Thinking Outside the Grid...
Nearly three years have passed since the first of Lou Piniella’s half-pennants was won on a beautiful Friday evening in Cincinnati. I’m sure many of you were there for that important occasion, and perhaps some of you also took a pregame stroll through the Reds Hall of Fame, with its special Pete Rose exhibit and its lifesize action figures of Rose, Morgan, Bench, et al, tastefully sculpted in gold polyurethane to immortalize the winning run of the 1972 playoffs and the rally that typified the magic of the Big Red Machine.
The museum was an enjoyable way to spend a half-hour, and when I spotted an official on my way out, I told him so, also mentioning how much I was looking forward to the day when the Cubs might give us a team worth commemorating. “I think you may have to wait a long time for that,” he responded. “The Cubs are too valuable just the way they are. Do you really think your fans would still be interested if they ever won?”
Looking him straight in the eye to make sure I wasn’t speaking with Thom or Marty Brennaman, I was about to say some unkind things about Pete, Joe, and Gold Star Chili. However, given this gentleman’s midwestern reserve, I decided to be a model citizen and just mutter “Yeah, I think we’ll handle it OK.” But the following evening, on the long drive home after watching Rich Hill’s bid for a no-hitter, the words of that Reds official kept coming back to me, like the taste of the Cheese Coneys I had the night before. The Cubs too valuable the way they are? What in Over the Rhine did he mean by that?
And then it hit me like a bowlful of 5-Alarm: He was right! As baseball’s most famous losers, the Cubs have developed a national and international following of millions who identify with the team’s compelling history of failure, fans who also draw strength and comfort from the consistency of an organization that defies the odds in a world of constant change. In a feat as remarkable as that of the great 19th century engineers who sent the Chicago River and its contents flowing toward St. Louis, the decades-long efforts of Wrigley, Brickhouse, and the marketing team at the Trib have been able to reverse the iron laws of business and produce a model we might fairly call “Winning by Losing.” The will of Phil, the skill of Jack, and the bottom-line focus of the Tribune stewards have locked big league baseball’s founding franchise into a never-ending – but extremely profitable – cycle of defeat.
Sure, a Cubs World Series win would temporarily intensify interest and move a mountain of team junk, but what happens after that? Unfortunately, in terms of building national interest among casual fans, the Cubs’ saga of defeat has become as important to MLB as the Yankees’ story of sustained excellence. Tell me, do any of us really follow the Bulls the same way we did before the Double Triple? Do the Red Sox have the same national cachet they enjoyed before their twin championships? Of course, chances are slim we’ll ever find out whether winning it all would diminish national interest in the Cubs – especially if the scheduled changes to Wrigley Field prove to be nothing more than cosmetic surgery to the clubhouse, restrooms, and luxury suites.
As we seek to understand the root causes of this team’s unparalleled failure, look no further than a ballpark that carries in perpetuity the name of the family whose selfish interests and living legacy affect even the most basic team operations to this very day. Short power alleys, brick walls, no foul territory, and a limited night schedule all conspire to keep the Cubs trapped both in and on an uneven playing field, especially for pitchers and outfielders who must adjust their game to suit Wrigley’s antiquated layout at the start of each homestand. These handicaps give top free agents and draft picks the leverage to demand a “Wrigley premium” at contract time and, even with this added inducement, the best available talent usually goes elsewhere, leaving us locked into long-term mediocrity or worse. Also, no parking, limited signage, and opposition to the sale of naming rights at Wrigley deny ownership needed revenue, leading to perhaps the highest ticket prices in baseball.
As a new owner with a billion dollar commitment, what do you do when most of your revenue streams are fed by the very thing that keeps your team from winning? Certainly, Clan Ricketts should be commended for those ballpark improvements they already have initiated, but before laying-in foundations for the Triangle Building, they also should consider some even more important long-term improvements, such as enlarging and upgrading the playing field at Wrigley to meet modern big league standards. Ballpark dimensions elsewhere are modified routinely to meet new circumstances, and even Wrigley’s dimensions were changed repeatedly until 1937, before Phil Wrigley’s hidebound approach put the Cubs squarely on the road to calcification.
If this means getting the city to vacate rights-of-way or condemn nearby properties for added space, that will be the least that officials can do for an enterprise that brings enormous goodwill and revenue to the city. Operating the only venue in professional sports where the ballpark has become more important than the team requires a novel approach we might call Thinking Outside the Grid. Build a modern grandstand, expand the playing surface, plant ivy over fake brick crash barriers if necessary and, above all, be willing to combat the entrenched interests that benefit from Winning by Losing.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
45 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You can badmouth Goldstar all you want...
