Faceman

Good. Hopefully the Cubs get KC instead. I'm always irritated that the Cards get 2 series against KC each year. The Cards do not play KC twice each year. That is a well spread myth. They do play in KC every year, but not vice versa. And they aren't the easiest games in the world. KC really gets up for those games. They have 4 of the last 6 years. Not sure why they didn't in 04 and 05...thought KC was their "natural rivals"...blech. In any case, here's the Cards records since 2002 against the Royals (494-577 since 2002): 3-3 4-2 2-1 3-0 3-3 5-1 Total 20-10 Now, the Cubs vs the Sox (507-459 since 2002): 5-1 2-4 3-3 4-2 2-4 3-3 Total 19-17 I'm not a huge fan of the unbalanced schedule, but if you're gonna do it, at least have it be a rotation. I hate the "rivalry" matchups. Wouldn't Cubs-Sox be a ton more special if it was a series or 2 every 3 years? (The 2002 date was just arbitrary because I was using ESPN and that's as far back as they have schedules) I agree that the schedule sucks. And yes the rivalries would be better every couple years. I'll never believe that Florida / Tampa Bay is a rivalry. I understand why you chose 2002. And yes 20-10 is a good record. Over 6 years that averages what 3.33 wins and 1.67 losses. The Cubs basically 3-3 every year. The the advantage over this time period is about a game in the standings per year - holding everything else constant. By they way - the Cards have been pretty good during that timeframe. Considerably better than any of CHC, CWS, or KC. Their records versus anybody would look good, wouldn't they? If you want to start an unbalanced schedule argument, you should start with the NL East and NL West teams complaining about the Cards, Cubs, Astros getting to play the Brewers, Reds and Pirates 54 times per year - or 1/3 of their seasons.

Good. Hopefully the Cubs get KC instead. I'm always irritated that the Cards get 2 series against KC each year. The Cards do not play KC twice each year. That is a well spread myth. They do play in KC every year, but not vice versa. And they aren't the easiest games in the world. KC really gets up for those games. yes, there are years where the Cardinals get similarly predictable cellar dwellars like Texas or Tampa instead of the second match up with the Royals. the Cubs-White Sox series come close to and often exceed the intensity of Cubs-Cards series. can the same be said for Cards-Royals? seriously, look up some of the things White Sox players say about playing the Cubs. I highly doubt you will find any such vitriol coming from KC on an annual basis. you guys get a break with your interleague 'rivalry' being one of the worst teams in baseball. chalk it up as a break, and move on. defending it in any way, shape, or form is just silly. So now it's not only KC, but the other interleague draw as well. Since you brought it up, this year the Cards played Anaheim and at Detroit, again. Neither appeared on the Cubs schedule. The Cubs did get the Rangers for three and the crappy WhiteSox for six. The Cards did not get either of those teams. You can find schedule imbalances every year - and not just interleague. Any attempt to make an argument that one team has an annual advantage by looking at only 3-6 out of 162 game schedule is BEYOND silly. And the verbal warfare in the papers is quite irrelevant.

Good. Hopefully the Cubs get KC instead. I'm always irritated that the Cards get 2 series against KC each year. The Cards do not play KC twice each year. That is a well spread myth. They do play in KC every year, but not vice versa. And they aren't the easiest games in the world. KC really gets up for those games.

I pretty much laugh when I see "Cubs" and "luck" in the same sentence. As if they are known for being lucky historically.

will try. those guys came in last year and showed no mercy during the last series of the year, taking 2 of the 4 games. As other posters have mentioned, the Cards may not have a great team, but they do battle. I can't see Milwaukee sweeping. They aren't as good as the Cubs.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - when the Cards are out of it, I am rooting for the Cubs. No I won't be wearing any Cub gear or bandwagon jumping, just pulling for your team. The Cubs and their fans deserve it. I actually meant to post this about 2 weeks ago after the Cards got swept in Arizona - they were pretty much done then. Anyway - I'm sure you guys don't want or need the help, but I'm rooting for you guys to take the division and win everything you can in October. Good luck guys. I'm pulling for you. If the Cubs win it, I'm coming to Chicago to party. :D

Cards will beat the Brewers once. They have a tendency to lose big, lose big, then win one. If the Cards were to sweep the series, I'd use a Cardinals avatar for the remainder of the regular season. That would be awesome.

Classic Marquis today. Cards fans say they warned you he'd crap the bed when you need him most. Hopefully you can overcome his turd of an outing. Yeap. You can hear the Cards fans snickering off in the distance. Probably. Not me. I liked Marquis and wish we would have resigned him. But he has to be better than this on day like today. Here's our huge game last year where he laid down. . http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=260928124 lead was cut to 1/2 game that day. he looked like a deer in headlights. or that he didn't care.

Classic Marquis today. Cards fans say they warned you he'd crap the bed when you need him most. Hopefully you can overcome his turd of an outing.

Cards will beat the Brewers once. They have a tendency to lose big, lose big, then win one.

Thank you. Some fans on here really think that the Cards players are rooting for Milwaukee to overtake the Cubs. So much that they would sit out. The Astros too. The Cubs have an easy enough schedule they should be able to win without the Cards help. And it's not like the Cards have rolled over. Nobody stepped up and beat the Astros last year until the final three in Atlanta.

Good to see the Astros were still trying even though they didn't have their best pitcher going, huh?

