1 minute ago, MarlinsLou said:

So what? That has no bearing on comments made about Ng.

Also Jeter didn't have 30 years of experience. It's the furthest thing from optics with hiring Ng.

Maybe she is bad - but it's not because she's a woman.

Maybe she sucks because she hadn’t been working for an organization doing anything remotely close to what’s asked of a GM position for 9 years? 

Has there ever been a first-time GM hired with that large of a direct gap in their resume? 

 

3 minutes ago, SilverBullet said:

DONT BE AN ENABLER

Kim Ng didn’t work in a Front Office from 2011-2020. The way the game has changed/evolved in that amount of time is incredible. Sure she was around the game, but the inner workings of teams has changed exponentially in those 9 years. 

It’s genuinely almost unfair to expect her to step in and be exceptional given that gap. It still doesn’t make the point any less valid 

1 minute ago, marlins_09 said:

Maybe she sucks because she hadn’t been working for an organization doing anything remotely close to what’s asked of a GM position for 9 years? 

Has there ever been a first-time GM hired with that large of a direct gap in their resume? 

 

Great! As stated - maybe she does suck. Maybe she's a great 2nd in command or amazing MLB administrator only. Maybe this isn't the right job.

This has nothing to do with being a woman though. No optics hires because she's a woman. Suggesting the same is a disgrace.

1 minute ago, MarlinsLou said:

Great! As stated - maybe she does suck. Maybe she's a great 2nd in command or amazing MLB administrator only. Maybe this isn't the right job.

This has nothing to do with being a woman though. No optics hires because she's a woman. Suggesting the same is a disgrace.

So what did he mean by Jeter being an optic hire as well?

Alright guys I think we're good.

Everyone's made their point. 

8 minutes ago, SilverBullet said:

Alright guys I think we're good.

Everyone's made their point. 

11 hours ago, marlins_09 said:

Kim Ng didn’t work in a Front Office from 2011-2020. The way the game has changed/evolved in that amount of time is incredible. Sure she was around the game, but the inner workings of teams has changed exponentially in those 9 years. 

It’s genuinely almost unfair to expect her to step in and be exceptional given that gap. It still doesn’t make the point any less valid 

I mean, Senior VP of Baseball Operation for Major League Baseball is a little more that "around the game." But yes, things have evolved a lot during that time.

I think there's a difference between "Kim Ng was hired for optics, because she is a woman" and "women cannot be GMs because they are incapable". One is sexist and the other is not necessarily.

Don't want to put words in anyone's mouths, but that comment in and of itself is not sexist. I myself  believe it to be largely true. If she was not a woman, I'd be willing to bet she doesn't get this role. It makes her stand out, and this team under Jeter was very sensitive to social justice optics.

This is coming from Kim's undisputed #1 supporter on these forums.

She's intelligent and very capable, and I'm glad she was the person we hired... but I think her gender definitely played a role, as people had been lobbying for her hiring for a while.

If she would've been a man, could she have been hired by someone else sooner? That's a possibility, but also not relevant to the Marlins intentions at the moment in which they hired her.... before anyone brings this up.

Kim Ng was fully qualified of being hired for the job. I was excited when she was hired just based on her great credentials, didn't give a shit what her gender was. Never would care about that one way or another.

That being said, she's done a shit job as GM in my personal opinion. I've gone from being a big fan of her being hired to basically on the verge of wanting to bring someone new in. She just keeps making the same odd decisions and I'm kinda tired of it.

But like @SilverBullet said, it feels like we all made our points on this a million times and are basically just endlessly repeating ourselves at this point. So for me personally, I'm going to move on to other topics and not take part in this discussion anymore. Nothing really more to add and I'm tired of reading the same things over and over.

I guess, you can sum this up as I'm tired.

12 minutes ago, SonOfJack said:

Kim Ng was fully qualified of being hired for the job. I was excited when she was hired just based on her great credentials, didn't give a shit what her gender was. Never would care about that one way or another.

That being said, she's done a shit job as GM in my personal opinion. I've gone from being a big fan of her being hired to basically on the verge of wanting to bring someone new in. She just keeps making the same odd decisions and I'm kinda tired of it.

Same. I remember saying the hiring was our big hot stove item because all reports were so glowing of her at the time - but man has she really been underwhelming especially with roster mgmt. It's been the worst I've seen. 

As far as optics go - she was not hired because she was a woman. She had a lengthy resume that made her qualified to be a GM. On that same token though - if anyone thinks that when Sherman, Jeter, and Denbo were mulling it over that the idea of making history didn't also appeal to them then you're being awfully naive. She was an easy slam dunk hire because she was qualified and brought positive press at the same time - more than just positive press too...history making notoriety. Saying  that one or more of them likely had at least a passing thought regarding that aspect does not make this a sexist comment at all.