…but dont you every utter anything but praise for Skyline.
I'm Buck Melanoma. Moley Russell's wart. Not her wart. Not her wart! I'm... I'm the wart. She's my tumor. My... my growth. My... uh, my pimple. I'm Uncle Wart. Just old Buck "Wart" Russell. That's what they call me, or Melanoma Head. - Uncle Buck
by Andiamo Cuccioli on May 12, 2010 11:41 AM CDT reply actions
Nicely written.
Don’t necessarily agree with your last two graphs, but you sure do have a future here.
Thank you.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
As an American
I feel very queesy about the last bit of proposal. Your saying the government should step in, remove property from citizens and give said property to private institutions??
I seriously hope this was meant tongue in cheek and I just ruffled my feathers for nothing.
I'm Buck Melanoma. Moley Russell's wart. Not her wart. Not her wart! I'm... I'm the wart. She's my tumor. My... my growth. My... uh, my pimple. I'm Uncle Wart. Just old Buck "Wart" Russell. That's what they call me, or Melanoma Head. - Uncle Buck
by Andiamo Cuccioli on May 12, 2010 12:27 PM CDT reply actions
As an American
You should know, if you don’t already, that SCOTUS has already affirmed the use of eminent domain to do something much like what the original poster suggested be done to the area around Wrigley. See Kelo v City of New London.
I don’t agree with it, but that’s what we have unless Congress decides to change the takings clause of the fifth amendment.
My question to the original poster is: if you advocate such sweeping changes to Wrigley that it no longer resembles Wrigley (no brick walls in the OF?), then why not advocate building a new ballpark in a different location instead? By the time you get done with the costs of massive rennovation and paying to take all that property so that Wrigley can expand, it would probably cost as much or more than a new stadium would cost.
As an American, I agree with both of you in principle...
…Property rights are fundamental to our personal liberties, and I normally am opposed to the use of eminent domain. However, such relief often is granted by the courts to major public and private enterprises that have a demonstrable need to expand, when such expansion can be portrayed as a public good.
In Chicago, as in most major cities, we have seen whole neighborhoods demolished to permit the expansion of educational institutions, hospitals, public transportation facilities, factories, office buildings and, of course, sporting venues, most notably Reinsdorf’s Kohler Bowl on 35th Street.
In the case of Wrigley Field, facilities expansion around the park has been needed almost from the earliest days of the ChiFeds in 1914. As many of us know, the ballpark was shoehorned almost overnight into a quiet residential neighborhood, bringing controlled chaos and the occasional opportunity for a fast buck to local residents.
Perhaps it was the recognition of this history that played at least a small part in Phil Wrigley’s reluctance to modernize during his 45 years as team president. I imagine that if he had attempted to use the courts to condemn properties adjacent to the park in the 1950’s and ’60’s, when most of those buildings truly were residences, I probably would have been opposed.
However, those “residences” are now businesses that are wholly dependent on the continued presence of the Cubs at Wrigley Field. Owners bought those properties presumably to poach and profit by selling rooftop tickets along with food and drink. Consequently, if the Cubs went to court to expand into any of the space now occupied by those buildings, I would be in favor, so long as each owner received fair market value for what now are essentially commercial properties.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
Also, re: your question on "sweeping changes,"
I hope the New Wrigley will have as much of the look and feel of Old Wrigley as modern design and construction techniques will allow. Sure, a move to a new park would be the cheapest and most logical solution. In fact, I have favored that since the 1960’s.
But now, we need to recognize the concerns of a new owner who may see Wrigley-as-Shrine as the key to his team’s solvency. Also, we must recognize the emotional tie that millions of “Wrigley Field” fans around the world have for this brick and mortar. My suggestions are an attempt to recognize the needs of all parties, including hardcore traditionalists and win-at-any-cost radicals.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
Anyone who states they are Thinking Outside the Grid
Never is. This is just the routine rants about Wrigley Field and the lovable loser schtick.
