When Washington Post columnist Jason Reid sat down at his computer recently to pen a piece about John Wall, he wanted to convey his thoughts on why the Wizards should not sign the former No. 1 draft pick to a max contract next month. And he could have done that in any number of ways.
Reid could have pointed out how, although Wall finished the 2012-13 NBA season strong, he continues to struggle to find his shot in the NBA. He could have pointed out how Wall turns the ball over too much for a guy who wants to be considered an elite point guard. He could have even used Wall's own words against him and pointed out that Wall himself admitted that there are a handful of point guards out there who are better than him back in April. But Reid didn't do any of those things. Instead, he mostly just talked about Wall's tattoos. Yes, his tattoos.
In what reads like the stretch of the century, Reid used his column to try and explain how the "business tattoos" that Wall got on his chest and stomach recently—they are called "business tattoos" because they are not visible when he's wearing a shirt or jersey—are the main reason why Washington should not give Wall a max contract next month. He throws in a few references to Wall's play and even seems to imply that, if Wall was as effective on the court as, say, Kevin Durant, he probably wouldn't be writing a column about his tattoos. But mostly, every other line seems to read, "JOHN WALL HAS TATTOOS! BAD! BAD, BAD, BAD! DO NOT SIGN HIM TO A MAX CONTRACT BECAUSE HE'S NOT A MAX CONTRACT PLAYER AND BECAUSE, WELL, HE HAS TATTOOS!"
We understand Reid calling Wall out for his play and advising the Wizards not to sign Wall to a max contract. To a degree, we also understand Reid pointing out how Wall once said that he would never get tattoos in light of him getting tatted up recently. But what we don't understand is what correlation exists between Wall's tattoos and a max contract. There are lots of reasons for the Wizards to low-ball Wall this summer. But his new tattoos are most definitely not one of them.
[via Washington Post]