The Future Of Wrigley Field
by Al Yellon on Jun 23, 2011 2:00 PM CDT
in Chicago Cubs News
Email
Print
Let's get this out of the way right now.
I love Wrigley Field. And I love the Cubs. And I want the Cubs to win a World Series (many of them, in fact).
Those things are not mutually exclusive, no matter what some would have you think. I love Wrigley because of where it is -- in a residential city neighborhood. I love Wrigley for its size and intimacy and the lifelong friends I have made there.
I love the Cubs because... well, like most of you here, I was introduced to them as a child and they are in my DNA. I've suffered through all the losses and the close calls and the purpose of this post is not to rehash those; we've done that enough.
The reason I'm writing this right now is that it has become fashionable in the national media to bash Wrigley Field and call it a "dump", say it's time to "get rid of it", or quote some unnamed sources as saying "it's in brutal shape" and won't even "survive for five years".
None of those things is true. In fact, I didn't hear any of these things being said just three years ago when the Cubs won 97 games and had the best record in the National League during the regular season and won 55 of the 81 games they played at Wrigley Field. The Cubs aren't a very good team in 2011 and suddenly, only three years later and after parts of the infrastructure are spruced up, the ballpark is suddenly obsolete? Further, Cubs officials tell me the park is "safe and stable for the foreseeable future".
That's just national writers trying to get some attention, and I see I've given them some, and probably shouldn't have, because frankly, none of them know what they're talking about. Follow me past the jump and I'll tell you why Wrigley Field, a national treasure, can not only be rehabbed and renovated, but how it can be and what's going to happen over the next several years. (Yes, this is long. There's a lot to say about this topic.)
Let's examine some of the things that people claim are problems with Wrigley Field and what can and should be done about them.
"Wrigley Field is a dump."
Well, no, no it's not. The Cubs put money into the ballpark every offseason. It is, according to Cubs officials, in good shape -- far better than Fenway Park was when Red Sox management began renovations there several years ago. People claim there is "falling concrete". This has not happened since 2004, and at least one of the reported claims of falling concrete was false, a chunk of concrete brought in from outside the ballpark. The lower deck bowl was completely redone in 1968 -- only a little over 40 years ago. The press box and suites date from 1989; the bleachers were remodeled in 2006. Yes, the upper deck needs work; the press box and suites, only 20 years old, are dated and need refurbishment. The clubhouses are small. There aren't many modern amenities for players or fans. These facts do not make Wrigley Field a "dump" -- they make it a baseball park in need of improvement.
Which it will get when the Cubs are able to build the structure on the triangle property west of Wrigley Field. The purpose of this post is not to delve into all of the various intrigues regarding how that will be financed -- so let's not go that way, please. When this building is constructed, one of its purposes will be to get the team offices and storage areas out of Wrigley Field itself.
Walk around the concourse and look around the next time you are in Wrigley. The offices and storage areas take up a tremendous amount of space. Free up that space and you can put in a larger Stadium Club, more premium seating, gift shops, and make the concourse itself wider. And even as crowded as Wrigley's concourse can get at times, Fenway's is still smaller. So are the concourses at AT&T Park in San Francisco, where there are bottlenecks everywhere.
The fact is, when you cram 40,000 people into a relatively small space, or even a somewhat larger space like US Cellular Field is, it's going to get crowded at times. It gets crowded getting out of the Cell when there's a full house -- that happens pretty much everywhere.
"The Cubs can't win at Wrigley Field."
One word: nonsense.
OK, more words: as I have written many times, the ballpark isn't the problem. It's not having good enough players, or choking at the worst possible time. It has nothing to do with the park or the times of games or anything except being not quite good enough. The 1984 Cubs won 96 games while playing all day home games. They failed on the road in the playoffs after winning both home playoff games -- during the day. The 2008 Cubs won 97 games and 55 at home and just failed when it counted.
Some of the criticisms of Wrigley facilities -- which do affect players -- are valid. What I've written elsewhere in this post about improvements address these issues.
"Wrigley Field doesn't have enough seats and the sightlines are bad."
False and false. Wrigley Field's listed seating capacity is 41,160. This is 20th-ranked in MLB, but about what the optimum capacity of most new parks is -- about 42,000. The reason for this is that if you put more seats in, you get more... bad seats. Try traipsing up to the top rows in the upper deck at Chase Field or Dodger Stadium -- you might as well be watching from a spaceship in orbit around the Earth. It is true that there are some obstructed views in Wrigley. There aren't as many as some would have you believe and perhaps a renovation can fix this.
