|Posted by paul on December 22, 2011 at 2:25 PM|
We've heard a lot about what a bad egg Rajon Rondo supposedly is. According to Kevin Garnett, his main flaw (also his strength) is that he is stubborn. Granted, pitching a container of some kind through a video-monitor while pitching a fit is bad news, but at least Rondo admitted to his fault right away, and appears to have made impressive efforts since then to mend fences and to change his ways (and yet fans continue to criticize him and call for him to be traded). What should we say about the Celtics brass, who pitched a bad batch of deadline trades through the Celtics's bright playoff hopes last year, while pitching a fit about Kendrick Perkins' supposedly outrageous contract demands? And what should we say about the kind of stubborness they have shown, continuing to defend what they did more than six months later? I think we should call them out for having a very bad attitude.
Consider these recent remarks from the Celtics owners...
However, when asked about the trade, Celtics owners Wyc Grousbeck and Steve Pagliuca said they would still make the deal all things the same.
"You can't evaluate trades until it's all said and done because different assets turn into different things," Pagliuca said Wednesday on 98.5 The Sports Hub's Felger and Massarotti Show. "At the time we did the trade, I thought it was a very thoughtful trade. The basketball staff looked at it -- we needed scoring and Jeff Green supplied that scoring.
"The thing I loved about it is [Celtics president] Danny [Ainge] is always trying to win a championship. So it was a bold move. And we want people that take bold moves and take a risk to win a championship, not just compete. We want to win in Boston."
As Grousbeck explained, the deal was made with long-term goals in mind, especially taking into account the fact that Perkins was set to become a free agent at season's end.
"We did think that we would have Jeff for longer, and we are still hoping to," he said of Green, who is expected to be able to play again. "Perkins [was] for sure leaving at the end of the year because he had already rejected everything we could pay him. So having Perkins coming off of injury -- a great guy who we love and won a ring with -- for a short term versus possibly a short-term upgrade with longer-term rights? Yeah, we probably would do it again. That doesn't mean -- we might be wrong again. Part of it was the longer-term view which we may still have."
Notice the blazing contradiction here. On one hand these guys declare that it's all about winning a championship. Then they claim that it was all done with an eye to the long term (and specifically that they didn't like Perkins' contract demands). Both claims can't be true, in the circumstances under discussion. Not only was The Trade indefensible itself (and made worse by related trades), but the defenses put forward for The Trade are themselves indefensible. Yet not only the Celtics brass continue to stick to their indefensible defenses, but most of the Celtics-related media and quasi-media also continue to defend them. Talk about stubborn. TALK ABOUT AN ATTITUDE.
Just don't break stuff anymore, Rondo. Overall, I like your attitude a lot more.