I love Gilbert Arenas

[RepoMan]

And if you don't, read this: http://my.nba.com/forum.jspa?forumID=400032200. Gil offers an independent and surprising view on NBA contract negotiations, and in the process touches on both Deng and Boozer. A great read. The DBR often takes shots at Gil, but I dig him.

[Acymetric]

To me Arenas is a less talented Kobe with that's even worse for team chemistry. I would probably like him, but ever since his "I'd drop 85" on Duke by myself I've enjoyed every failure he's had. Sidenote: I think he scored 8 on us when we beat them in the tournament.

[Ben63]

I do like Gilbert Arenas. I was at the game last year when he dropped 50 and the game winning 3 against the Jazz. I have loved him ever since. The Duke comment does however knock him down a peg.

[JBDuke]

To me Arenas is a less talented Kobe with that's even worse for team chemistry. I would probably like him, but ever since his "I'd drop 85" on Duke by myself I've enjoyed every failure he's had. Sidenote: I think he scored 8 on us when we beat them in the tournament.

I think you're wrong about Gil. Well, you're right that he's a "less talented Kobe", at least in some senses. Gil's a streakier shooter and doesn't like to play defense very much. But he's definitely not "worse for team chemistry". I never hear grumblings about Gil as a team guy. He's a practical joker and a goofball. He's generous with his time and his money. He doesn't walk around with a posse. He's got a clause in his contract that allows him to play pick-up ball on the streets, and he'll drop in on some of the playgrounds around town and play a game during the offseason. He pokes fun at himself. He's honest. He's playful. He's a great quote machine - the press around here love the guy. He's a complete gym rat and likes to come into the Phone Booth in the middle of the night and shoot jumpers. He brags about his computer gaming skills.

The whole thing about "I'd drop 85" on Duke was part sour grapes and part his own self-motivation. Gilbert gets pumped when other folks tell him he's not good enough. He's STILL motivated to prove that teams were wrong for letting him fall into the second round. Getting cut from the National Team was an ego bruise, and he'll get motivation off that for a good, long while, too.

Don't get me wrong - Gilbert has plenty of flaws. As I said above, I question his commitment to defense, and despite his stature as an All-Star player, I don't think his personality will ever let him be much of a team leader (Butler and Jamison are better at that). But when he's on, he's just about impossible to guard. And he's a lot of fun to watch!

[Duvall]

To me Arenas is a less talented Kobe with that's even worse for team chemistry. I would probably like him, but ever since his "I'd drop 85" on Duke by myself I've enjoyed every failure he's had. Sidenote: I think he scored 8 on us when we beat them in the tournament.

He was hurt in the semifinal.

I like Arenas, in no small part because of his comments about Duke. It's good to be reminded that players can be as bitter and obsessive about the game as the fans.

[bdh21]

I don't think his personality will ever let him be much of a team leader (Butler and Jamison are better at that).

To his credit in the past he has scoffed at the notion that he's a leader for the wizards, admitting that he's a "goofball." He has wisely deferred to Jameson in the leadership department.

[mapei]

I don't mind what he said about Duke - I interpret it as part being competitive and part being playful. He's not like Jordan where every comment like that had a mean spirit behind it. And, like JB said, I think he's popular with his teammates - I don't think he's a drain on team chemistry. Jamison is my favorite on that team, but Agent Zero is fun to watch.

[natedog4ever]

I bet Lute wishes he had scored 85 on Duke. He'd have another ring. The guy has a big mouth.

[dukemomLA]

hard for me to root against Gil, since he went to H.S. with my daughter in SoCal. I am annoyed that sometimes he comes off as an a-hole. In person (or at least in the past), he's much classier than that.

[greybeard]

Arenas' inability to pass the ball inside is a killer to team chemistry. I thought that the Zards were a much more formidable team with Daniels at the helm. The guys who take the heat are the bigs, who are not "big" enough to put the blame where it belongs, if you get my drift. Also hurts others who benefit from an inside out game, aka Mason.

At the same time, he is terrifically entertaining, especially when he is really on from the outside. A very pleasant sort of guy from a media point of view.

Saying that they were better with Daniels at the point, is not to say that you don't really, really, really need a third big time scorer. I'd rather it be someone other than Arenas.

Therefore, if you could get a Bibby and a good pick, I'd do it (assuming Bibby were healthy). Any good trade, I'd do in a heartbeat.

[langdonfan]

I bet Lute wishes he had scored 85 on Duke. He'd have another ring. The guy has a big mouth.