"Wrigley Field doesn't have a Jumbotron."
This is controversial, I know. Personally, I'm not against having a video board at Wrigley Field. They've got 'em at Fenway Park and they don't go overboard with loud music and scoreboard games there. What they do have at Fenway is tons of advertising everywhere, which I neither want nor do I think the Cubs need at Wrigley. That gives the Red Sox a revenue stream of about $35 million a year -- not chump change. The Cubs aren't going to do that with Wrigley, nor should they. The biggest issue is that there really isn't a place for a video board at Wrigley Field. The current scoreboard is landmarked and I do not want to see it replaced. Could the Cubs put video "wings" on the current board? Maybe. What would probably work better, and give the Cubs some ad revenue, is a ribbon board on the facade of the upper deck. There's already advertising there -- why not open it up to more advertisers? Plus, you could get more useful information about the game on such a board. For a good example of how this would work, the ribbon board at Miller Park does a good job of this without being too "in your face".
The Cubs will probably have to look to other sources for revenue, such as selling naming rights to the Triangle Building when it's built (that could be worth a lot of money, given that the company's name would face busy Clark Street 24/7/365), and naming of areas inside the park, as they have done with the PNC Club, the bleachers for Bud Light, and the renaming of the Stadium Club the "United Club". I can't see why anyone would have a problem with this.
"Wrigley Field doesn't have good enough player facilities to attract free agents."
As of now, this is absolutely true. The home clubhouse, redone in 1984, is small by modern standards. There is just one batting cage, and it's under the bleachers and cramped, not to mention that if it's raining before the game, players have to slog through wet weather to get there.
This would also be addressed by the Triangle Building. A larger clubhouse could even be located there; building a tunnel underground between the building and the field would still be a shorter walk than players have from field to clubhouse in some modern stadiums. Batting cages and other training facilities would be located in the building as well. Moving offices and other things out of Wrigley to the Triangle Building would allow for a larger clubhouse to be built for visiting players -- if you have been on a tour of Wrigley, you know how small the visitors' clubhouse is.
And the fact is, many free agents want to come here anyway. They like the atmosphere. They like the idea of possibly living in the neighborhood and walking to work. And they know that if they are part of the team that does eventually bring a World Championship to the North Side, they will be remembered forever.
"The brick wall is dangerous".
Tell that to Sam Fuld, who regularly disregarded personal safety while crashing into it to make catches.
Realistically, yes, this is a disadvantage; all other parks have pads on the outfield walls. But for this one thing, I don't think it's necessary to blow up everything else the Cubs have with Wrigley. Some more padding could be put on the side walls in left and right field, near the bullpens, and near the dugouts. Players simply have to adjust. Some Cubs have turned this into a home field advantage. Alfonso Soriano's fear of the wall notwithstanding, I don't think this should be a major issue.
"There's no parking at Wrigley Field."
To which I say, "So what?" There's no parking at Fenway and people flock there. There's very limited parking at Yankee Stadium and people go there in large numbers. There's limited parking at AT&T Park in San Francisco and they have drawn well even in down years.
No one complains about transportation problems in coming to Wrigley Field to see the Cubs when they're making a playoff run.
"We need a new ballpark to start fresh."
Some have floated the idea of building a new stadium in Schaumburg (or some similar suburb). This would be a colossal mistake. First of all, the "Schaumburg" idea was floated for a Chicago-area stadium 40 years ago when there was a lot of open space in those areas. It's pretty much all built up now. Where's the land going to be found? (The same is true for building a ballpark in the city. Where? Besides that, land acquisition costs would be astronomical.)
Second, the idea of building a stadium or arena on the outskirts of a metropolitan area has pretty much been thoroughly discredited. Look at all the new stadiums being built in baseball. Where are they located? In downtown or other near-downtown urban areas -- centrally located. The Phoenix Coyotes, to their dismay, found that by locating their stadium in the northwestern part of that area, they made hockey fans in the East Valley say, "Too far -- we're not going to Glendale."
