Rondo skips trip to sacramento

[D.o.s.]

No, I don't think he did anything wrong. I think that the people who do are projecting what they think about sports as a pastime or as a transcendent activity full of teambuilding and Hoosier-ship and Being Like Mike and all that onto what is, at the end of the day, a job.

I don't understand this point of view. 

I understand not thinking that it's a big deal.  I understand the confusion of the system changing under Stevens from what it was under Doc.

But I don't understand "he did nothing wrong".  He didn't show up for work, and he didn't have permission to do so.  According to Stevens, they discussed the matter ahead of time, which suggests that Rondo was asked to be at the game, and skipped it.  Even if that's not the case, he was AWOL, and Stevens didn't like it.

How is that "nothing wrong"?  When you're a professional, you ask permission to take a leave day beforehand. 

It's not a huge deal, and it certainly doesn't deserve the media coverage and character assassination that it's brought with it.  However, I think it's clear that Rondo, at the very least, broke a team rule, and showed a lack of (leadership / professionalism / maturity) in the process.

We don't know that, though. Rondo didn't show up at the game, and maybe he didn't consult Stevens on it, but he shouldn't have had to if it'd been conveyed to someone else in the organization.*


*at least, that's my understanding of it. Someone tossed off a remark to the press and places like NBC and the globe ran with it. If there's another story that provides more detail please link it.

[kozlodoev]

No, I don't think he did anything wrong. I think that the people who do are projecting what they think about sports as a pastime or as a transcendent activity full of teambuilding and Hoosier-ship and Being Like Mike and all that onto what is, at the end of the day, a job.

I don't understand this point of view. 

I understand not thinking that it's a big deal.  I understand the confusion of the system changing under Stevens from what it was under Doc.

But I don't understand "he did nothing wrong".  He didn't show up for work, and he didn't have permission to do so.  According to Stevens, they discussed the matter ahead of time, which suggests that Rondo was asked to be at the game, and skipped it.  Even if that's not the case, he was AWOL, and Stevens didn't like it.

How is that "nothing wrong"?  When you're a professional, you ask permission to take a leave day beforehand. 

It's not a huge deal, and it certainly doesn't deserve the media coverage and character assassination that it's brought with it.  However, I think it's clear that Rondo, at the very least, broke a team rule, and showed a lack of (leadership / professionalism / maturity) in the process.

We don't know that, though. Rondo didn't show up at the game, and maybe he didn't consult Stevens on it, but he shouldn't have had to if it'd been conveyed to someone else in the organization.*


*at least, that's my understanding of it. Someone tossed off a remark to the press and places like NBC and the globe ran with it. If there's another story that provides more detail please link it.

We don't know that either.

Though I can't imagine team policy allows skipping team trips without talking to the head the head coach.

[manl_lui]

No, I don't think he did anything wrong. I think that the people who do are projecting what they think about sports as a pastime or as a transcendent activity full of teambuilding and Hoosier-ship and Being Like Mike and all that onto what is, at the end of the day, a job.

I don't understand this point of view. 

I understand not thinking that it's a big deal.  I understand the confusion of the system changing under Stevens from what it was under Doc.

But I don't understand "he did nothing wrong".  He didn't show up for work, and he didn't have permission to do so.  According to Stevens, they discussed the matter ahead of time, which suggests that Rondo was asked to be at the game, and skipped it.  Even if that's not the case, he was AWOL, and Stevens didn't like it.

How is that "nothing wrong"?  When you're a professional, you ask permission to take a leave day beforehand. 

It's not a huge deal, and it certainly doesn't deserve the media coverage and character assassination that it's brought with it.  However, I think it's clear that Rondo, at the very least, broke a team rule, and showed a lack of (leadership / professionalism / maturity) in the process.

We don't know that, though. Rondo didn't show up at the game, and maybe he didn't consult Stevens on it, but he shouldn't have had to if it'd been conveyed to someone else in the organization.*


*at least, that's my understanding of it. Someone tossed off a remark to the press and places like NBC and the globe ran with it. If there's another story that provides more detail please link it.