I couldn't agree more. Arenas is a joke.

[JBDuke]

Arenas' inability to pass the ball inside is a killer to team chemistry. I thought that the Zards were a much more formidable team with Daniels at the helm. The guys who take the heat are the bigs, who are not "big" enough to put the blame where it belongs, if you get my drift. Also hurts others who benefit from an inside out game, aka Mason.

At the same time, he is terrifically entertaining, especially when he is really on from the outside. A very pleasant sort of guy from a media point of view.

Saying that they were better with Daniels at the point, is not to say that you don't really, really, really need a third big time scorer. I'd rather it be someone other than Arenas.

Therefore, if you could get a Bibby and a good pick, I'd do it (assuming Bibby were healthy). Any good trade, I'd do in a heartbeat.

I haven't seen or heard any evidence to support your claim about Arenas being a killer to team chemistry. As for "the heat", it's the team defense in the past that has generally taken the heat. Arenas, Jamison, and Haywood have all struggled at times to play good D for their position. Stevenson and Butler are solid on the wings.

Daniels is a better passer and better pure point, and some of the lesser players, like Mason, may in fact do better with him on the floor, but that's because he's looking to set them up. But none of them can drop 50 in a game like Gilbert can. And when Arenas, Butler, and Jamison are all clicking, the Wizards can be nigh unstoppable.

Do I take a healthy Bibby and a good pick for Gilbert? Probably not, unless I really think Nick Young can really step it up. Why hope to find an All-Star when you've got one on your roster already, especially when he's only 25 years old?

[willywoody]

he comes across as a big tool. he can play but i don't care for him.

[greybeard]

I haven't seen or heard any evidence to support your claim about Arenas being a killer to team chemistry. As for "the heat", it's the team defense in the past that has generally taken the heat. Arenas, Jamison, and Haywood have all struggled at times to play good D for their position. Stevenson and Butler are solid on the wings.

Daniels is a better passer and better pure point, and some of the lesser players, like Mason, may in fact do better with him on the floor, but that's because he's looking to set them up. But none of them can drop 50 in a game like Gilbert can. And when Arenas, Butler, and Jamison are all clicking, the Wizards can be nigh unstoppable.

Do I take a healthy Bibby and a good pick for Gilbert? Probably not, unless I really think Nick Young can really step it up. Why hope to find an All-Star when you've got one on your roster already, especially when he's only 25 years old?

Your take comports with conventional wisdom; I don't do conventional wisdom (now there's a surprise).

Let me explain what I mean about team chemistry. You cannot have TEAM chemistry and say you are playing the Princeton or a derivative thereof and have the "big three", with one of them being the big Kahuna. It don't work.

When the big three are rocking and rolling, especially Arenas, it is terrific theater, but not terrific basketball and will never take anybody deep into the playoffs, in my opinion.

Arenas' presence demanded that there be a "Big Three" because, while he can play with teammates on the exterior, he is incapable of penetrating the defense with a pass. I mean INCAPABLE! Whenever he has tried in the past, his offensive production completely shut down. They'd lose two, and then he'd come back and score 40, they'd win, and the story would be what a star Arenas is.

My foot. You do not win big on any level in basketball without an offense that creates inside out play and lots of easy baskets at the hoop. It does not happen.

The complaints about the Wizzards bigs over the last several years, in my opinion, has been misplaced. I believe that Heywood's improved play is the direct result of Arenas' absence. I believe that Heywood's game would be much better than it is had Arenas not been here and had Edie actually walked the talk of a Princeton derivative.

As for defense, my theory has always been that players need to exercise some sort of control, dominion, on the offensive end to be effective defensively.

Asking bigs to be mules who set picks, pound the boards, and shove other bigs around on defense is demeaning and wrong headed. Putting the ball in their hands so that they can be at the pivot of the offense, make plays with their inside out vision, attack the basket when the time is right, not just when they are fortunate enough to get a rare touch, creates the opportunity for better play on the other end. There are a variety of reasons for this in my experience and observation.

Are there isolated instances in which a player can create the other way? Sure. Duke has had its share of players whose games began on the defensive end, and whose defense led to greater roles on offense. Those players are the exception.

Anyway, I do not think that Arenas is a bad guy to be around, or anything like that. To the contrary, it seems exactly the opposite. On the otherhand, if I had waited several games for a run, I would not chose him to be on my team if there was a viable alternative. Would you?

[freshmanjs]

The Onion's Take (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/confused_david_stern)