There's plenty of public transportation to Wrigley Field. People do it all the time. There's no reason to move elsewhere -- and if you're going to build new, further, it's going to cost probably two to three times what renovations (plus the Triangle Building) are going to cost. Where's that money coming from?
Further, what do we see with virtually every new baseball stadium built in America? The effort to construct artificially what Wrigley Field has naturally -- an intimate ballpark in a lively neighborhood.
Finally, despite the fact that the Cubs have not won a World Series in Wrigley Field, they have played five of them there and made the postseason six more times in the divisional play era. Hall of Famers like Ernie Banks, Fergie Jenkins, Billy Williams, Ryne Sandberg and many other star players have graced the field. It connects grandparents and parents and kids; families have grown there, traditions have been handed down there, and dozens if not hundreds of memorable games have been played there.
You're going to throw that away? Why? Just so you can say "we have a new park"? Cubs fans, players and management is lucky that, almost by happenstance, they play in a ballpark beloved by millions and that does attract tourists who come in just to see it. Right now, because the team is playing poorly, that may not be happening, and clearly, unless the team becomes a winner, the current ticket price structure is too high and must be adjusted downward if management wants to see the full houses they thought they'd be getting just by opening the doors. That's not going to happen any more -- the Cubs need to win to fill Wrigley. That's why the Red Sox fill Fenway every day -- because they win. It really is that simple.
And when the Cubs do win, I want it to be in Wrigley Field. Then the celebration can be not just for the team's title, but for doing it in the best ballpark in America.
It's not a dump. It needs fixing up. The Cubs are committed to doing this; it may take several years, but when it's done, they'll have a jewel of a park with modern facilities that can last at least another 50-75 years.
319 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Agree 99 percent, Al.
I do think the fact that the Cubs have to play more day games is a slight disadvantage — and I actually think the Cubs could draw better and get better TV ratings if they had more games at night.
I’d petition the city to have more night games, maybe split the difference between what most teams have and what the Cubs get now.
But otherwise, spot on.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Thanks.
I do agree with you on the night games. I think eventually the Cubs will ask for, and get, permission to play 40 night games a year, which is pretty close to the 50 or so that most teams play.
The TV rating thing isn’t really that critical. Right now, the best TV ratings are in April, May & September, when more people are at home watching TV. You don’t necessarily want more night games in those months, when it’s cold. The added games would be in the summer, most likely. I also think the Cubs should have the right to play on 2-3 Friday nights a year, coming home from road trips.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Good point, re: weather and Friday nights.
As for the ratings, I just know there are plenty of Thursday afternoons when I would love to watch the Cubs after work. Instead, they’re on during the day. I’ve never been a fan of that.
But I wasn’t aware of when the ratings are highest. That does make some sense …
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Many Thursday afternoon games are going to be day games anyway...
… as they are in a lot of cities, because it’s getaway day.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Could not agree more !!!
It made me sick here in Connecticut listening to the Yankee Broadcasters take Wrigley Field apart this weekend. The age of siver spoon athlete’s has now moved to the media. I as one treasure the yearly trips to Wrigley and throughly enjoyed Fenway for a game this year.
"If The Phone Doesn't Ring, It's Me"
"Miami Redhawk Hockey"
Munich has a really cool stadium - 15 minutes with the subway - It would require "minor" modifications however...
;-)
It sounds like Al has hit the nail on the head to me.
If the Cubs still have a chance, no matter how small, it’s still Go Cubs, damn the math and pass the KoolAid.
I mostly agree.
An extra $35 Million a year for ads? Hmm that’s really tempting. If there’s a good product on the field, no one will be paying attention to the ads!
I do disagree about getting out of Wrigley. Last week it took me about 25 minutes to get out of the Yankees game from the 400 level. Monday it took me about 5 minutes to get out of the Cell. Is it possible that your perception is skewed because the bleachers are a different story?
"Pounding sand since 1982...."
There's probably something to that.
Getting out of 400- and 500-level seats is a lot tougher than getting out of the bleachers.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Maybe.
But I imagine getting out of the upper deck at the Cell takes a while, too.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Have they put your name over that exit gate, yet?
:P
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
LOL
I suppose I could buy naming rights…
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
I love it.
We'll miss you Big Boy. #10 for Hall of Fame.
by mrcubsfan on Jun 23, 2011 10:37 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I just want to make sure I get an Al Yellon Bobblehead
when they dedicate the Banks Boulevard ..
