Jump to content

Kim Ng - after first full year


Recommended Posts

So, Kim has technically had 2 offseasons but giving her one full actual season followed by an opportunity to address needs after observing the team play a full season - how does everyone feel she's been at the job?

I've been very underwhelmed so far overall and would probably give her a C-.  It likely would have been a D+ until the Orioles trade right before the season started.

I understand Sherman won't let her just go out and sign whomever but she did get Garcia and Soler to sign - neither of which the Marlins needed. That Garcia contract in particular is going to hurt by next season and certainly by year 3.  I would have thought she'd address going after people who have consistently been able to get on base versus high power low obp% of which the Marlins have plenty already.  I'm sure most of us here would have much preferred just getting Correa for about the same price as Soler/Garcia.

I don't like they didn't get one of the premier pen arms that were sitting out there.  Again, I feel like getting one of them would have been a better option than signing Soler or Garcia.

Not trading for a CF when clearly Pittsburgh IS open to the idea of trading one of the games best is just insane. Maybe this trade comes to fruition later on in the season but they NEED him in the lineup NOW - not several months down the line. 

Stallings appears to be a solid signing although his game calling appears meh.  His defense is a massive upgrade over Alfarto and co.

I feel a C- is a fair grade overall.  I absolutely HATED last offseason, hate the Marte debacle, don't like the two OFs she did help sign, and am pretty irked she didn't pull the trigger on a CF trade. Stallings was a good get as were the Orioles pitchers and Luzardo (although somewhat diminished by not bringing Marte back and looking like uber cheap assholes in doing so).

Dunno.  I guess we can theorize that Jeter was still pulling some strings here and there too but I don't like the notion of continually just giving people a "GOOD JOB" or letting them have excuses when something is crap so they can keep their job forever and ever (yes, i understand it's only been a year and a half).

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give her a solid B.

She's done a job good and hasn't made any significant mistakes. I don't blame the CF issue on her at all, and am willing to bet it'll be corrected at some point before the beginning of next season.

Now, Sherman........

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Entendu said:

Probably the same person Derek Jeter blames when he bolted: Sherman.

 

it's not like either Reynolds, Marsh, or Mullins is some uber expensive FA though. it would just be moving out prospects for a player. I put probably 90% of the blame on her not getting that done and totally ignoring CF.  If Sherman was adamant about not bringing in a CF i don't think we would have continued to hear how they were working on a trade for Reynolds for so long. I think she is the primary reason that didn't get done.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hovertical said:

it's not like either Reynolds, Marsh, or Mullins is some uber expensive FA though. it would just be moving out prospects for a player. I put probably 90% of the blame on her not getting that done and totally ignoring CF.  If Sherman was adamant about not bringing in a CF i don't think we would have continued to hear how they were working on a trade for Reynolds for so long. I think she is the primary reason that didn't get done.

100% agreed with this. I would have believed Jeter was the issue with it if he was still around but since he's gone, it's clearly mostly on her.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prospects are assets that can save you money in the long term. I wouldn't be surprised if Sherman didn't want to part with them.

Given that this is such a universally criticized move (or lack thereof), it gives me even less reason to think Ng is behind it. She's a smart, seasoned MLB vet. Has been around the game for a long time. Sherman just got here. This feels like a rookie mistake but there's only one real rookie here, and it isn't Ng despite her being a fairly new GM.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm giving a C- thus far, with a caveat that we don't truly know what decisions lie on Jeter and what lies on her, and by extension, what Sherman will or won't ok payroll wise.

 

In a chronological order,

1) More should have been done LAST offseason in preparation for an increasing competitiveness, especially after a postseason appearance, for them to basically do nothing was inexcusable, IMO.  But I went ahead and overlooked it with reasons like uncertainty of revenues post pandemic and apparently them not being ready yet.  Signing JT for instance, and/or some other parts instead of the scrap heap "we're still rebuilding" guys they signed (ones that weren't going to be here long term or help the team when competitive) should have been done.  Not only would it have helped the team last season to have been better (further benefiting the club in better attendance numbers, etc) but it also would have resulted in fewer holes to fill THIS offseason.

2) The early implosion of the team last year hurt, but what was worse - she sat there and did nothing - they didn't try to acquire some pitching help, nor did they call up some of the guys on the farm; I understand not panicking and having knee-jerk reactions, but they instead just let the team flounder for weeks with bullpen days for 2/5 of the rotation, which is ridiculous.

3) The offseason started well by getting Stallings, and making some signings (though like most here, I question the heft of the Garcia deal), but post lockout it just seemed like they had no idea what they were doing and that there was absolutely no plan to the offseason.  Instead it seemed like they were throwing darts at a wall and seeing what sticks, all while acquiring more of what we already had (low average, low OBP), albeit with more power, while seeming to completely ignore the biggest need, CF.  All while ignoring a guy like Correa, which they could have signed and have been a huge impact both on and off the field for the team's image.  Leaving BP arms on the market for reasonable prices too didn't make sense.  It seems like they got to a hard question on a test, skipped it and never came back to it and turned the test in.

