Derrick Rose Talks about Life After Basketball and the World Freaks Out
Derrick Rose had the audacity to say that he thinks about life after basketball, and the world exploded.
Rhetoric was popping up everywhere. I don’t want to link you to all the stupidity because I don’t want to encourage it. There were a couple of more rational responses though, such as the always classy K.C. Johnson from the Chicago Tribune, and the thoughtful Jon Greenberg of ESPN.
Of course there’s context here, but let’s just start with the actual words that Rose spoke. Consider them without any spin or addition as though you’re reading them for the first time:
"I feel I’ve been managing myself pretty good. I know a lot of people get mad when they see me sit out. But a lot of people don’t understand that when I sit out it’s not because of this year. I’m thinking long term.I’m thinking about after I’m done with basketball, having graduations to go to, having meetings to go to. I don’t want to be in my meetings all sore or be at my son’s graduation all sore just because of something I did in the past. Just learning and being smart."
Is there actually anything wrong with what he said?
People want to zero in on this whole “I’m thinking about after I’ve done with basketball” thing. But is there really anything wrong with that? Why shouldn’t he think about when he’s done with basketball?
He just had two traumatic knee surgeries. Not three months ago we were talking about if he’d be able to play a full season ever again. Now, suddenly he misses a handful of games, says he’s thinking about the future, and the world freaks out.
Of course he’s thinking about the future. What sort of person wouldn’t in his situation?
On the heels of those two knees surgeries, he sprained not one, but two ankles in the same game. Compensation injuries are real. There’s even a chance that his initial torn ACL was one.
So, why is it so horrible for him to think that if he goes out and plays on two sprained ankles, it might impact the rest of his life? I’m not asking rhetorically, here. I’m actually asking. Because I can’t for the life of me figure out a reason why there’s a problem with that.
If he were in perfect health and saying he needed rest, there’d be room for criticism. But he had as many sprained ankles as Ricky Rubio (out indefinitely) and Marcus Smart (out two to three weeks) combined. And neither of them is getting criticized.
But neither of them has the “history,” the detractors would moan. Doesn’t that make it even more essential that Rose rest?
No, there’s nothing wrong with what Rose actually did say. What I see are a lot of people stirring up trouble and making it out into something he didn’t say.
Did he say he didn’t want to play? Or that he preferred to just lull about on the bench and collect his paycheck. No. If he’d said that, there’d be room for criticism. And to listen to some of the people in the Chicago media, that’s what he’s doing.
But that’s not what he’s doing. In order to make what he said “wrong” you have to add thoughts to what he said. I don’t just mean literal words, I mean the actual intent of what he said.
That was clear. He doesn’t want to be suffering 20 years from now because of decisions he makes today. Is there something wrong with that? We can get all caught up in how long away that is, and criticize him ad infinitum for thinking it, but isn’t that precisely the point?
—For the opposite look, read Derrick Rose Disgraces Chicago Bulls and the NBA—
If he’s at his son, P.J.’s graduation, and his knees are aching, or if he’s in a church meeting (or whatever kind of meeting he was thinking of) and he’s in pain, will the media be there to say, “Oh, I guess he was right!”
Should he be inquiring of Joe Cowley, et al what his future plans should be? Are they going to be taking on his pain if he’s suffering it? Or do the fans who are “buying tickets” to “see him play” also get a portion of the damage done if he suffers a compensation injury?
Sure, you can remove what he said from its context to make it sound nefarious. You can juxtapose it next to the similar controversy when he didn’t return in 2012-13. There’s all sorts of way you can manipulate what he said and get angry about it.
But here’s the thing: You have to manipulate it to do so.
Don’t try and equate him playing with two sprained ankles and a history of two torn knee ligaments with your going to work with the sniffles. Don’t try and take his statement to mean something other than what it is. Rose isn’t the problem.
The problem is the sophistry-spinning, feces-eating flies who pose as journalists. They devour whatever excrement they can, and then buzz about spreading disease wherever they land. There are certain members of the Chicago sports media who are more concerned with riling up their readers than informing them.
Take Rose’s comments without the nonsense attached to it, and it’s not only benign, it’s perfectly normal and rational. Simmer down world. Wave off the flies. Rose missed a few November games with two sprained ankles. That doesn’t sell papers or generate page views though. So it’s been blown up into something else. Let’s move along now.