Rondo about Sacramento absence: 'It's my business'

http://www.csnne.com/boston-celtics/rondo-birthday-flap-its-my-business?p=ya5nbcs&ocid=yahoo

[Link includes video interview]


Rondo on birthday flap: 'It's my business'

February 26, 2014, 11:45 pm


BOSTON — Rajon Rondo had his best night of the season (22 points, 11 assists) in leading the Celtics to a 115-104 victory over Atlanta on Wednesday night.

Still, as much as the focus should have been on his performance and that of the Celtics (20-34), it was impossible to ignore the fact that this was the first time Rondo was available to address the latest controversial decision to engulf the veteran point guard.

During Boston's recently concluded Western trip, Rondo, as well as coach Brad Stevens, said he was not going to play against the Sacramento Kings because it was the second game of a back-to-back set.

Rondo did not travel with the team to Sacramento, but apparently did not have permission from the team to not travel with them, and instead he reportedly spent that day with family and friends in Los Angeles celebrating his 28th birthday.

The four time All-Star has heard the talk and speculation as to what happened that weekend, but says, "nobody knows the story. You [media] guys keep making up every story you guys possibly can."

When asked what is the story, Rondo added, "It's my business. It's my choice."

Stevens said he and Rondo have discussed the situation.

"All that we're handling internally," Stevens said. "But we've sat down and talked and we did that Monday. In my mind, I'm moving forward and then when Danny [Ainge, the celtics president of basketball operations] gets back in town, they can meet and go from there."

When asked whether he thought Rondo should have stayed with the team, Stevens replied, "I think the biggest thing right now is for me to move forward and for us to move forward with that. I think that obviously it's something that is a great question to ask and something I have certainly spent a lot of time thinking about. But at the end of the day, I've passed that point."

---


KJ

Every time I make the stupid mistake of mellowing just a little bit in my opinion of the sports media, along comes yet another bozo media report that straightens out my priorities.  By the way, it doesn't say so above, but the link confirms that this one was written by A. Sherrod Blakely.

As I've said in the past, but not lately, the single greatest fault I find with the so-called fifth estate in the sporting arena is that most of them are inordinately absorbed with discovering what I have always called "easy news."  By "easy news," I refer to incidents that are usually extraneous to the game itself but offer the maximum sensationalism with the minimum effort on the part of the alleged reporter.  Boy do they salivate each time there's a fight or a contract conflict or a dispute between player and coach or a major injury or just about anything that doesn't force them to write about—you know—the game of basketball.

This is one of those incidents.

Blakely says, "....it was impossible to ignore the fact that this was the first time Rondo was available to address the latest controversial decision to engulf the veteran point guard."  Please tell me, "A," exactly why was it "impossible to ignore?"  Tell me, "A," if you really have any latent affinity for the team off which you now make a living, exactly why was it necessary to take a situation that both the team and Rondo would obviously prefer handle in-house and bring it to the forefront of your alleged "reporting."

Actually, "A," I know what your stock answer will be.  "Hey, it's our job to report the news, and this is news, and if I don't do it, someone else will do it."  I like to call this the classic "gang rape" justification?  And, before anyone rebukes me for using this analogy, forget it.  I'm extremely well aware that there's no comparison between the two in terms of impact of egregiousness  If my analogy irritated anyone, I apologize in advance; but, hey, I'm just using an "easy analogy" with a sensationalistic tone.  Isn't that how it's done nowadays?

Unfortunately, A," I also know the real answer to the question I posed above.  The real answer is that, seeing that this juicy bit of news was rapidly losing its punch as a current news item, you scrambled to squeeze more value out of this "story" yet one more time before a very solid performance by Rondo threatened to stick a pin in your gas balloon of easy news.  Sort of like the guy who regularly plows our driveway raced over in the latest half inch accumulation to catch the anemic coating of snow about an hour before it melted.

And, no, "A," it doesn't have to be that way.  There are media people who don't spew everything they know (or think they know) even if it increases the degree of difficulty for the people they're talking about to deal with the incidents in an ordered manner.  These more ethical scribes exercise the type of sensible selectivity that Bob Ryan (who knows far more than he ever reported) practices.  Dan Shaugnessy knows far more than he ever reports.  Jackie MacMullan knows far more than she reports—although I was disturbed to see her (during last night's on-air appearance allow herself to be baited on the Rondo subject by (sorry New Orleans) the real Big Easy, Carl Drapery.  Adrian Wojnarousky (although I've never met him) must know far more than he reports, because he is willing to work hard for his news items, and his reports don't smell of the degree of "sleaze factor" that yours too often do.

Here's an idea, "A."  Why don't you try digging a little for some actual news (meaning, in highfalutin' technical terms, "stuff people don't already know") rather than focusing only on easy, regurgitated news that you try to manipulate in a titillating direction by focusing on the sensationalistic element you covet so much.  I don't recall the last time you broke a story of which I was not already aware.

Given that you presumably make money off the Celtics (if not just in the name of common sense), why not become more circumspect in "covering" this proud franchise that's scrambling in rebuilding mode and is finding it impossible to please everyone with their tough decisions?

Why not focus a little more on the implications of the game itself?  Why not talk about the fact that Rondo's stats last night didn't begin to tell the full story of how he orchestrated the pace, rhythm and ball movement so beautifully that it became infectious—to the point where his teammates came up with even more assists than the 11 Rondo had?  Why not elaborate on how Brad rather masterfully substituted guys in and out (exhibit A: Kris Humphries) to maximize their matchup opportunities to succeed rather than to fail?  Why not conjecture as to the very legitimate reasons why Brad gave CJ extended minutes even though Chris was not lighting it up in a scoring sense?  There are actually some good basketball stories coming out of game action, even on a team with a losing record, but some of them require a little thought and informed basketball insights to bring to light.

I also know the answer to these questions.  "My job is not to do play-by-play or game summaries; it's to do "color."  Well, if your writing is what "color" has come to in pro basketball, you might find yourself more comfortable in the employment of gossip rags, which at least don't try more than thinly to camouflage what they really are.

Both Brad and Rondo acted very appropriately in blowing off questions about what should be an in-house matter.

Nasty letter to follow.  And a hearty "job well done" to Brad and his undermanned team.

Sam

Sam,
harsh but true.
Speaking about A. Sherrod Blakely, I'm still wondering why he's labeled "Celtics insider"?

AK

Sinus,

Yeah, probably a bit too harsh in the heat of the moment. I assume he's a nice guy in general. But what I call "easy news" is a festering wound that has been open ever since the 50s. And it has accelerated dramatically over the years, as the writers before and including Bob Ryan (guys like Will McDonough) were far more circumspect in their selection of what to publicize. For that matter, so was Johnny Most.

Sam

Sam,
Here is another example of "great journalism".
I'm talking about Broussard and ESPN. On top of this crap they're selling it at a premium - In.
Sad and shameful....

AK

First, in response to the title of this thread, I think Rondo is right. It is his, and the coach's, business. As a fan, I care little about whether he stayed home for his birthday, much more that he had a masterful game against the Hawks. Sam, I agree with your deriding of what I call the People-Magazining of sports, where we're supposed to lap up the inside poop on the private lives of gifted athletes, especially when there's a hint of controversy. I don't buy the concept that athletes must be role models and therefore we have to know everything about them. The nerdy, fat, slow kid or adult may be more admirable than the Jordanesque bball player, off the court, but I like my sports reporting straight.