None of those rules make much sense. For example, last year when it looked like the Cards might go to a 1 game playoff with Houston, they performed the coin flip. Game would have been played in the Juice Box. They had played 16 times during the year. And the Astros hosted 9 or 10 of them. You would think that if two teams were tied at the end of the year, that maybe the reason would be that head to head, one team had four more home games. Any one of those shifts to St. Louis, the Cards probably win, and there is no tiebreaker ( in theory ). The tiebreaker didn't come through, but if it had, it should have been in St. Louis. Dumb.

Santo's call from the game winning DP is getting alot of airplay. Great call. God bless Ronnie.

Ankiel has a number of holes in his swing. I've seen him play at memphis quite a bit. can hit the ball a long way yes, but swings and misses quite often. He is doing better than I thought he would at the major league level, but still the holes are there.

Killer weekend for the Cards. A Cub win tomorrow might put the Birds down for good.

Give me a break. Did Sosa, or Palmeiro, or anyone do this? Why does Ankiel get burdened with it? He needs to come out with an apology for a report? It hasn't even been investigated yet. Stunning conviction within 24 hours of first report. Stunning.

If any Cubs get caught with HGH like Ankiel and Glaus did they deserve to get nailed and I for one won't spend my time making up flimsy excuses for them and hiding behind technicalities. The flimsy excuses are dog crap - I agree. However neither Ankiel NOR Glaus have been caught with HGH. Giambi admitted it, and faced no punishment. I'm not sure I would expect ANY discipline for anybody this season, short of a failed drug test (like Sanchez, Palmeiro)

And by the way - just because I'm saying it's the doctor's liability more than anyone, he has the power to prescribe, I am NOT excusing Ankiel. If guilty, he is as guilty as the rest of them. Unfortunately, guilty of nothing against the MLB rules.

Are you suggesting that Ankiel didn't seek HGH out, but instead the doctor gave it to him? That's the gist I'm getting from this post. Is it way off-base? I don't really know what you're trying to get at (I'm dense). I'm saying that there is a reason that drugs are prescribed by doctors, cannot be bought by just anyone. Doctors are trained to diagnose health issues, and prescribe medicine for those issues. Patients are NOT expected to have that level of knowledge of the drug. That is why we have doctors. Yes Ankiel knew that he was getting HGH. But if the doctor is the one who is accountable, why do we have doctors? I think the legal issue starts there.

I hope you weren't being funny - I'm here to talk baseball with knowledgeable, passionate fans. Doesn't get much better than NSBB, despite the grief I have been giving you here today. You guys give Edmonds way too much crap but that is a small price to pay . . .

How do we know he didn't jack up the price and sell them to DLee to make a quick buck? His numbers did jump in '05. This really is fun. :roll: Really really really fun http://baseballevolution.com/asher/bagwellconspiracy.html First paragraph: "At the beginning of the 2004 season, a buddy and I engaged in a debate about whether Jeff Bagwell used steroids. While initially not convinced that Bagwell used steroids, circumstantial evidence points not only to the conclusion that Bagwell used steroids, but also to the conclusion that he stands at the center of the baseball world as the steroid ring leader, the root of all steroid usage in the league. In fact, all major league steroid use can be traced directly to the Houston Astros first baseman. "

That's pretty naive, though. So you think drug addicts that illegal obtain Codone or something to get high aren't at any legal risk? Furthermore, I'm sure Ankiel knew what he was doing was illegal. That's a drug problem, not a violation of law.

Yes it is. Oh I agree with you guys here, I dont see why there would be any need for Ankiel to use HGH. All I am saying is if Ankiel had a prescription for it then which it looks like he did. Then it has yet to be proven how he has done anything illegal that broke either MLB or US laws. Now there is obviously a moral debate about if it was right or wrong no matter what the laws are. But that is all I have been trying to point out that so far nothing has come out that would warrant any sort of punishment. What your failing to grasp is that the "perscription" might as well have come from Dr. Doolittle. What is so hard for you to understand about what I am saying. I am saying that I dont agree with what he did but he didnt do anything illegal. If the doctor had a medical license and gave Ankiel a prescription then it wasnt illegal for Ankiel as far as I know. I will say it again he didnt deserve to have a prescription but he did therefore it wasnt illegal to use it no matter who the doctor is. http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/020306BronxDoc.html What are you talking about? Just because a doctor prescribes you something does not mean it's legal. Based on what we know, HGH has very few legitimate medical uses -- at least legally. Rehabbing a baseball injury does not fit that bill. Essentially the same as that quoted paragraph. Completely unrelated to Ankiel - but if I go to a doctor, and he prescribes me something that is illegal - that is on the DOCTOR, not ME, correct? Again - forget about HGH. If I go to my normal doctor, he gives me something that isn't legal, I don't have to research the med to make sure it's legal right? That why doctors are certified, no? Now back to Ankiel. Is it wrong, sure. Illegal? Probably not for him to get it, only for the doctor to prescribe it.

I will for him. Someone on a message board posted that Rick Ankiel was a user of cocaine. Therefore, Rick Ankiel is a coke head. I don't see how someone could dispute it. I'm not accusing Prior of anything, but if someone said it online, it must be true...... Mark Prior is an easy sacrificial lamb here - he is worthless to the Cubs right now. I suspect most Cubs fans will have no problem saying they'd suspend him. In 2003 however . . . not so much.