MPrior

There's just not much to say here. Best band of all time vs. an '80's metal band - even if it happens to be the very best '80's metal band - should not be a difficult decision. I'm surprised Metallica has 7 votes already.

He threw 109 pitches, so not terrible. Plus, Dusty really appreciated it, because it saved his bullpen. So maybe Dusty will give Hill a slightly longer leash (I hope). Also, I love that the "righty" comment was right under a picture which could not have more clearly shown him pitching with his left hand.

He's making less than 3 million this year. Considering the price and the performance, he certainly looks like a better option than Carlos Lee. If Jones was moved to center, Catalanotto was platooned with Murton in left, and a decent outfielder was brought in to play right, then the Cobs might actually have a reasonably productive outfield. I kinda like this idea. It's very cost-effective, the Cubs would be unlikely to get into a huge bidding war, and it could make a significant difference. It's certainly not a huge difference maker - the Cubs would definitely need to do quite a bit more - but it would be a productive move.

I'm not a huge fan of metal in general, but I still really like Metallica. Sometimes the quality of their songwriting gets overlooked, because you often can't hear it for the distortion. Plus, they are clearly much more musically important than the Police. And nowhere near as obnoxious (don't get me wrong - I really like the Police. But they definitely have the capability to get on your nerves). I voted Metallica.

Radiohead is awesome, and they got gypped a bit by drawing CCR when they did, but I still think the more deserving band won.

I agree with the idea that the Stones may have lessened their legacy a bit by continuing onward for the past forty (40!) years. But you can't blame them for still wanting to rock out. I pretty much think that it boils down to the fact that they just really like it, so they keep doing it. Besides, most people don't really consider the Stones of the 60's and early 70's to be the same band as the Stones of today, and I'm okay with that. I voted Stones, and it's entirely because of their body of work during the 60's and early 70's. I consider the rest of it irrelevant.

And man, those Evanston, IL Chili's patrons are one bone-headed crowd. But seriously, you're making me wish I was in Chicago. Stop it.

Oh, you mean my Bachelor party? See you there? Bleachers. Congrats, dude. Are you scared?

Ah, but Aramis is ON FIRE. If Stoneman is looking for a player to help propel him to the playoffs this year, Aramis may be the guy, so Stoneman might be willing to part with a little more. I agree that we shouldn't trade Aramis for anything less than a sure bet, ML-ready type prospect that can put up majorly good numbers.

How was this even this close?

U2 is definitely awesome, and there are times when I'd rather listen to them than Led Zeppelin. But on the whole, the overall quality of Led Zeppelin's entire repertoire significantly outclasses that of U2's. And I've not seen the double DVD, but I have Song Remains the Same, and there is no other word for it than BAD-A--well, I can't actually say the word here, but you get my point.

The game on the line and Rusch on the mound. Great.

I'm not sure that Barrett would even net that much - it seems to me that he's always been a bit undervalued, both by fans (All-Star Game, anyone?) and front offices (he's pretty cheap for what he's giving us). Plus, he's putting up the quietest .941 OPS for a catcher I've ever seen. Edit: by "quiet," I don't mean "soft" (as in a "soft" .300, which is a pretty stupid phrase). I just mean that no one seems to notice or make a big deal out of it, when they very clearly should.

How on earth did that happen? Motley Crue? That's embarrassing. For a lot of people (me included) that wasn't so much a vote for the Crue as it was a vote against Floyd. A little John Kerry syndrome. I figured that had to be the case. Cause, I mean, it's Motley Crue.

I like GNR, but I LOVE Pink Floyd. I also am not huge on everyone using Dark Side of the Moon as the only measurement of Pink Floyd. Dark Side of the Moon as an album is great, but most of their best songs show up elsewhere. And while Pink Floyd certainly wasn't the first band to make a "concept album," they sure did bring the concept album to a whole new level. Secondly, as much as I REALLY love "Sweet Child Of Mine" and "November Rain" (among others), I firmly believe that "Comfortably Numb" (my favorite Floyd song) far surpasses anything GNR ever did. Secondly, everyone should listen to "On the Turning Away." It's not exactly a "lesser known" Floyd song, but I don't think it gets the attention it deserves - it's incredible. Lastly, David Gilmour is a hugely underestimated guitarist. His guitar solos are as soaring and emotionally evocative as any I can think of. As a side note, Roger Waters is an arrogant, self-indulgent prick. But that doesn't change the fact that Pink Floyd is among the best bands out there. How on earth did that happen? Motley Crue? That's embarrassing.

Indeed, I think his drumming on "Rain" is second only to a really unknown Beatles tune called "It's All Too Much", where he really goes nuts. Which is actually a pretty nice song, as well - I never understood why it was so overlooked. I can see why "Rain" has relatively little mass appeal, but "It's All Too Much" is, while certainly not their best work, one that I enjoy. And I second all the votes for Rubber Soul. It was the first cd I ever had (yes, I got it on cd), and I listened to it over and over and over again. Some of my very favorites are on there, including "Norwegian Wood" which is the song that first got me really into the Beatles. I know someone else already said it, but the White Album should probably come next, if not before Rubber Soul. Their earlier stuff is, in my opinion, far less interesting, but still pretty durn good. Beatles For Sale is one of my favorite early ones, although a lot of people don't like it much. I would stay away from Meet The Beatles. It's their worst album - by far - in my opinion. Help and Hard Day's Night were released right before they really started going off the hook with Revolver and Rubber Soul, and you can hear them really coming into their own as musicians, so I recommend those as well. In short, I recommend pretty much all of them. Sorry for the treatise.

