>
>Reid literally wrote: "This ISN'T about the MERITS of body
>art. Wall, 22, has the right to put whatever he wants on his
>body, and one of the advantages of youth is that you can
>reinvent yourself."
>
>He questioned Wall's flip-flopping on the issue of getting a
>tattoo, clearly suggesting that Wall is about to go buck
>fucking wild once he gets this contract...and he threw out
>Gilbert and Blatch as examples.

>Tatts are not the issue. It's Wall's state of mind on the eve
>of a big ass payday, the one he's been angling for since being
>drafted. And I do remember Wall carefully crafting a clean cut
>image for marketing purposes and saying he don't want tattoos.
>He coulda said he ain't want a gaudy ass luxury vehicle and
>Reid's column about Wall going back on his word about luxury
>vehicles would have been just as valid.
I'm not so sure it's about the payday per se. Like you said, he's only 22, and is allowed to change his stance. What he's flip-flopping about seems trivial. I completely agree, it's not like D12, where his flip-flopping can change the landscape of teams, and parts of the league. Wall changed his mind about tattoos, and I guess he's figured he's already got some marketing $, and looking at Durant, can do the same thing with his tatts and still get the same $.

>And let me be really clear, since niggas love being emotional:
>Argue Reid's actual fucking premise and put your emotions
>about athletes and tatts to the side. As for what I think
>about all this: I didn't care until Bomani wrote all that
>unnecessary shit and D12 and Birdman and Durant and Iverson,
>as if Reid didn't explicitly say tatts are not the
>issue...WALL CHANGING HIS STANCE on tatts is the issue,
>because it all looks calculated, like "NOPE...I'm bout to get
>maxed...fuck this marketing shit...I want my tatts now."
I don't know if I can make that leap. The changing his stance is him going from 19 to 22, and seeing a star like Durant have the tattoos and not affect his marketing $. I think him looking at the stars of right now, especially Durant and Lebron, and seeing them being inked up is telling him that tattoos or not he can get this $. I don't have a problem with him changing his stance on tattoos at all. He just was in a commercial with Jrue and Lillard, so he's probably gonna get more marketing chances. If he changed his stance on re-signing, coaching, or other things, then it might have more credence. It doesn't really seem calculated in my opinion

>>And, yes, I get that Wall was 19 when he said tatts would harm
>the marketing of his image. He was a kid and he has the right
>to flip-flop. I completely agree. And that's why I think
>Reid's column was trivial and unnecessary. However, I didn't
>think it was about tatts. I thought it was a clear shot as
>Wall's state of mind, that after a nice 6 week run, Wall
>thinks he's a superstar, max player now...and given the
>Wizards history, that's a bad sign of things to come. I don't
>agree with Reid on that, because John Wall isn't Gil or
>Blatch. However, At least I fucking understand what I'm
>disagreeing with.
You said it in your first sentence, and I agree with that.
I also agree with Wall MIGHT having his head a little gassed after his little run. If he's thinking he's a max player after that, then you're absolutely right. I just think the article pointing out tattoo's is a bad starting point, and veils his point with hate, rather than an interesting pov (being that is Wall a max player)