Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
All GMs are wrong often.
The key is to have more wins than losses, and have the impact of the wins out weight the impact of the losses.
Treliving has been that so far.
|
That last sentence is just false.
There is an objective and very accurate measuring stick for the impact a GM makes, and that's the standings. If Treliving had been a net positive impact, that should be visible in the standings. So far that just hasn't been the case. He inherited a team that did better than anything he's managed to put together, that's just a fact. It's not even close, his teams have bombed completely twice.
Now, just because he has so far failed to have an objectively net positive impact doesn't mean he's a bad GM, or that he has made more bad moves than good. Not everything is the GMs fault. For all I know he might turn us into the next dynasty team.
But right now the jury is still out. For all we know, Carolina could have gotten the three best players in a five player deal, and he just hired another bad coach. Or maybe we got the two best players in that deal and he hired a future hall of famer.
What bugs me is the certainty with which people are proclaiming him a great GM when objectively his teams have been between mediocre and bad.