I suggested in a couple of the threads that as a normal fungible player he'd be picked back up, like Ort, but considering all the crap that he is covered with, if the Sox did so, they'd be pilloried and boycotted.
That's what I'm getting at- would they be pilloried or boycotted by more than a few hundred people and some media? What has the reaction been outside of SoSH? How much does the average fan care? Has it been discussed on talk radio? Anybody have a handle on this?
The LGBTQ+ community carries considerably more weight than a few hundred people which should be a major consideration in making a decision to bring a player of Dermody skill level back into the organization.
He isn’t making that decision. He’s just reporting someone else’s interpretation of a book written a very long time ago. And sometimes it is smarter to keep your mouth shut than it is to speak hateful things.
But he could have had plenty of exposure to being a richard from his parents and turned to the bible for confirmation.
I don't recall the bible saying homosexuals don't go to heaven so I think there is some interpretation on his part. I am not a biblical scholar.
Edit: It is always smarter to shut up than speak hateful things but that is what Twitter has become and Musk is on board with that.
Musk has nothing to do with this. We have a political thread about this piece of human paraquat on the appropriate board.
It’s completely embarrassing that we continue to employ this piece of human excrement
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/06/12/sports/not-all-athletes-were-into-spirit-pride-month-some-were-including-charlie-mcavoy/
Dermody is just the tip of the iceberg, the one stupid enough to tweet his homophobia. The Sox (and other MLB teams) employ dozens, (in the case of the mlb, probably hundreds,) of less vocal homophobes.
Oh without a doubt. Professional sports organizations are reflective of a lot of large businesses that have a cross-section of humans and their beliefs. Most are just "smart" enough (using the term loosely here) to understand that their views are not necessarily shared by most of the population and keep it to themselves.
Would (should) it make a difference whether a bigoted player is crap or an all-star with regard to keeping them in the organization?
Is there some unwritten rule that you can’t waive a guy born on the Fourth of July, like it’s “un-American” or something?
I'm pretty sure he could be cut based on age/performance. How many other 33 year olds are in the minors?
Im not arguing that part. But more about MILB players as a whole... Prior to this year MILB players could be cut for any reason under the sun, and have no recourse to challenge it.. Now that they have a union can they Challenge/file a grievance if a player believes they were released for reasons not related to their performance?
I'm sure a DFA followed by a release instead of outright assignment would have been perfectly defensible as entirely performance related. A 33 year old sporting a 4.50 ERA in AAA doesn't exactly have a strong case for keeping his job. Of course, then the question is why promote him to the big leagues to make that start in the first place if he's not good enough to stick in Worcester.
The Blue Jays just DFA'd Anthony Bass under similar circumstances and said it was a baseball move. He is still in limbo, as they are within their 10 days, but I'd guess he stays in their organization, too.
Pretty sure they became stuck with him the day Bloom “talked to him” about his tweets, therefore going on record that they knew what kind of person he is, and signed him anyway. This is Dan Duquette trying to claim he didn’t know what kind of person Wilfredo Cordero was all over again
