3 minutes ago, Michael said:

... keep going.

1.5......1.4......1.3....

Our GM isn't doing a good job - the statement is true regardless of gender.

She's holding out for Soto. 

(She pulls that off she will be considered a genius.)

18 minutes ago, Major-Minor said:

She's holding out for Soto. 

(She pulls that off she will be considered a genius.)

I'm sure nats would move him for Pablo, sandy, lizard, and jazz

51 minutes ago, hovertical said:

I'm sure nats would move him for Pablo, sandy, lizard, and jazz

Moot point in the end when Sherman wont pay Soto what he wants in salary.

8 minutes ago, Das Texan said:

Moot point in the end when Sherman wont pay Soto what he wants in salary.

So you're saying he wouldn't be thrilled to not have to pay Sandy, Pablo, Lizard,Jazz or Soto (after they'd trade him too)?

19 hours ago, rmc523 said:

Our GM isn't doing a good job - the statement is true regardless of gender.

So female, male, and non-binary fans all believe this? 😛

9 minutes ago, mystikol87 said:

So female, male, and non-binary fans all believe this? 😛

Can't believe you left out trans. Bigot.

1 hour ago, mystikol87 said:

So female, male, and non-binary fans all believe this? 😛

23 hours ago, hovertical said:

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.

No, this isn’t accurate. I wasn’t going to respond, but since nothing has been learned from some pretty terrible comments since your post, here we are. Here’s the original comment.

This is what happens when you hire for optics.  Look at all the great press, national coverage from all media, even outside of sports.  The organization wanted this. "Historic" etc etc.

There isn’t any other context. Talking about how/why Jeter was hired has no bearing on how/why Ng was hired. Saying I don’t care who was hired means nothing when the genie is out of the bottle - the comment above is an explicit admission that one understands Ng was hired for optics and not her downright incredible resume. “When you hire for optics.” It’s black and white. It’s insulting to Ng as she has busted her ass for 30+ years and did a remarkable job along the way to get where she is. She is more accomplished than any of us will ever be in our fields. She earned this job completely on ability, not optics. This is the furthest thing from an optics hire. So, this was either an intentionally sexist remark based on substance, or was not intended to be but is so unfathomably poorly written that alone makes it sexist. Show a little girl that comment and that telegraphs to them you aren’t playing on the same field - and very importantly, that’s the case even if you don’t mean it. Hence as aforementioned, we as a society don’t even realize we are being prejudicial sometimes so it’s important to have some self-reflection and realize words often matter and they alone can be a problem even if completely unintentional and not intended. The irony of this thread is optics keep being brought up - the optics of this comment are just flat out terrible. What is seemingly falling on deaf ears is the message alone can be the problem even if the substance may ultimately not be.

Now shifting focus, your comment above doesn’t address this. You are adding information (99.9% based on her background versus “when you hire for optics”, etc.) to try and give context and explain away a really bad statement. Maybe the substance can be clarified which is what you are seemingly doing here (which the poster relatively did too in a thoughtful way as already stated above - good for him), but it doesn’t change the original terrible message itself. That is certainly an area that can be radically improved on and is the point being missed big time. Regardless, I am fully aware Sherman/Jeter understood this would be amazing press. But I also fully believe -0- weight was put onto that as a billion dollar business making the most important hire in the organization is not putting optics over any ability. She was the best candidate in their minds hands down. And by all evidence, they were right based on the gushing praise by Torre, Cashman, Coletti, and other baseball types. It had nothing to do with optics. Beneficial PR? It’s a bonus not factored in. Feel free to disagree, but I think it’s beyond obtuse to believe a billion dollar organization is hiring someone of lesser ability for a good weekend of PR that gets glossed over quickly in the rapid news environment of today. Really?

The point here is let’s be better people. It’s uncomfortable to talk about this which is why it’s rarely brought up, let alone on a male-dominated sports message board. We all gloss over comments like this in likely all aspects of our lives, but you know what, let’s not and be better. Hopefully this is helpful for someone and not lost in an a defensive echo chamber.