Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
I have always been surprised that Treliving's "in on everything" approach was viewed by some as indicative of him being a good GM. IMO it has been indicative of a guy lacking an actionable strategy to building a winner.
|
Exactly. In on everything, while seldom finishing a deal, means you perpetually overrate your own assets. With Treliving, as you and others have pointed out, it’s not the case with draft picks just players. I don’t know if he gets to know the players too personally or, intentionally or not, feels attachment to his own previous moves, but he has real trouble getting player-for-player-based trades across the finish line. Endowment effect in full display.
He’s the guy in those fantasy pools that allow trades who sends everyone else six trade proposals per day and they are all lopsided. Or a Kijiji low-baller. In on everything but little to show for it.
Now, because everything is to the extreme these days it seems, I’m absolutely not advocating for a Pete Chiarelli approach of constantly reacting with emotion and trading stars for scrubs. Chiarelli and Treliving are on opposite sides of spectrum in my opinion and neither is a place you want to be.