4) Obviously we're only 3 games in, so who knows where the team goes from here, but referencing point #2, and how they didn't do anything to help the team mid-season last year, I'm not overly hopeful they'll A) acquire a CF as we've speculated, or B) work to help/improve the team on the fly at all; seems like she'd rather sit on her hands and do nothing - "the roster is the roster" until it's far too late by the deadline.

 

As I pointed out above, if Sherman won't approve a contract above 13M/ season (or whatever the number was we figured out), then blame for not signing bigger names can't be fully put on Ng, but she seems gun-shy to make other non FA moves that the team needs (a CF trade mainly).   So far I'm not sold on her performance overall.

Edited by rmc523
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Entendu said:

Prospects are assets that can save you money in the long term. I wouldn't be surprised if Sherman didn't want to part with them.

Given that this is such a universally criticized move (or lack thereof), it gives me even less reason to think Ng is behind it. She's a smart, seasoned MLB vet. Has been around the game for a long time. Sherman just got here. This feels like a rookie mistake but there's only one real rookie here, and it isn't Ng despite her being a fairly new GM.

 

So you're thinking Sherman said both "don't trade the prospects" AND "don't spend over X on anyone" ?

 

The problem is there were other moves that could have been (or still could be) done that involve lesser prospects and/or salary relief that could get a true CF on the roster - @MarlinsLou has done a great job creating permutations of moves that could be made, but instead we've gotten NOTHING aside from the last minute "let's try Sanchez in CF" in conjunction with Don's bizarro shifts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Entendu said:

Prospects are assets that can save you money in the long term. I wouldn't be surprised if Sherman didn't want to part with them.

Given that this is such a universally criticized move (or lack thereof), it gives me even less reason to think Ng is behind it. She's a smart, seasoned MLB vet. Has been around the game for a long time. Sherman just got here. This feels like a rookie mistake but there's only one real rookie here, and it isn't Ng despite her being a fairly new GM.

so again, if sherman didn't want to part with them why have we been hearing about how they've been involved in making a trade for literally since the deadline last year?  This is why it's Ng - also saying she's a smart seasoned MLB vet is a bit misleading as this is her first time being a GM. By using your logic you could call Dave Samson a smart seasoned MLB vet simply because he was involved in some capacity for as long as he was.  It's ALWAYS different when you're the one making the decisions and so far I feel she's failed at her job in making moves that make SENSE based on this teams needs - see: better balanced lineup, fixing glaring CF issue, not signing top notch bp arm and not bringing in a vet innings eater (to a lesser extent). 

She got the catching issue seemingly fixed, extended Sandy, and brought in some decent bp pieces right at the end but didn't really make this team better than 4th overall (on paper anyway) in this division.  I'd understand it a bit more if the moves were all about $$$$$ but the money that was spent was spent on the wrong players and the trades that were clearly available were not made to fix the biggest issue on the team. so C- is what she gets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, hovertical said:

so again, if sherman didn't want to part with them why have we been hearing about how they've been involved in making a trade for literally since the deadline last year?  This is why it's Ng - also saying she's a smart seasoned MLB vet is a bit misleading as this is her first time being a GM. By using your logic you could call Dave Samson a smart seasoned MLB vet simply because he was involved in some capacity for as long as he was.  It's ALWAYS different when you're the one making the decisions and so far I feel she's failed at her job in making moves that make SENSE based on this teams needs - see: better balanced lineup, fixing glaring CF issue, not signing top notch bp arm and not bringing in a vet innings eater (to a lesser extent). 

She got the catching issue seemingly fixed, extended Sandy, and brought in some decent bp pieces right at the end but didn't really make this team better than 4th overall (on paper anyway) in this division.  I'd understand it a bit more if the moves were all about $$$$$ but the money that was spent was spent on the wrong players and the trades that were clearly available were not made to fix the biggest issue on the team. so C- is what she gets. 

You could call Dave Samson a seasoned MLB vet, but I don't know about smart... at least not in the context of making MLB moves.

Ng definitely has relevant experience prior to being a GM. It's why she got the GM job. She has shown us that when she makes a move, it's usually a good one. We don't get fleeced like we did with Loria/Michael Hill.

I don't understand your first sentence about "why it's Ng". Trying to make a trade and making it are two different things. Owners talk big all the time, then when it comes time to put up or shut up, they cower away.

