I can understand why someone would point out who Glanzt was if you indicated you didn't know him. He's one of the most influencial modern sources on the Eastern Front in the last 20 years.
But, as you pointed out, he has one point of view and a good researcher should look at multiple points of view. Glanzt is very good but he's not not infalliable, he has some theories, and he he's aggressive about pushing his POV.
Glanzt has done more to advance Western understanding of the Eastern Front by doing original research as the Soviet archieves have opened up than any other single person to date.
But, if the achieves stay open (a big if), the surface is barely touched. And as other researchers dig in, I suspect other finds will happen, some of Glantz's theories or information will be modified, and our views of WW2 will - or should - change again.
And, as much as I respect him and his body of work, he's build a set of theories now and it's going to be very hard from him to change his POV even when new information comes out. And that's because he's human and he has a lot invested in that POV now.
So people should take him seriously, review his work but always take his - and anyone else's historical work - with a grain of salt. Look at multiple points of view, sources, and positions of respectable historians and weight them, the evidence and come to your own conclusions. They might not be right, but they will at least be informed, and probably as right as anyone else's.