The Washington Post (Sally Jenkins) writes: There is a seemingly compelling case to be made — and some fans are making it — that the Wizards don’t need Arenas. When he was healthy and started 70-plus games in 2006-07, they went 41-41. This season they went 43-39, despite the fact that he made just 13 starts on his bad knee. There was a negligible difference in the team’s shooting percentage, which hovered right around 45 percent during both seasons, or assists, averaging 19.6 per game this season, versus 20.2 in 2006-07. (Both seasons ended in first-round playoff losses.) Moreover, they were better defensively, appeared to move the ball more, and generally seemed more focused when Arenas didn’t play. Why, his critics argue, should the Wizards make a long-term commitment to a point guard who can be selfish and disruptive, has yet to demonstrate leadership, and doesn’t defend?