First off, I appreciate that you engaged on merit regarding the specifics of the conversation. Despite what you've said - I very much appreciate nuance and am eager to engage on that level without being spoken down to about cable news stations that I don't watch to begin with (anyone who watches cable news is actively feeding their brain garbage).
Secondly, you see it as meaningless where he was drafted and whom he was traded for - but I think it's very meaningful.
Your theory is that unconscious racial bias is potentially a hidden hand guiding the decisions the Phillies make in building their organization.
You contend that was possibly a force at work in the Phillies burying Crawford behind Kingery and then shipping Crawford out of town. Ok, I understand that perspective and, for argument's sake, let's go with it.
However, why wouldn't that same unconscious racial bias be at play in who the Phillies draft (especially with first round picks)? J.P. Crawford? Cornelius Randolph? Greg Golson? Justin Crawford?
Why wouldn't it then also be at play in their decision of who to accept back while shipping J.P. Crawford out of town?
No, the lack of any potential bias in those two things doesn't exclude the possibility that bias was at play in Crawford's benching, I hear you on that and it's a fair point. But the inverse certainly doesn't make an argument for it being a factor either, especially when injuries are involved and the Phillies are notorious for making poor decisions with drafting and development. I'm pointing to Occam's Razor on this one.
You keep elevating these isolated examples as if they are supposed to prove something.
Again, I didn't even choose the Crawford / Kingery thing as the example - you did. The entire time I've been asking for material evidence as to why you or anyone else would think the current regime of Phillies management has let unconscious racial bias determine their roster build.
I'm not dismissing the possibility bias was involved - I'm dismissing your argument and the circumstances being cited. Generally speaking, if you make a claim about something, there should be a reason for it, especially if you're suggesting other people's unconscious racist tendencies might be at foot. People generally don't appreciate a loose assertion of that type.
The Phillies farm system is not exactly bursting with talent. What superior players of color in the farm are going to take Bohm's job? What about Stott? Vierling? Were there better options in FA, both when taking into account skillset and cost?
It's not like they went out of their way to sign a white shortstop over a player of color - Turner was the obvious fit given position, skillset, relationships with critical members of the organization, his desire to play here, etc. etc.
For crying out loud, they let Zach Eflin walk and signed Tijuan Walker as his replacement for more money. Look, I'd rather have Walker over Eflin due to injury concerns, but if the white lineup is a reflection of bias, is the rotation and bullpen an argument against it?
I'm sorry, I just don't see the material to support this notion - and, to me, it's a damn shame that we are sitting here talking about players' skin color, "optics" and unconscious bias as opposed to celebrating the team for building this excellent roster and appreciating the amazing talent of the players on it.
To Julio's point (and others), focusing on these sorts of things, especially when they are such a stretch, helps keep racism alive.