This has no basis in:
A. Baseball ballpark statistics re: favorable for pitchers vs. hitters.
B. MLB minimum dimensions for ballparks, which Wrigley Field meets without any waivers
C. Current Baseball design.
D. The political climate of Chicago.
E. The perspective of the current ownership.
"They come to see me strike out, hit a home run, or run into a fence. I try to accommodate them at least one way every game." - Gorman Thomas
Wow, I never realized how many Reds I truly and utterly hate:
Thom Brennaman
Marty Brennaman
Dusty Baker
Joe Morgan
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
My best Pete Rose moment ever
At a Cubs vs. Reds night game with both the Cubs and the Reds both out of contention. My buddies and I were sitting near some Red’s fans and we we were jawing back and forth with them. All good fun. I started up with “Pete Rose bet on baseball. Pete Rose bet on baseball.” My fiends picked it up and these guys had nothing.
"They come to see me strike out, hit a home run, or run into a fence. I try to accommodate them at least one way every game." - Gorman Thomas
by RiskyBusiness on May 12, 2010 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Pete Tried to Break Record In Chicago
I did admire Rose for leaving himself in the game against the Cub in 1985 after he had tied Ty Cobb’s record with a chance to break the record in Chicago. As it turned out, he didn’t break the record at Wrigley. Rose lined out to Shawon Dunston. Rose broke the record in Cincinnati.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
Rose DID break the record in Chicago.
New research shows that Ty Cobb really had only 4189 hits. Thus, the hit Rose got in the first inning off Reggie Patterson on September 8, 1985, his 4190th hit, actually broke the record.
Rose had his 4191st hit in the fifth inning of that game. He actually had TWO more at-bats that day — he grounded to short in the 7th, and then Lee Smith struck him out in the 9th.
Those of us who were among the 28,269 at Wrigley Field that day — when the game was delayed for two hours by a huge thunderstorm that dropped the temperature from the mid 80’s to the upper 50’s — know we REALLY saw that record broken by Rose.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
News that's too late for poor Eric Show.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
Double Count on Two Cobb Hits?
I gather Cobb was credited with the same hit twice on two separate occasions.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
If I thought for a second
that Wrigley Field was the reason for the Cubs’ futility, I’d blow it up in a second.
That’s not the reason.
God, my head hurts.
by Not Bruce Froemming on May 12, 2010 1:49 PM CDT reply actions
Al, make it stop!
This is at least 3 posts this week blaming the ballpark.
Aaaaargh.
Alternatively, arrrgh
I blame the El. Mayor Daley. Mike Royko. Carl Sandburg. Chevy Chase. Lee Harvey Oswald. Howard the Duck. Howard Hughes (I’m fine, thank you). Hugh Heffner. Howdy Doody. Bananarama. Topol. Pat Sajak. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. William Hartnell. Patrick Troughton. Jon Pertwee. Tom Baker. Peter Davison. Colin Baker. Sylvester McCoy. Paul McGann. Christopher Eccleston. David Tennant. Matt Smith. Rowan Atkinson. Not Bruce Froemming. Sue. Jessica. Allie. Daver.
SOUP!
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on May 12, 2010 4:11 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
No way!
It’s the celery salt on the hot dogs, I’m tellin’ ya!
"I tried to let Ryan know that [jumping over the dugout railing] was a thing that maybe just athletes should stick to." -- Ted Lilly, 28 July 2009
by CaughtInTheVines on May 12, 2010 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Fail.
Gorgeously written, but you couldn’t find a more flawed premise.
The park is not the problem.
by bourbon_and_branch on May 12, 2010 4:40 PM CDT reply actions
Oh, lordy.
Another “blame the ballpark” post.
And this idea that the city will condemn property or move Addison St. to make room for some cockeyed plan to expand the ballpark…
It. Will. Never. Happen.
Especially after this article, which says the hotel/apartment/retail complex proposed for across the street from Wrigley is edging closer to approval.
“Think outside the grid” all you want, but this is fantasy.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Also...
… what would be the point of “expanding the playing surface”? Most new ballparks strive for the intimacy that Wrigley provides.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Let's hope we're in the last stages of this 94-year-old experiment in futility...
Either bring the park up to modern standards where the Cubs can compete on the same terms as the rest of baseball, or move the club to a new location in the city or suburbs.
Obviously, as the only true example of an old-time big league environment still standing, Wrigley has become a secular shrine to millions who don’t want it changed in any way. At the same time, like any great tourist attraction, it has become a cash cow for the team’s owners, so I certainly agree with you that few if any major changes are on the horizon.
But that doesn’t mean long-term major changes to the park shouldn’t be under regular consideration by a new ownership that appears to be in this for the long haul. If what we’re really facing with the Ricketts team is more Trib-style management, then that minority of the fan base that values winning over preservation is once again being mislead.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
The park IS getting upgrades.