Edited May 18, 20224 yr by hovertical
.

She could also be qualified for the job and still be hired partly for optics. Example: "We're down to Kim or X and they're both great and we believe in both but man it'd be nice to hire Kim for the added positive publicity, let's do it!" That's optics but doesn't take away from her credentials.

23 minutes ago, hovertical said:

She was an easy slam dunk hire because she was qualified and brought positive press at the same time - more than just positive press too...history making notoriety.

And honestly, the timing was interesting as well because, and it seems a lot of people are forgetting this, the team was getting flak for firing Hill, one of the very few black GMs at the time. Pretty sure Ken Rosenthal put out a whole article on The Athletic about that, which dropped about a day or two before the Kim Ng hire.

She was absolutely qualified and deserved the chance. The optics part was a bonus for the team and I think that's the point most people are getting towards here. I could be wrong, of course, wouldn't be the first time. lol

Everyone forgot that the Marlins fired one of the only black GMs because they then hired the first woman (and second Asian after Zaidi, I believe) GM.

1 minute ago, SilverBullet said:

She could also be qualified for the job and still be hired partly for optics. Example: "We're down to Kim or X and they're both great and we believe in both but man it'd be nice to hire Kim for the added positive publicity, let's do it!" That's optics but doesn't take away from her credentials.

You summed up my response a little faster.

1 hour ago, hovertical said:

Same. I remember saying the hiring was our big hot stove item because all reports were so glowing of her at the time - but man has she really been underwhelming especially with roster mgmt. It's been the worst I've seen. 

As far as optics go - she was not hired because she was a woman. She had a lengthy resume that made her qualified to be a GM. On that same token though - if anyone thinks that when Sherman, Jeter, and Denbo were mulling it over that the idea of making history didn't also appeal to them then you're being awfully naive. She was an easy slam dunk hire because she was qualified and brought positive press at the same time - more than just positive press too...history making notoriety. Saying  that one or more of them likely had at least a passing thought regarding that aspect does not make this a sexist comment at all.

This is exactly what I was going to say too.  She is/was clearly qualified, I don’t think anyone is doubting that.

but as you say, it’s naive to think that ON TOP OF HER QUALIFICATIONS, there isn’t also an optics component to hiring the first female GM of any major sports team.

Jeter on the other hand, had no experience aside from playing, so to me, he definitely was an optics hire/approval by MLB because he’s Jeter.  Sherman likely doesn’t get the team if Jeter isn’t involved, but Loria and MLB loved the idea of Jeter owning a team…….which, I don’t have a problem with him or any other former player being involved in ownership, but he wasn’t really qualified to be the team’s CEO.   Am I sexist against men now?

 

43 minutes ago, Michael said:

And honestly, the timing was interesting as well because, and it seems a lot of people are forgetting this, the team was getting flak for firing Hill, one of the very few black GMs at the time. Pretty sure Ken Rosenthal put out a whole article on The Athletic about that, which dropped about a day or two before the Kim Ng hire.

She was absolutely qualified and deserved the chance. The optics part was a bonus for the team and I think that's the point most people are getting towards here. I could be wrong, of course, wouldn't be the first time. lol

Everyone forgot that the Marlins fired one of the only black GMs because they then hired the first woman (and second Asian after Zaidi, I believe) GM.

And it’s worth remembering/noting they didn’t FIRE Hill, they just didn’t retain him/resign him after his contract ended.   But since it’s the Marlins, the narrative was they fired him.  And it’ll be the same shit show is/when Kim leaves, whether after her contract or if she’s fired.

11 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

Am I sexist against men now?

Yes.

13 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

Am I sexist against men now?

31 minutes ago, Michael said:

Yes.

On 5/17/2022 at 10:19 PM, MarlinsLou said:

 

Lou, Oh man, this is what happens when  I do not have notificiations on and do not get back to the site for a few days.  Lou, you do not know me but your remarks (to be kind) had me re-read my comments.   First, I was behind the Ng hiring.  But, in hindsight, why are we having a discussion, not started by me, about her job performance and having threads "Fire Kim Ng".     Again, you do not have to believe me, frankly, who cares.  Yet, you delude yourself to not thinking that there were the other factors as part of the discussion in her hiring, in additon to her years working in front office, and most here also see it.  Most of our posters did not see the "sexism" in my comments, yet you did.  My point was, as we are having this discussion about her performance and whether she should be fired (as per other threads on this site) is if the performance would warrant a serious review of the hiring,  would the optics also preclude doing what is best for the organization.  It does work both ways, like it or not.  That is not 1953, that is today, society and reality.   I understand that.   I understand that for my professional daughters and spouse, yet we have these discussions also-so again, you do not know me.