Blue mountains high .. Blue valleys low
I don't know which way we shall go ..
One summer dream .. one summer dream ..
coda
ELO, 1975
Here's the difference.
The time it takes you to get out of the Cell, depends on how fast you can walk. Wrigley is stop and go traffic because of the small concourses.
"Pounding sand since 1982...."
There are times I've been stuck on the concourse in a huge mob of people at the Cell.
Happens in every ballpark.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
If you want to believe Wrigley is just like every other park...
…go ahead. Any objective person realizes this.
"Pounding sand since 1982...."
You imagine.
And that’s the problem. It takes maybe 10 minutes.
"Many people need desperately to receive this message: 'I feel and think much as you do, care about many of the things you care about, although most people do not care about them. You are not alone.'"
Miller park ribbon board
The ribbon board across the grandstand at Wrigley North is very distracting and is too much for actual Wrigley. The colors and moving lights really take away from the field and would be just like having a flashing tv in your face. Please no.
Part of that is the enclosed nature of Miller Park.
Wrigley is more open. Things like that only distract you if you let them, IMO.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
I think it's in the nature of advertising to try their best to distract you.
It could also depend on where you are seated. I try, but it is hard to tune it out sometimes.
Fasten those seat belts...
See for yourself
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2007/2/14/202846/133
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
thanks
best line I read:
What sets Wrigley apart is the historic aspect of the stadium. No advertising, scores changed by hand, and ivy on the walls. This is a serious happening that doesn’t bode well for the future.
STAY OFF MY LAWN BOY!!!
You and I don't often agree
And today is another one of those days.
The Cubs aren’t a very good team in 2011 and suddenly, only three years later and after parts of the infrastructure are spruced up, the ballpark is suddenly obsolete?
Correct. The Tribune did not have $450 million in debt, nor did they ever show any interest in spending the $400-$500 million (that we know about) to renovate the place. The Ricketts need the revenue that a modern ballpark brings to help pay that debt off and Wrigley isn’t going to do that without further investment in the half billion dollar range. Wrigley has been obsolete, but nobody noticed because the owners were throwing money around like they wouldn’t have to pay the bills in a few years (because they didn’t). Just because nobody was complaining about it back then doesn’t mean it wasn’t true.
Wrigley is near the end of it’s life as a viable stadium unless they can pry away government funding, which seems extremely unlikely considering the Ricketts have been talking about never wanting to leave since they got here and killing any leverage they might have had.
by Aisle 424 on Jun 23, 2011 2:32 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
We'll see.
I suspect, in the long run, my position is going to prove to be true.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
I suspect the stadium is going to keep falling apart
because they don’t have the money to do anything about it. Every year that passes without the revenue they were almost assuredly counting on in their long-term financial models, makes it more difficult to compete.
In fact, they have continued to spend money every offseason to keep it in good shape.
If you think it’s “falling apart”, you are incorrect.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
The netting is doing a bang up job.
And yes, they spend millions every off-season just to keep it from falling apart more. That is money that could be used to make the team better, but it has to go to keep concrete from falling on fans’ heads.
The maintenance bill on Wrigley is ridiculous. And they don’t recoup that money from anywhere except in boosting the seat prices, and they seem to have hit a wall there.
Offseason work done this year:
Removing the cement panels from the outside
Work on some bathrooms
Some painting and some fences where the concrete panels were
Can’t remember them doing structural things in the past few years unless it was the bleachers, which I think they needed and did a great job on
"Baseball is almost the only orderly thing in a very unorderly world. If you get three strikes, even the best lawyer in the world can't get you off." ~ Bill Veeck
They do regular maintenance structurally
Years ago, MacPhail said they spent millions per offseason doing little structural maintenance projects around the park (when he was defending the state of the park when it actually was falling down in 2004). I assume they continue to do that, and if they haven’t then things are worse than I thought, because it needs regular upkeep at this age.
Pretty sure the concrete panels were before LAST season.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
As I said
The concrete thing is a non-issue, that was partly invented by people trying to make some money off the Cubs by bringing in concrete that wasn’t even in the ballpark.