Most of what we've seen from Ng since she got here were shrewd moves. What we know from Sherman is he isn't one of the wealthiest owners, and appeared to have a dispute with Jeter over the future of the team. My money's on Sherman being the problem. He is also the owner. If he really wanted Reynolds, he would've called Ng and told her to make the move. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

So you're thinking Sherman said both "don't trade the prospects" AND "don't spend over X on anyone" ?

 

The problem is there were other moves that could have been (or still could be) done that involve lesser prospects and/or salary relief that could get a true CF on the roster - @MarlinsLou has done a great job creating permutations of moves that could be made, but instead we've gotten NOTHING aside from the last minute "let's try Sanchez in CF" in conjunction with Don's bizarro shifts.

I think so. The idea of trading prospects for MLB-ready talent is great until you sit down and discuss what those prospects are. He probably balked at the sheer number of top prospects.

Like I alluded to in my previous post. Sherman can call Ng and tell her to man up and make a trade, because he's the owner. Ng can't call Sherman to man up and approve the trade... because he's the owner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Entendu said:

You could call Dave Samson a seasoned MLB vet, but I don't know about smart... at least not in the context of making MLB moves.

Ng definitely has relevant experience prior to being a GM. It's why she got the GM job. She has shown us that when she makes a move, it's usually a good one. We don't get fleeced like we did with Loria/Michael Hill.

I don't understand your first sentence about "why it's Ng". Trying to make a trade and making it are two different things. Owners talk big all the time, then when it comes time to put up or shut up, they cower away.

Most of what we've seen from Ng since she got here were shrewd moves. What we know from Sherman is he isn't one of the wealthiest owners, and appeared to have a dispute with Jeter over the future of the team. My money's on Sherman being the problem. He is also the owner. If he really wanted Reynolds, he would've called Ng and told her to make the move. 

What you're saying still doesn't make much sense.  She's never been a GM.  She's never been the one who gets to make trade determinations so although most people called her hiring a great move and praised all the work she's done in the past - she's never been a GM and so far, has not done a great job at it based on the players she HAS signed and traded for/not traded for.  I've known tons of people who, in my line of work, were second-in-command and deemed top notch assistants and expected to do great things but once finally promoted...sucked at the job.  Some people are simply not great at being in charge.  From what she's shown us she's done an average, slightly less-than-average job at making some very easy fixes.  Soler and Garcia don't improve the team and literally wasted money that could have been used to actually fix glaring weaknesses.  Ignored CF entirely. Didn't pick up a vet to use for back end of rotation or stretch relief. 

Making "shrewd" trades is not the only measuring stick for a GM - you aren't going to find a lot of idiotic GMs who will let you fleece them. You have to be able to make sensible trades and understand that most trades work for both sides. Reynolds is controlled for what, 4 more years? Yeah, not trading for him is entirely on her unless Sherman has some bizarre hatred for him.  She did a poor job at identifying players who fit the needs that would balance that lineup and ignored a crucial position in the OF as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're trying to win an argument about something neither of us actually has any has insight on.

You mention average, above average, below average, and I don't really know what you're using to measure this. It's kind of all over the place. I don't really have much more to say.

Edited by Entendu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, taiwanmarlin said:

If the owner doesn't spend, it's just doesn't matter who's the GM.

Not true. And if anything a cheap owner means the GM matters even more because they've gotta be really good to make a successful team under financial limitations. There are many successful GMs who have been able to build great teams with lower payrolls. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never thought I’d say this but...I genuinely believe we’d be better off with Michael Hill. Simply look at how he handled the 2020 team during the covid outbreak and managing the roster, and look at how we’ve handled injuries in the past - 2021 2/5ths of rotation were “bullpen days”. Night and day 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just tired of Kim Ng being infallible. I was very happy they hired her based on her credentials. But some people here need to start being honest and realize she just may not be doing a good job. Only some things can be blamed on ownership, such as being cheap on contracts. Poor roster construction, prospect hoarding, that's more on the GM. We were all very quick to blame Hill when it was his job, but she seems to get a consistent pass from some.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SonOfJack said:

I am just tired of Kim Ng being infallible. I was very happy they hired her based on her credentials. But some people here need to start being honest and realize she just may not be doing a good job. Only some things can be blamed on ownership, such as being cheap on contracts. Poor roster construction, prospect hoarding, that's more on the GM. We are all very quick to blame Hill when it was his job, but she seems to get a consistent pass from some.

This was also pretty much my point as well. She needs to start being held accountable for using the money she was allowed to spend on the WRONG players, building a bizarre lineup, and refusing to make a trade because omg prospects. 

Feels weird to say it but I though Hill did a better job as well and was pretty decent once Loria left. He seemed to have a better grasp on balancing a lineup for sure. Pretty much what @marlins_09 said above. So far Ng does not appear to a very good GM. She hasn't been awful but she hasn't been good (certainly not great) which is why I give her the C- grading as slightly worse than average.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...