The Triangle Building is part of those upgrades — because once it is built, a lot of space now taken up by various functions in the ballpark itself (office space, food vending, etc.) are moving out, which will allow for upgrading to those “modern standards”.
Nothing else needs to be done by the city. Fenway Park operates and makes tons of $ and players don’t complain about it, in a footprint that is, if anything, smaller than Wrigley’s.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
You're confusing Wrigley Field from the fan's perspective with the playing surface
The fact is, Wrigley Field does not mean automatic home runs, that would be nullified by your premise of expanding the playing surface. In 2009, Wrigley Field had a Home Run Index of 102, 9th in the National League. Tops in the NL was the Reds’ new ballpark, Great American Ballpark. The new ballpark in 2009, new Yankee Stadium, was tops in the AL with a Home Run Index of 126.
For Runs, Wrigley Field ranked at 3rd in the NL with a Run Index of 115. Tops in the NL was COL with a 125.
You could expand the ballpark all you want and there still is one thing you can’t control – weather. When summer hits and the wind starts blowing up from the south, your expanding ballpark will not hold in the home runs.
"They come to see me strike out, hit a home run, or run into a fence. I try to accommodate them at least one way every game." - Gorman Thomas
by RiskyBusiness on May 12, 2010 7:26 PM CDT up reply actions
2 things
first, the people who advocate destroying Wrigley because it disincentives the ownership from winning don’t say how moving to a less awesome venue will help the team win. If the venue isn’t as great, there will presumably be less fans there, which means less income, which means smaller payroll.
Second, Ricketts is addressing the problems of Wrigley Field (which despite it’s many attributes, the problems are numerous). The bleachers have been renovated, the clubhouse and player facilities enhanced, bathrooms improved, and the addition of the Triangle building will really improve organizational space. The biggest problem left, and the most difficult to fix, is the grandstand. There are a LOT of bad seats at Wrigley, particularly in the terrace section and 500s, and the structure is literally crumbling. Sometime in the next 10 years they have to be rebuilt. When that happens, the park will essentially be new, but still on the same footprint and still have many of the things that makes Wrigley great (the neighborhood, the bricks and ivy, the intimacy).
DEJESUS!!!
What we need to be asking is
how the Ricketts family will obtain enough of a consistent revenue source to pay for the upgrades. I don’t know all the aspects of the deal, but didn’t they have to obtain loans totaling 400-500 million dollars from about three or four different sources? How much do they have to pay towards interest? 20-35 Million dollars per year? What about the exorbitant costs of payroll that’s eating well into the profits that were estimated to be around 40 million dollars in 2007?
I guess what I’m getting at is that it may have been a better deal for Ricketts to purchase the ball club separate from Wrigley and built a new ball park. Ricketts is going to have to fight tooth and nail for whatever signage he wants around the ball park and he’s going to have to pay for renovations somehow.
If he had opted for a new stadium, it’s more than likely they could have gotten a portion of private money to help pay for a small percentage of building costs and he could have financed the rest, in the long run it would be the most cost effective option. The triangle building and the rebuilding of the grandstands is not going to be cheap and he could have built something comparable to Target field for around 450 million dollars.
Ricketts may have been given no choice but to buy the whole package...
It’s a key point in speculating why bids for the team took three years to process, along with a closing that took several months more. Some bidders likely wanted nothing to do with the park, but MLB may have been set on a buyer who would preserve the shrine.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
Zell was the one
proposing selling the ball park separately. I don’t know what mlb’s involvement would have been if such a situation had arose.
by troutfishin on May 12, 2010 10:26 PM CDT up reply actions
He could
still get private money for a renovation if he puts naming rights on the table.
If a new park is going to cost the same as a renovated Wrigley, there is probably still more money in the long run at renovated Wrigley. A new stadium gets easily filled for the first couple years, then attendence would be tied to record, intererst in the team, etc. A renovated stadium would also likely have larger capacity, more luxury suites, etc that would enhance revenue, plus always be filled because it’s still Wrigley. That’s a good thing—guaranteed attendence means guaranteed revenue which means higher payroll.
DEJESUS!!!
There is no doubt...
… that the Triangle Building will have naming rights sold — and that could bring in many millions of dollars, enough to fund not only that building but perhaps other renovations.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
There's no doubt he'll
get revenue for naming rights and some private money but I think the initial cost is considerably higher, then just buying the ball club and building new. I don’t know what the itemized purchase price of the park was, but it couldn’t be cheap. Ricketts essentially paid a lot of money for the ball park only to have to spend the same amount, probably more on renovations. Again, I don’t know a separate purchase was even a real option.