We don't know that either.

Though I can't imagine team policy allows skipping team trips without talking to the head the head coach.

Rondo is clearly at fault here. He had a responsibility to show up to work and he did not. Even if he spoke with management about this, he did not get permission.

However, this has been put behind us, and I trust management took necessary action to consult Rondo. I do not see this as a big issue. From what I've seen, the Celtics has put this behind them, so we should as well.

[D.o.s.]

No, I don't think he did anything wrong. I think that the people who do are projecting what they think about sports as a pastime or as a transcendent activity full of teambuilding and Hoosier-ship and Being Like Mike and all that onto what is, at the end of the day, a job.

I don't understand this point of view. 

I understand not thinking that it's a big deal.  I understand the confusion of the system changing under Stevens from what it was under Doc.

But I don't understand "he did nothing wrong".  He didn't show up for work, and he didn't have permission to do so.  According to Stevens, they discussed the matter ahead of time, which suggests that Rondo was asked to be at the game, and skipped it.  Even if that's not the case, he was AWOL, and Stevens didn't like it.

How is that "nothing wrong"?  When you're a professional, you ask permission to take a leave day beforehand. 

It's not a huge deal, and it certainly doesn't deserve the media coverage and character assassination that it's brought with it.  However, I think it's clear that Rondo, at the very least, broke a team rule, and showed a lack of (leadership / professionalism / maturity) in the process.

We don't know that, though. Rondo didn't show up at the game, and maybe he didn't consult Stevens on it, but he shouldn't have had to if it'd been conveyed to someone else in the organization.*


*at least, that's my understanding of it. Someone tossed off a remark to the press and places like NBC and the globe ran with it. If there's another story that provides more detail please link it.

We don't know that either.

Though I can't imagine team policy allows skipping team trips without talking to the head the head coach.

Rondo is clearly at fault here. He had a responsibility to show up to work and he did not. Even if he spoke with management about this, he did not get permission.

However, this has been put behind us, and I trust management took necessary action to consult Rondo. I do not see this as a big issue. From what I've seen, the Celtics has put this behind them, so we should as well.

That's a bold request... I mean, we still argue about the merits of the Perk trade.

[hpantazo]

People that are trying to equate this as not showing up to work are missing a big point. He had the night off anyway, he was not supposed to play. If you are a mechanic, or a bank teller , or whatever, and your boss tells you that you won't actually work tomorrow but I want you to come in and give moral support to other other mechanics or tellers or etc while they work, it sounds offensive and stupid.

[manl_lui]

No, I don't think he did anything wrong. I think that the people who do are projecting what they think about sports as a pastime or as a transcendent activity full of teambuilding and Hoosier-ship and Being Like Mike and all that onto what is, at the end of the day, a job.

I don't understand this point of view. 

I understand not thinking that it's a big deal.  I understand the confusion of the system changing under Stevens from what it was under Doc.

But I don't understand "he did nothing wrong".  He didn't show up for work, and he didn't have permission to do so.  According to Stevens, they discussed the matter ahead of time, which suggests that Rondo was asked to be at the game, and skipped it.  Even if that's not the case, he was AWOL, and Stevens didn't like it.

How is that "nothing wrong"?  When you're a professional, you ask permission to take a leave day beforehand. 

It's not a huge deal, and it certainly doesn't deserve the media coverage and character assassination that it's brought with it.  However, I think it's clear that Rondo, at the very least, broke a team rule, and showed a lack of (leadership / professionalism / maturity) in the process.

We don't know that, though. Rondo didn't show up at the game, and maybe he didn't consult Stevens on it, but he shouldn't have had to if it'd been conveyed to someone else in the organization.*


*at least, that's my understanding of it. Someone tossed off a remark to the press and places like NBC and the globe ran with it. If there's another story that provides more detail please link it.

We don't know that either.