If you have solid facts and figures on “the maintenance bill”, post ‘em. Otherwise I doubt it’s more than other teams spend on their parks.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Originally from the Trib
The Cubs will never post solid financial facts because they don’t have to, but this is the quote I was thinking of from 2004.
http://www.wrigleyfieldnews.com/art107.html
Andrew MacPhail, Cubs president and chief executive officer, said that in the last few years the team has spent “millions” on repair work, spending more each successive year. He said the Cubs now plan to conduct visual inspections of the ballpark before each game and engineers are developing “an aggressive program” of inspections and testing for steel structural components and concrete in the park.
I remember Ricketts saying after the bathroom renovations of 2010
that the average upkeep for Wrigley each off-season was about $10-15M. And that was just to keep it from getting worse as you said.
Wrigley needs a complete rehab. Tear the grandstand down and rebuild that sucker. That’s what needs to be done. I don’t want them moving the stadium anywhere, but they really need to stop with the band-aid approach to upkeep that they’ve been doing for the past 20+ years……
I remember Ricketts saying after the bathroom renovations of 2010
that the average upkeep for Wrigley each off-season was about $10-15M. And that was just to keep it from getting worse as you said.
Wrigley needs a complete rehab. Tear the grandstand down and rebuild that sucker. That’s what needs to be done. I don’t want them moving the stadium anywhere, but they really need to stop with the band-aid approach to upkeep that they’ve been doing for the past 20+ years……
If worse came to worse...
…I would be okay with a rebuild. But they can’t leave the area. I’m still not convinced a total rehab of what’s currently there isn’t the best option. If Fenway can do it, so can Wrigley.
"Pounding sand since 1982...."
Not a non-issue...
http://www.wrigleyfieldnews.com/art107.html
While Wrigley may be in good shape for its age, it is still a 97 year old building. The issue for Ricketts family becomes when is it throwing good money after bad in repairs, when they could just replace the superstructure and eliminate the preventitive maintenance costs.
A life cycle analysis will be needed, and right soon.
It's 106 miles to Chicago...
Wow...just realized I found the same article independently of Aisle 424...
It's 106 miles to Chicago...
The difficulty in Springfield ...
has something to do with Illinois’ HORRIBLE budget situation and the country’s economic problems. Anyway, where was Ricketts going to threaten to move the team? I’d argue there’s not really a city in America that could house a club that doesn’t already have one — Vegas was the flavor of the month, pre-recession, but it’s economy is in terrible shape. And if Ricketts did move the club to, say, the Chicago suburbs, he’d be back to the Illinois legislature again for money.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
You don't think the Cubs would have options?
If Ricketts came out tomorrow and said, “You know what, I hate to say it, but we have no choice but to look at other options since the State of Illinois seems unwilling and/or unable to provide us with the funding necessary to keep Wrigley Field part of the economy in Chicago and Illinois,” there would be cities and states lining up to make their bid.
You can bet your life Vegas would come back up again. San Jose has been wanting a team. Indiana would probably find some land on the lake somewhere that could have a stadium built on it.
I don’t know exactly where the options would be, but it would draw interest and provide Ricketts with actual options. The only reason they got money from Mesa is because they looked into moving the Spring Facilities to Naples. It is how the game is played. Otherwise, what incentive does the State have to find the money somewhere? The Ricketts have said they aren’t going anywhere, so why piss off the people who would be pissed and further screw the state budget when they don’t have to?
Vegas is NOT an option
MLB will not approve a team there and it is unlikely they would ever agree to let the Cubs move period. Good luck with San Jose (In CA no less) or Indiana getting say 600 million plus in public funds to build a park. They actually do not have that much leverage. If they can make the case by opening the books and allowing a totally unbiased egineering study , then they may in fact be able to get some significant amount of tax rebate, bonds etc. for renovation, but threatening to leave Wrigley without a guaranteed option is not going to fly especially in Illinois.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jun 23, 2011 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Then the Cubs are a small-market team
They can not turn Wrigley into a major market revenue builder without dumping millions into that park. The $400 million the Ricketts were talking about was only for the Triangle Building, Cubs Alley, and the below-field clubhouse expansions (that we don’t know are even feasible). Gutting and repair of ancient girders, support beams, and aging concrete on a piece-by-piece basis is going to at least double that (and I think I’m being very conservative). So combine that with the current debt, and the Cubs payroll is going to look like the Pirates and the Royals for awhile.