After reading that, and basically re-hashing the same argument...
that’s written here on a weekly basis, I came away with one new thought that I’d never read before:
Fake brick padding behind the ivy. Interesting idea.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
.
I guess I'll just reiterate what a few others have said.
This is very well-written, but your arguments are flawed and dubious and I couldn’t disagree more. So you believe turning Wrigley Field into a pitcher’s park will cure the Cubs championship woes – all while we’re suffering through yet another season of poor run production?
And I’d guess the reason people lost interest in the Bulls after their six championships was because the team has basically sucked ever since. Oh, and I’d like to see some evidence that the Red Sox fanbase has shrunk since their two championships. Maybe they’re just a little quieter these days because their team has struggled so far this year.
It’s real simple: Winning is better for business than losing. Period. And Tom Ricketts knows this. Let’s just hope he can do something about it.
Since 2000, the Red Sox attendance looks like this:
2000 31,925
2001 32,412
2002 32,717
2003 33,631
2004 35,028**
2005 35,166
2006 36,182
2007 36,675**
2008 37,632
2009 37,811
The nineties were all between 27,400 and 31,600. The last two years were the two highest totals. So, no dropoff but actually a gain.
Formerly known as BleedsbluinMi.
Part of the reason for this....
… is an increase in the number of seats at Fenway. From the ballparks.com page on Fenway, here are the capacities of Fenway through the years:
Capacity: 35,000 (1912); 35,500 (1947); 35,200 (1949); 34,824 (1953); 34,819 (1958); 33,368 (1960); 33,357 (1961); 33,524 (1965); 33,375 (1968); 33,379 (1971); 33,437 (1976); 33,513 (1977); 33,538 (1979); 33,536 (1981); 33,465 (1983); 33,583 (1985); 34,182 (1989); 34,171 (1991); 33,925 (1992); 34,218 (1993); 33,577 for day games and 33,993 for night games (2001); 36,298 (2004); 37,654 (2006); 38,805 (2007); 39,605 (2008).
From the same site’s Wrigley Field page:
Capacity: 14,000 (1914); 18,000 (1915); 20,000 (1923); 38,396 (1927); 40,000 (1928); 38,396 (1938); 38,000 (1939); 38,396 (1941); 38,690 (1949); 36,755 (1951); 36,644 (1965); 37,702 (1972); 37,741 (1973); 37,272 (1982); 38,040 (1986); 38,143 (1987); 39,600 (1989); 38,710 (1990); 38,765 (1994); 38,884 (1997); 38,902 (1998); 41,118 (2006).
A small number of seats added in the last couple of years make the current official capacity of Wrigley Field 41,160.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
The point stands that bodies were filling those seats.
2001 – averaged 1165 short of capacity
2004 – 1270 short
2006 – 1472 short
2007 – 2130 short
2008 – 1973 short
That seems like it is staying pretty close, and overall attendance did increase.
Formerly known as BleedsbluinMi.
Changing the layout to help pitching will only provide balance...
…As RiskyBusiness indicates above, that southerly breeze in July and August will carry some ordinary fly balls over the new 375 ft signs in the power alleys.
Re: our current lack of offense – I doubt that has much, if anything, to do with the park or the roster. It may be a temporary condition brought on by Lee and Ramirez buckling under the pressure of playing for new contracts when these games still mean something. Once the season is shot, or Lou resigns, I’m pretty sure we’ll see both of them play up to par, just maybe not with the Cubs.
Re the ‘99 Bulls, I think Reinsdorf’s clean sweep was similar to the ‘97 White Sox fire sale he conducted. He’s a great businessman who knows when to cut costs, fan sentiment be damned. Although a Pippen-led team may have been capable of a title, Reinsdorf recognized that local and national fan interest would still be dropping dramatically, as it did after Michael’s first retirement.
The Red Sox have been a regional phenomenon in New England since the days of Cy Young. Their newfound national following was largely the byproduct of New York-based network sports coverage and MLB promoting the Yankees-Boston rivalry. The shocking end to the 2004 AL playoffs and Series has inevitably been reflected in the more subdued national coverage produced by that same New York media. I suspect the networks and MLB both would have preferred to see the Red Sox endure a heartbreaking loss in Game 7 against the Yankees in order to sustain a compelling story line.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64

by 






