Though I can't imagine team policy allows skipping team trips without talking to the head the head coach.

Rondo is clearly at fault here. He had a responsibility to show up to work and he did not. Even if he spoke with management about this, he did not get permission.

However, this has been put behind us, and I trust management took necessary action to consult Rondo. I do not see this as a big issue. From what I've seen, the Celtics has put this behind them, so we should as well.

That's a bold request... I mean, we still argue about the merits of the Perk trade.

true, but I don't see this as such a "big deal" as most people do. This isn't going to affect chemistry in my opinion, not going to help us win or lose a game because he wasn't playing anyways. I see this just as a miss communication by the two parties.

[CelticG1]

People that are trying to equate this as not showing up to work are missing a big point. He had the night off anyway, he was not supposed to play. If you are a mechanic, or a bank teller , or whatever, and your boss tells you that you won't actually work tomorrow but I want you to come in and give moral support to other other mechanics or tellers or etc while they work, it sounds offensive and stupid.

I dont think this story is a big deal at all but i think your analogy is pretty far off.

It would be more like if that mechanic hurt his hand and his boss said he wasnt going to be working on any cars the next day but to come in so they can go over some other ideas and teach him some things and have him work with the other mechanics as well even thoigh he womt actually be fixing anything.

[D.o.s.]

The real point is that we don't know what was said, or what was expected, so getting the metaphor right is really beside the point.

[manl_lui]

People that are trying to equate this as not showing up to work are missing a big point. He had the night off anyway, he was not supposed to play. If you are a mechanic, or a bank teller , or whatever, and your boss tells you that you won't actually work tomorrow but I want you to come in and give moral support to other other mechanics or tellers or etc while they work, it sounds offensive and stupid.

I dont think this story is a big deal at all but i think your analogy is pretty far off.

It would be more like if that mechanic hurt his hand and his boss said he wasnt going to be working on any cars the next day but to come in so they can go over some other ideas and teach him some things and have him work with the other mechanics as well even thoigh he womt actually be fixing anything.

I agree with the above...the analogy is very way off - he had the night off for the game, just means that he had one of his responsibilities put on hold. You still got to show up to work. If not playing, he should be shooting around, helping the team in huddles, etc, etc. Unless your boss says "on your night off, you can also not show up to work", then he should not have missed that night.

[CelticG1]

The real point is that we don't know what was said, or what was expected, so getting the metaphor right is really beside the point.

I think people have just simplified it down to:

If he didnt show up to the game and didnt get permission from or talked to Stevens about it than under almost all circumstances he would be in the wrong.

Maybe this isnt exactly what happened but it appears that even if it went down like this people are still saying he wouldnt have done anything wrong.

I get not thinking this would be a big deal because i dont. But yeah if Rondo made it a habit of skipping every game he wasnt scheduled to play in without alerting or making an effort to alert the right people than obviously it woyld be a bigger story at least to me

[KGs Knee]

The criticism of Rondo in this thread is beyond humorous.  It just goes to show what is really in the minds and hearts of those criticizing him though.

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!?

[Roy H.]

The criticism of Rondo in this thread is beyond humorous.  It just goes to show what is really in the minds and hearts of those criticizing him though.

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!?

Presumably Stevens falls into this group, as well?

I'd leave the psychoanalysis (and labeling of other posters) out of this.

[barefacedmonk]

This horse isn't dead yet?

[Tr1boy]

This horse isn't dead yet?

nope. I bet this thread continues even after Rondo is no longer a Celtic (via FA, Trade)

[KGs Knee]

The criticism of Rondo in this thread is beyond humorous.  It just goes to show what is really in the minds and hearts of those criticizing him though.

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!?

Presumably Stevens falls into this group, as well?

I'd leave the psychoanalysis (and labeling of other posters) out of this.

This entire thread has been one big 'psychoanalysis' on all things Rondo.

As far the labeling of other posters, I don't see what your talking about.  I simply said I find the criticism humorous and telling.  What 'label' did I exactly label anyone with?