John Feinstein raised a question about the John Wall contract extension this week, during one of those rapid-fire CBS Sports Radio spots that run between show segments. Here’s his commentary, in its entirety.
“The Washington Wizards signed John Wall to a contract extension Wednesday that will guarantee Wall $80 million over five years beginning next season. The Wizards gave Wall the money even though he still has a year left on his rookie contract and has yet to prove that he can shoot the ball well enough to become the true star that one would expect of someone making $16 million a year.
“So why the new deal? According to a sentence buried in the Washington Post story, one reason is because the team was afraid Wall would ‘sulk’ this season if he didn’t have a new contract. The Wizards committed to paying Wall the maximum allowed under the CBA because they were concerned the player might ‘sulk’ while only making $7.5 million this coming season. If that’s who Wall truly is, the Wizards are truly in trouble.”
And here is the passage I believe Feinstein is referring to, from Michael Lee’s story.
By letting the situation play out during the regular season, the Wizards would’ve risked having either a motivated Wall playing to prove a point or a dejected Wall sulking through the final season in which Grunfeld, Coach Randy Wittman and their respective staffs are under contract. Giving Wall the security that he desires places the burden on him to produce, especially after the organization has finally surrounded Wall with the competent big men (Nene, Emeka Okafor), capable shooters (Beal, Martell Webster, Trevor Ariza) and another talented, do-it-all perimeter player (Porter).
That concludes this Sports Bog Internet minute.