I’d argue you have it backwards- other than maybe Beane, and with a nod to Friedman’s time in Tampa, those are the competent GMs. Stearns is outstanding because he worked with a fraction of the funds those guys did. All you have to do with a monster payroll and deep pockets to eat huge contracts that don’t work out is be competent. Of course, large market GMs have more of a margin of error than small market teams, but to suggest that alone limits them to being competent is baseless. No, it's the generally poor job they did overall as far as actual results and the high amount of whiffs each of them were responsible for that suggest that. I firmly believe that a guy like Epstein is just a guy if he doesn't have the deep pockets of the Boston and Chicago markets behind him. Yep, he used the deep pockets of his owner and bought Chicago the singular World Series title the fans were so desperate to have, while bungling away a more sustained ability to compete. Making them the 'fart in the wind' that Ron Wolf so eloquently referred to 'one-and-done' teams as. And for the monstrous payroll that Friedman has had in LA, coupled with massive free agent signings and a good farm system, by my count he has as many World Series rings as Stearns does. Winning in Milwaukee is hard. There's a huge, natural disadvantage. Melvin was able to overcome that to a degree, and Stearns has proven the ability to elevate that to a much higher new level. To answer the question in the topic title, if anything, the attitude of the fan base this year has caused me to lose more confidence in their ability to accurately identify the qualify of what we have and who we have in control vs. any sort of assessment of the front office's abilities....