In 2004 they won 105 games in the regular season and got swept in the WS by a hot Boston team. What's your point? With the wild card(s) and expanded playoffs, baseball has become more like every other major sport. There are two seasons now. The regular season, and the playoff season. If the regular season is so important to you, just crown a champ based on the season schedule and then don't watch the playoffs. The point is, if they win in 2004 I wouldn't have liked it, but hats off to them. Many teams with 100+ wins do not win a WS as there are plenty of other good teams in the postseason. However, they are continuously the worst team in the postseason and somehow win it. I don't see why a fan of a rival team can't be pissed about it. Oh, I understand it. I even understand it from the Chicago football perspective. I'm a Bears fan, and my hatred of the Packers mirrors a lot of Cubs fan's feeling of the Cardinals. My point was that the crying about teams with poor(ish) records winning a championship doesn't hold much water with the expanded playoffs. We see it in every sport. The NY Giants were a wildcard team last year and beat a 15-1 Packers team (bless their hearts). I think we all know that it's about what teams are playing well, and what teams get some lucky bounces. That 2006 Cards team dealt with some crazy injuries and a bullpen that was unstable until Sept. By the time the playoffs started they were a pretty damn good club. My family are all Cubs fans, and they've adopted the idea that the Cardinals can win all they want for the next couple years, and hopefully they'll suck when the Cubs get things turned around in 2014. All I heard was that I live in Chicago, like the cardinals, but also the bears. Then I quit. Why not cheer for the rams? Don't win enough for you?