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 didn't proclaim him a great GM
You don't think he's made more good moves than bad, that's fine. It's a subjective opinion but to call my opinion false is pretty bush league.
But none of these men got the wealth they've accumulated by not digging a lot deeper into their businesses than the standings, so I have to disagree with you there. These men are well aware of how much went right the year Treliving inherited the team and how much heavy lifting was due to come to make the team a perennial standings contender.