The Cubs are hardly a "Small Market " team
Is Boston a small market team? One thing is for sure the Vegas Cubs, San Jose Cubs or Indiana Cubs would be small market teams
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jun 23, 2011 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions
There is no way the Cubs
could be a small market team. The Cubs could play in an empty stadium every day and they’d still have more revenue than the Royals or Padres from TV revenue and corporate sponsorships alone.
by Josh Timmers on Jun 23, 2011 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions
of course
but not if they were the San Jose Cubs
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jun 23, 2011 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions
San Jose would be great
if the Giants and Athletics weren’t there.
by Josh Timmers on Jun 23, 2011 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Boston has NESN and ad revenue in the park
Cubs don’t have that. Maybe they eventually get a network of their own, but that isn’t anywhere in the real near future. Putting ads in Wrigley is a Sisyphean ordeal because of the landmark status, not to mention fans who never want anything to ever change.
100 BCB points for using "Sisyphean"
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
the comparisons with fenway are pretty spot-on. the cubs would be wise to use it as a model.
i went last labor day weekend when my sox swept theirs out of their own pahk. upon getting off the T and arriving, my first impression was “wow, this is what the cubs should do if they were smart. thank god they’re not.” the entire block around fenway is shut down and it becomes a big street fair. while some complain that the area around wrigley is all bars, the one around fenway seemed more extensive with restaurants and bars (i.e. no taco bell, mcdonald’s, etc.), but not in a rowdy way. they preserved the old-timey structure of the park while adding the coca-cola seats, green monster seats, and mini-tron. heck, there’s a bar underneath the monster (which is an ND bar during the season serving goose island, oddly enough). they were able to add some modern amenities and fixes within the park without having to gut it and land a spaceship in it like the bears did. there are still awful sightlines, seats behind poles, and seats facing away from the action for purists that are into that sort of thing.
where to get the money? who knows. one would think that since the cubs win the Attendance World Series every year and were a playoff team 3 years in the past 10, something would be socked away in the kitty (heck, look how much the cell has been modified). but how the cubs manage their finances is something i’m not keenly aware of.
I love seasons too. That's why I live in a place that skips the shitty ones.
by thatshortkid on Jun 23, 2011 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions
We're gonna have some contract cash coming off the books after this season
But I think if the Ricketts clan plowed those savings into a Wrigley renovation instead of players, they would be gutted in the press.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Actually I suspect a Cub Network
IS in the near future and will be by far the biggest source of revenue.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jun 23, 2011 7:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Not only that
Who has money in Las Vegas for a new stadium? Or to even attend games? It’s the mortgage forclosure capital of the world. No money left in that desert. Not much in CA either.
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
by RiskyBusiness on Jun 23, 2011 8:00 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think the Cubs would have options.
Vegas isn’t in a position to field a team. And you can’t even make any good suggestions.
And the Naples/Mesa comparison is completely irrelevant.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
I guess they could tear down all those housing tracks that are sitting empty in Vegas.
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
by RiskyBusiness on Jun 23, 2011 8:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Bravo! Bravo!
I haven’t been able to go since 2008, and i could find no wrong, it’s a park full of character. I’m a tall person by any standards and I actually had to duck around some pipes/conduits to get to my seat in the bleachers but i don’t mind, i actually find it pretty humorous. Well put Al, I dont often see reports about Wrigley and the triangle building other than from the national sports writers who usually only tell one side and thats a rumor, great to hear some positive reporting on it
~Ronald Reagan has held the two most demeaning jobs in the country; President of the United States and radio broadcaster for the Chicago Cubs~ George F. Will
The cost to buy land and build new vs. renovation is a major issue.
It’s also one most people ignore.
Even in the currently rudderless, drifting real estate market, enough space to build a new MLB park, plus sufficient parking and other facilities, sited near transportation for the expected crowds, would be cost-prohibitive.
I suspect your “two to three times” estimate may even be on the low side. If it comes close to a planning stage, it could also become the ballpark equivalent of…
Do the Triangle Building, do the ribbon board, sell a few more discreet naming rights, and refit the place intelligently, with an eye to continuing improvements as time passes.
almost as awesome as the Batmobile
and right up there with the Munster Mobile and Professor Fate’s car from “The Great Race”
KUDOS FOR THE GREAT RACE REFERENCE
Funniest slapstick of the 1960’s. I wish someone would light the saber battle scene with real light saber effects.
