Columnist Questions Wizards Committing to John Wall Because of His Tattoos
Common sense has suffered a potentially crippling blow.
Most would have taken this opportunity to comment on Wall's body art. Forums would be created to either praise the work he had done or ridicule its existence. But Jason Reid of The Washington Post used Wall's tattoos as a means to argue against the Wizards offering the point guard a max contract extension:
Posing shirtless recently for an Instagram photo, Wall revealed several tattoos. Wall’s interest in body art is surprising, considering he previously said he did not have tattoos because of concerns over his image for marketing reasons. Many NBA players do have tattoos, and Wall isn’t breaking new ground in sharing his ink with fans through social media.
But not every player flip-flops on a topic in such a public way. Factor in that Wall is expected to receive a huge payday from the Wizards next month, and the timing of his tattoo revelation raises questions about his decision making. For a franchise with a history of backing the wrong players, that’s food for thought.
Wall's ink shouldn't factor into how much money Washington throws his way. Unless they're gang related or he explicitly has "I Hate the Wizards" tattooed across his forehead, what he does with his body is his business—even if he previously said he had no desire to forever brand himself.
Remember, the NBA isn't your average office, where visible tattoos can be frowned upon. Hell, Wall's tats aren't even visible unless he peels his jersey.
So my question is: Why does this matter?
I've yet to find an answer, because it doesn't.
Does John Wall deserve a max contract extension?
Thanks for clearing that up, Mr. Reid. We were confused. Some of us were clearly thinking Wall was the second coming of LeBron.
If the Wizards don't offer Wall a max contract extension before next season (they probably will), it should be because he, in fact, isn't LeBron. Nor Durant. Nor Rose. It should be because his jump shot still needs work—not because he isn't an All-Star, yet still felt entitled to express himself.
That's absurd. Reid's entire premise is nonsensical and baseless.
Hopefully the Wizards are more open-minded—and smarter—than Reid. When they begin negotiations with Wall on his next contract, they should do so with his on-court production in mind. Reid can take his bizarre opinion elsewhere.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?