Ludwick has never been healthy until now so I don't think it it is safe to say anybody knew what he had including him. Look it up.

Perhaps the stupidest thing you have ever said.

Say a team goes 15-1-0 in the NFL. They're worse than the 0-0-16 team? (Not a realistic scenario, but it proves my point.)

Probably the most reeruned thing you've ever posted, and that's saying something.

Rebuilding:

Let's see, we have a 3B who will replace Glaus in two years, a CF who is the most highly regarded position player in the minors, a catcher like Bryan Anderson who is another top 100 prospect (you don't have any, FWIW) and was the youngest player in the entire Texas League last year yet tore it up, and 3-4 guys who will be starting in the rotation in another 2-3 years. (Todd, Mortenson, Garcia, and others).

Todd made the All-Star team in Single A and AA this year. He also through a 1 hitter last night.

Yes, our middle infield sucks, it sucks.

Other than that, The Cards have better everyday players at every other position than the Royals.

Keep talking out of your ass.

ok, fine...

but until he repeats this next year he's playing out of his ass...he's 30 friggin' years old and when I say something about Ryan Ludwick people still say "who?"

How is he not playing out of his ass? It's not like he was some sort of vaunted top prospect...

No, you're ignorant because you don't know what you're talking about, you make circles around your point, you started calling people names when you realized that you didn't know what you were talking about, no one likes you, you haven't made one relevant point and don't know how to concede defeat.

Oh, your grammar is also ignorant. Sweeped?

He had less than 500 career ABs before he came up with the Cardinals. He's not Ronnie Belliard, you dumb fuck.

No, he was just a 2nd round draft pick of that stupid fuck Billy Beane. What the hell does he know?

No, it doesn't prove your point. Football and baseball are two totally different sports...

When it comes down to it in baseball, the loss column is what matters...the Cardinals are 7 losses behind the Cubs...

Where would you rather be...

100-62

or

97-60

?

So one team doesn't have to play 5 games, or what?

I'll stop at the 'we don't have any top prospects'...according to baseball america, we have 4 top prospects and traded Gallagher to get Harden, the most dominant pitcher in the majors when healthy...

Thank you, come again!

Haha, attacking ones grammar? Awesome. That's always the best...

No one likes me? Fine. Sure. Great. Grand...

You have 150 posts and you are the biggest kiss ass I've seen on this site in a while...

I'll take my side. I'm not hear to make friends...I'm here to read about the Chiefs and discuss the Chiefs with other Chiefs fans...I live in Illinois, none of my friends want to hear me talk about anything Kansas City.

(for the record, the Cubs have more top prospects than the REBUILDING Cardinals)

Again, according to baseball america.

The loss column is completely insignificant for anything other than people trying to extrapolate the chances their team has. It means nothing.

Once again, you are relying on anomalies rather than the law of averages.

If you win 60% of your games, you will most likely win 3/5, regardless of whether you are 1 back in the L column or 10 ahead.

Where would you rather be? Control your destiny with 5 games to go...or technically be tied in the standing even though you have 2 more losses...

No fucking kidding!

I gave you a scenario...where would you rather be?

That's why the loss column is more important, in baseball, than the win column. The Cardinals are 7 losses back...say they are 6 back or 7 losses back, what's the difference? Rabbidicksucker is just trying to find a reason for you and him to have a suckfest with one another...