Unlike many here, I really like AC/DC. But it's not even remotely close. The Beatles are the only band that I think you can make a reasonable argument as the best band of all time, bar none, and as long as they're in the tournament, I will be voting for them, no matter who they're up against.

Because Bruce is: O-VER RA-TED clap-clap-clapclapclap I know voting is over, but I feel that if anything, Springsteen is underrated. Perhaps during the '80s he was huge, but I think since then his association with gaudy '80s rock has tarnished his image and the very high quality of his music. He's never had a #1 hit. Also, The Rising is an incredible album, as far as his newer stuff goes (with the E-Street Band) - it's the only 9/11 tribute I heard that didn't strike me as cheesy or disingenuous. It's earnest, non-judgmental, personal, moving, and above all, really really good. I highly recommend it to anyone.

Wait a sec. now? The job was his to win in ST and both Guzman and Marshall out pitched him. So lets not here the Cubs don't give Rich Hill many chances. It's not how many chances you are given. It's how you take advantage of those chances when you are given them.. So that's why I haven't won the lottery. Hill hasn't been given a chance. The worst thing is, I believe he still won't be given a chance. He'll get 3 maybe 4 starts and that's if he is good in his first one. Then when Marshall comes back he'll be moved to the bullpen or sent back to AAA. He's been given a decent chance and hasn't shown the ability to pitch at the ML level. Marshall has definately outpitched Hill this year and has earned his spot in the rotation. In Hill's four starts this year he has given up 5, 5, 3, 7 ER respectively. In Marshall's first four starts this year he gave up 4, 4, 2, 0 ER respectively. Marshall showed progress. Hill didn't. He shouldn't get more than 3 or 4 starts to show he can pitch at the ML level. If he has four outings like he did earlier in the year, he shouldn't be given many more. Now, on the other hand, if Hill shows progress, then keep him in the rotation. What good does it do to send him back down? Regardless of how he performs, it won't be significantly worse than Rusch. Bring him up, and tell him that no matter what, he gets a spot in the rotation until the end of the season. That way, he won't feel constantly pressured by Dusty, who has a very short leash for rookies, and by Glendon Rusch, who should never ever pitch again in the major leagues (unless it's in the Cardinals' rotation). It's always seemed as though Hill's problems at the ML level been mental rather than physical. Well then, now that we have the luxury to do so (i.e., it doesn't matter in any way how we perform as a team the rest of the season), we should do our best to eliminate the factors that might cause those mental problems. It would do no harm, and has the potential to help us (and him) out.

I really hope not. This team has no need for Izturis, and he's not that good.

The blues-based rock guitar solo is dead. When people do one now it's a self-consciously retro/ironic move. First, I disagree, and second, even if the blues-based guitar solo is dead, that doesn't detract from the brilliance of Clapton's solo (which he played many many years ago, when it was decidedly alive and kicking).

AC/DC has plenty of musical talent. Can YOU play guitar like Angus Young? Well, maybe a couple people here can, but still. He's awesome. No, they haven't been terribly original, and they've never tried to branch out in any way at all, and that's why they'll never be considered among the all-time greats, but they sure as heck sound a lot better than the Ramones. How can you not at least tap your feet along with "You Shook Me All Night Long"? "Back in Black" rocks pretty hard, and "Hell's Bells" is awesome.

Cream is clearly not as important a band, as far as rock history goes, as Nirvana. However, Eric Clapton is clearly much more important, as far as rock history goes, than Nirvana. Not to mention much, much better. Also, "White Room" completely blows everything Nirvana ever did out of the water. "Crossroads" is incredible, and includes one of the best guitar solos of all time. Plus, there has never, ever been any point in time at which I'd rather listen to Nirvana than Cream. So it's Cream all the way for me.

I really love both of these bands - however, I do agree that the Doors are slightly overrated, while CCR is slightly underrated. Fogarty's vocals are great, but his guitar work is often overlooked, because it seems fairly simple - but his incredible knack for writing and playing captivating riffs is a pretty extraordinary talent. Other people that belong on the underrated list are Robby Krieger and Ray Manzarek (I know I'm not spelling these right). These two were largely responsible for much of what made the Doors' music as good as it was - NOT Jim Morrison. Krieger's style on the guitar was pretty unique (before the Doors, he had only ever trained or played Spanish guitar), and he wrote "Light My Fire," among others. Manzarek composed all of the keyboard stuff, which was integral to their sound. Also, whenever Morrison was too messed up to perform, Manzarek would do all of the singing as well, in his best Jim Morrison impersonation. He was very good at it, too. All that considered, I'm still voting CCR.

there is peter gabriel genesis and then the crap afterward. neither of these bands is anything special. I'm with you. Post-Peter Gabriel Genesis is AWFUL. And they weren't even that great with Peter Gabriel. Also, Keith Moon gets my vote as best drummer ever, and Pete Townshend is no slouch in the guitar department. No love for Entwistle? Plenty of love for Entwistle. And Daltry was pretty awesome too. I happen to think that Keith Moon is underappreciated, though, so I wanted to mention him.