Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
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.
|
I think that's a bit harsh. The flames had one complete exception year before treliving,and other than that, the team has performed about the same: below average.
His biggest fault has been over estimating the team and spending assets a team that is still essentially rebuilding simply cannot afford (1st & 2nd round picks).
My 'hot take' is the flames would have not been all that much better or worse the last few years had they not made the Hamilton and hamonic deals. Those assets would have been rounding out by now....