Billy Beane has been successful as a GM, but he is not regarded as the best GM in baseball. So being successful and being the best GM are not mutally exclusive. For instance, when Cashman eventual steps down as Yankees GM, will you consider the next Yankees GM the best GM if the Yankees continue to win? Being the best GM and being the most successful do not alway go hand in hand. But it often can. Krause wasn't in Cashman's position of having an unlimited budget to work with, yet he look at the results. There's no Chicago GM that even comes close. He was given a substantial payroll to work with. As for his abilities as a GM, they sucked. He pulled out a couple of moves out of his ass (based on part from his scouts, especially on Kukoc) and all of the sudden he is consider the best? Correct me if I am wrong, but who drafted Jason Caffey right in front of Michael Finley? Who drafted Fizer we the Bulls already had Brand? His later years as GM showed him for the fraud he was. Payroll is irrelevant if you're bringing up someone like Cashner. No other GM in professional American sports has the resources he has to work with. And you're faulting him for listening to his scouts? Isn't that what a GM is supposed to do? AND you're bringing up draft failures while propping up Angelo, who is the king of highly touted draft busts and first round failures? Nobody is saying that Krause was without his obvious faults and mistakes, but [expletive], he made better moves than Angelo in the long run and had much more success. Again, it's ridiculous to compare the two.