That does not mean in any way that I did not think she should be hired because she is a woman.  Her gender did not matter to me-don't believe me-don't care.  It is an honest discussion.   I wanted to respond to you because I see many posters understood this and I did remove my personal responses to your insults-I do not need to turn this forum in to that.   Others have honestly questioned whether her experience translated itself for this role.  I do not know if this is fair, yet she has only been the lead person for a few months, just a few months, and her performance has elicited doubts already.   

I see Bullet wants to kabosh where this went, but since I was the the trigger, I wanted to have my say.  And not to be patronizing, I do enjoy your deep analysis for all things Marlins.

44 minutes ago, fish53 said:

I see Bullet wants to kabosh where this went, but since I was the the trigger, I wanted to have my say. 

I think you did this quite respectfully, and you've got every right to defend yourself.

6 hours ago, fish53 said:

Lou, Oh man, this is what happens when  I do not have notificiations on and do not get back to the site for a few days.  Lou, you do not know me but your remarks (to be kind) had me re-read my comments.   First, I was behind the Ng hiring.  But, in hindsight, why are we having a discussion, not started by me, about her job performance and having threads "Fire Kim Ng".     Again, you do not have to believe me, frankly, who cares.  Yet, you delude yourself to not thinking that there were the other factors as part of the discussion in her hiring, in additon to her years working in front office, and most here also see it.  Most of our posters did not see the "sexism" in my comments, yet you did.  My point was, as we are having this discussion about her performance and whether she should be fired (as per other threads on this site) is if the performance would warrant a serious review of the hiring,  would the optics also preclude doing what is best for the organization.  It does work both ways, like it or not.  That is not 1953, that is today, society and reality.   I understand that.   I understand that for my professional daughters and spouse, yet we have these discussions also-so again, you do not know me.

That does not mean in any way that I did not think she should be hired because she is a woman.  Her gender did not matter to me-don't believe me-don't care.  It is an honest discussion.   I wanted to respond to you because I see many posters understood this and I did remove my personal responses to your insults-I do not need to turn this forum in to that.   Others have honestly questioned whether her experience translated itself for this role.  I do not know if this is fair, yet she has only been the lead person for a few months, just a few months, and her performance has elicited doubts already.   

I see Bullet wants to kabosh where this went, but since I was the the trigger, I wanted to have my say.  And not to be patronizing, I do enjoy your deep analysis for all things Marlins.

"The organization wanted this. "Historic" etc etc." < ---- A multi billion dollar company is not hiring a decorated 30+ year career baseball mind for optics. That is the point here and if we are having a discussion on optics, your comment was REALLY bad optics. This could very much be unintentional and I do truly hope to believe every word above. Also, since we are here, some of these folks "defending" you are making obliviously sexist comments and hopefully a few of them will go back to their posts and understand this, so I wouldn't really lump yourself in with the gallery. This right here is the root of the problem all around. People don't even realize they are being prejudicial these days. It's engrained in the undertones of our society, and it's something we all need to work on. Regardless, this was a thoughtful post and I don't think anything is patronizing. I for one, would prefer to chat about baseball.

27 minutes ago, MarlinsLou said:

"The organization wanted this. "Historic" etc etc." < ---- A multi billion dollar company is not hiring a decorated 30+ year career baseball mind for optics. That is the point here and if we are having a discussion on optics, your comment was REALLY bad optics. This could very much be unintentional and I do truly hope to believe every word above. Also, since we are here, some of these folks "defending" you are making obliviously sexist comments and hopefully a few of them will go back to their posts and understand this, so I wouldn't really lump yourself in with the gallery. This right here is the root of the problem all around. People don't even realize they are being prejudicial these days. It's engrained in the undertones of our society, and it's something we all need to work on. Regardless, this was a thoughtful post and I don't think anything is patronizing. I for one, would prefer to chat about baseball.

Which ones are the obliviously sexist comments?

Predicting a locked thread in....3....2...

2 minutes ago, hovertical said:

Predicting a locked thread in....3....2...

... keep going.

4 minutes ago, Entendu said:

Which ones are the obliviously sexist comments?

He refuses to believe that Sherman and Jeter were ALSO aware that she'd be a very positive hiring because it would make history. They didn't hire someone off the street. They hired someone a great rep first but again, it's lunacy to also say they weren't also aware that this would help give some positive reports around Miami for once too. She was hired 99.9% based on her background but they certainly also knew this would also be a pretty big deal unless at the same time.  

If you want to look at it from another angle. There are qualified candidates out there whether it's GM or manager but they won't get a call because of something bad they did, said, etc. Thats the whole "optic" piece that sits outside of raw qualifications that also comes into play with any hire. You don't want negative press.