Dynasty? Really?

So apparently a book about the new Red Sox dynasty is coming out.

Look, the Red Sox are an excellent team right now. And yes, they're the only team so far this decade to win it all more than once. But dynasty? Oh come on. The 2004 team and the 2007 team aren't even that similar. You have a few of the same core players (Ortiz, Manny, Varitek, Schilling) and a couple guys who are steady contributors but not the big time players (Wakefield, Timlin) but beyond that, not a heck of a lot. No Papelbon, no Pedroia in 2004. Youkilis wasn't a full time player. No Beckett, no Matsuzaka, no Lester, no Lowell, no Lugo, no Crisp, no Drew, no Okajima, the list goes on. Hell, Boston got swept in the first round in 2005, and then didn't even come in second in their division in 2006. Am I supposed to believe the amazing ability of the 2004 team carried over all the way to 2007 to form this new dynasty?

Could this team become a dynasty? Sure. I'm not trying to bash the Red Sox here, they have a very good team. But the 2004 team has little to do with the 2007 team, and even if they had almost the same players, it takes a lot more than two wins in four years to be a dynasty. The Blue Jays did better than that in the early 90s, winning back to back...are they a dynasty? Of course not.

Anyway, hey, spring training is here!