury tax and salary cap, Ted Leonsis would still end up paying the bulk of Blatches' salary for the remainder of his contract.
Whichever team earned Blatche off of waivers wouldn't be paying much for the power forward, so Leonsis would be on the books for a large sum of cash.
This isn't exactly what a young team looking to rebuild and make it back to the playoffs wants. An owner who is willing to spend more money is ideal, not one recovering from a multi-million dollar hit.
Washington must continue to shop Blatche aggressively and accept almost any offer that is submitted. It's better than nothing.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?