Did the Braves only win one championship, even with probably the best home-grown pitching core ever? Did I not just point out the Yankees’ late-90s dynasty pitching staff was built primarily with free agent pitching? Seems to be another couple of marks against *your* assertion.

And dude, using the *last two years* as evidence of some rule? Especially when free agent pitchers and ones gotten through trades *still* made up the bulk of the Sox’s pitching staffs? Yeesh.

And hey, I didn’t say either of us knew squat. But your attitude – that you *know* this because the Sox have had success – is the same kind of attitude Yankees fans had after winning 4 in 5 years. And Sox fans have this attitude, even after ‘only’ winning 2 in 5. Yes, I admit, it was an opportunistic dig at Sox fans.

Where did I say “non-negotiable part of it”?

I simply pointed out that the Sox are having success the last two years with important roles being filled by pitchers they developed. That’s in direct conflict with Steve’s assertion that its better to develop position players and sign free agent pitchers.

Did the Braves not sustain a period of success with home grown pitchers? There’s another mark against Steve’s assertion.

And I love this “even less team success” – meaning, you don’t know squat until you’ve won 26, right? Still looking for number one in this millenium though. And the Sox may not have a “dynasty” but they are undoubtedly the premier team of the first decade of this century.

Ah…the good old game away from the World Series. Doesn’t really mean anything, though, does it? Of course, they also lost to the team that lost the World Series.

And sure age 30 matters – heck, you quantified it. In the next five years, Youkilis and Bay will likely be exiting their primes, not riding them.

Any team to win at least once? Hey, I didn’t say they weren’t the most likely team to win a World Series, just that the odds are very long, especially when you also want the condition that four players, two of which haven’t had much sustained success in the majors, need to be healthy, and a big part of the team.

Tell me, which team-developed pitching played big roles in 2007? Papelbon certainly, but who else? Lester was kind of crappy, and was more of a case of “right place right time”. Delcarmen was pretty much the fourth man out of the bullpen.

Heck, the only home-grown position players the Red Sox had in the lineup in the 2007 postseason were Pedroia and Youkilis!

(You and your theory don’t even want to look at 2004…)

And you’re trying to convince me that you, as a Red Sox fan, who *knows* how championships are won, that young team-developed pitching is a big, non-negotiable part of it?

Jeez. Your team wins once or twice and you think you know everything. Sox fans truly have become who they hate, except with even less team success.

30, under 30, it makes not a whit of difference. Bay and Youkilis are in their prime. For the first time since 2001, the defending world champions went to the ALCS the following year. They are young, with more youngsters coming up. Not a dynasty? Fine – but they were a game away from another trip to the World Series. If odds were laid on any team to win at least once in the next five years, it is undoubtedly the Red Sox at the top of the board.

And the point stands:
Young team-developed pitching is a big part of it.

Also, Youkilis and Bay will both be 30 next year. And just because Jed Lowrie is going to be 25, that in no way guarantees that he’ll actually be in any way effective. Same goes with Ellsbury, who was simply awful offensively this year, and a good lesson in projecting stardom for young players who have not had a full year in the majors.

The only position player the Red Sox will have in the field next year, who is under-30 and who has a good chance to be effective, is Pedroia. (who, I grudgingly admit, is a good hitter until his long swing and short stature finally catch up to him. One of these days.) Nice exaggeration though, very ESPN-like.

And if you get a *good* catcher who is under 30 (I’m assuming one of the guys from Texas not named Gerald), well, say bye-bye to Buchholz…at the least, and then your prophecy definitely won’t come true.

No team has a *good* shot at winning a championship. No matter what ESPN tells you, the Red Sox are not a dynasty, nor are they a *great* team. They are a *good* team, in a league that has three or four *good* teams. As you’ve seen this year, making it to the World Series, much less WINNING it, is a very, very hard thing to do.

Factor that in to the unlikely event that ALL of Lester, Papelbon, Masterson and Buchholz will not only be healthy, but GOOD…well, that is a long shot, yes.

So let me get this straight – a roster that is getting younger, with CF, LF, 2B, SS, 1B and depending on transactions this off-season, possibly 3B and C all being under 30, with a core of young, talented pitchers who have experienced success at this level, its “rather a long shot” that they’ll win a championship, together, in the next five years???

Sure, that’s the thing. The chances the Red Sox make it back to the world series, factored in with the chances that all of Lester, Papelbon, Masterson and Buchholz all remain (or, in Buchholz’s case, get) effective and stay healthy is a rather long shot.

I said in the next five years, and it doesn’t seem too far fetched when you consider that Lester, Papelbon and Masterson were key contributors on a team that fell a game short of the World Series, and all three are considered untouchable at this point.

One stat is interesting to note – of the starters of the 1996 Yankees…four were free agents.

Of the 1998 Yankees…four were free agents (although Irabu and El Duque weren’t your typical free agents, they still count).

Of the 1999 Yankees…three were free agents (since Wells was traded for Clemens).

Of the 2000 Yankees…two were free agents.

So, the Yankees dynasty’s starting pitching was built primarily with free agency. It’s quite convenient for Kepner to start his statistic 7 years ago.