Vic Sage wrote: the fact that the Yanks' run of titles was fueled by their "core four" didn't make them 1 drop more likeable. But i don't have a problem with the Cubs. Their success cements Theo's legacy, which i think is a good thing. He offers a blueprint (which the Mets have arduously ignored) of taking your lumps to build around a core of talented young position players (rather than pitchers, whose health and success are more unpredictable), where player evaluation is strongly driven by analytics, and then adding key pitchers and relievers via FA or via trade when the team is ready to win. Success is hard to achieve, and harder to maintain, but i like Theo's chances, given the youth of their roster and the resources of the organization. The Cubs may well be in the way of the Mets for the next decade, so there'll plenty of time to develop a hate for them. But i'm not there yet. I don't know if I ever made that distinction in terms of position players versus pitchers. I'd have to go back and look at the Boston teams to see how they were put together. But I think unquestionably he has shown us the blueprint of building a core of young, talented, controllable players, then supplementing that core by spending lots of money and acquiring frontline talent via free agency/trade to create a window of excellence, and with a little luck, a World Champion. The Mets' plan, on the other hand, is to build a core of young, talented, controllable players, then spending just enough money to minimize public backlash, to acquire mid-level talent, to create a window of pretty-goodness, and with lots and lots of luck a World Champion. (Oh, and of course, we will sign superstar players just so long as they prefer to play here over anywhere else, and leave guaranteed money on the table to play for the Mets.)