Witness for the defence

Well, I don't have much of an opinion on the Gilbert Arenas thing. Owning a gun is kinda out of my realm of experience, so why someone would think it's a good idea to bring not one, not two, but three of them to work is just beyond me. I won't argue the right to bear arms -- I've eaten food that looked suspiciously like Bambi before someone I knew took aim (and it was tasty) -- but it's a pretty cut and dried rule that guns are verboten on NBA property, so Mr. Arenas is gonna have to man up to the consequences.

However -- what I do have a problem with is the idea that those consequences could include the Wizards  now being able to void his contract, based on a "moral terpitude" clause in the collective bargaining agreement between the NBA and the NBA Players Union. There's a whole lotta gray area here for me. Hypothetically. at the one end -- if a player is convicted of a felony (let's say something concerning dog-fighting) and scheduled to be in prison for the remainder of his athletic contract -- well, of course I have no objection to an owner getting out from under that waste of money, strictly based on the physical availability of the athelete. However -- that's not really the issue here. The thing that kills me here is that the drastic step of voiding Arenas' contract is only being discussed because it's such a disastrous contract for the Wizards. He's owed something in the neighbourhood of eighty million dollars over the life of his deal, and there's little doubt that in pure basketball terms, Arenas just isn't worth that kind of scratch any more. He's only 28, but he's had a couple of serious knee injuries, and he just hasn't been able to recapture the magic. He's still a capable NBA player, but not one that a franchise wants to base its whole salary structure around. If he was, though -- if there were 29 other NBA teams who were willing to snap him up at that price -- I have a hunch the Wizards would be letting the world know how disappointed they were with Gilbert's choices, but they have decided to support him as he takes responsibility for his actions.

I guess this is the thing. The Wizards management offered that contract to Gilbert Arenas. (Because I'm a weak little man, I can't resist pointing out that no-one held a gun to their heads.) They agreed to the dollar figures, the length of the contract, and the personality of the guy who was signing on the dotted line. That is their action, and anything following after that -- players being injured, players being suspended, players getting older, players getting stupider in their old age -- can be construed as consequences of that initial action. If Gilbert Arenas is suspended for 50-odd games and forfeits millions of dollars of salary, that is him taking responsibility for his actions. If the Wizards then void his contract, and get salary cap relief and a roster spot and improved locker room chemistry -- that strikes me as letting the bosses download responsibility for their actions on to the employees. As far as I'm concerned, that's a moral decision that the Wizards would be getting wrong, and it seems hypocritical of the NBA to condone this kind of immorality in the process of condemning another. The high ground would be pretty shaky.

One last thing -- if this does work out for the Wizards, I would like to prognosticate right now that someone will find a gun in Eddy Curry's locker before the end of the season. It might even be his.