Blue mountains high .. Blue valleys low
I don't know which way we shall go ..
One summer dream .. one summer dream ..
coda
ELO, 1975
Respectfully Disagree
First I will say that I love Wrigley, and I am not in favor of changing things big, but I also am not opposed to it. You make great points about location etc. And that may be all that needs to be said. Where would we put a new statium? True. But otherwise, I have pondered the idea of new and drastic changes. The losing tradition at Wrigley is something to note. Curses aside, I do wonder if the location near the lake with such drastic effect from the wind, the day games, the reputation for losing, the old feel of the park, the outdated and inadequate player ammenities, and just the same old—same old are somehow to blame for the Lovable Losers moniker. Now don’t get me wrong, if Wrigley stays the same for the next hundred years, I will not be complaining, but I am looking—searching desparately for something this club can do to make this team another WS champion. I know it seems silly to think that the ballpark has anything to do with the performance of the team, but it could have a bigger effect than we realize. The players to seem to appreciate the better amenities at newer ballparks and feel more comfortable and relaxed (Miller Park). There are more things I could add to this, but I’ll wait and see if I get booed out of the stadium for just saying what I have just said first.
All of your comments about amenities are addressed in the post.
Did you not read it?
The ballpark has nothing to do with the losing. It’s the players and management, Period.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Yes I hear you about the amenities
But—I think no matter what they add on to the place, it will still be less player-friendly and less modern and sleek and sexy than what the players might truly want. At the ballparks that are considered “Nice”, don’t the players have to simply walk down the steps from the dugout and practically everything they need is there. I recall a few years ago some of the players mentioning how they liked to be at Miller Park (Z). So you don’t buy into the theories about the day games, wind/weather, having a bearing on this team? You would say that if they put a dome over Wrigley, it would make no difference at all? I hear the players sounding a bit depressed about the weather when it is cold/rainy, a covered park would fix that problem and take away that excuse.
No, actually, you're wrong.
Most newer parks have a much larger footprint than Wrigley. Clubhouses and other things can be a long walk away. With the new building, these things will still be closer than they are at many newer parks.
There are exactly six stadiums with roofs out of 30: Toronto, Tampa Bay, Milwaukee, Seattle, Houston and Arizona. Everyone else has outdoor facilities.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
I tend to think the roof is a huge deal.
Chicago has lots of crappy weather in April/May and the players seem to be affected by it. This years’ team does anyway. So you think the triangle building is going to make Wrigley just as good or better for the players as Miller Park? If so, I am not going to doubt you, you have more knowledge about that than I do, and I will definitely be more optimistic if that is the case.
Many cold weather cities have outdoor stadiums.
Not an issue.
And yes, the Triangle Building will have facilities the equal to any in MLB.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
And so when are they gonna break ground on the Triangle Building?
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
The Triangle Building has taken on mythical proportions at this point.
What’s the issue now? Zoning permits, or do the Ricketts just not want to pony up the cash without the state promising to build them batting cages first?
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
I wish I knew the answer.
I don’t. I do know they still want to.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
They still want to win a WS too, but it doesn't appear they aren going all out to do either of those things so far..
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Jun 23, 2011 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions
If it's gonna be as awesome and imperative as they claim
Then they should probably get going on that.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
I want to be an astronaut.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Jun 23, 2011 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Mark Cuban said that once.
And now he is one.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Marlins
will be playing in roofed stadium next year
I think it will help their attendance immensely
Many of their fans are retirees who don’t feel as though they can sit in the heat for 2.5-3 hours at a time. Controlling the climate, especially during day games, will bring those fans to the stadium, especially if ticket prices remain somewhat affordable.
And to head off any comparison: The South Florida metropolitan area has ~5.4M residents where the Tampa Bay Area has ~4M.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
We'll see. I think no one comes to the games in Florida because no one cares
And Loria’s shining personality and community involvement aren’t much of a draw….
by ClarkFan on Jun 23, 2011 6:53 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Tampa has a dome
and a team that plays well. Their attendance stinks.
by LT on Jun 23, 2011 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Different demographics
And I note that neither team had trouble selling out playoff games. And if the drawings I’ve seen of the new Marlins stadium are anywhere near what the final product will be, the Trop will look like even more of a dump than it already does.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
OMG
They’re stuck in that crypt until 2027? Yeah, I’d look to move, too.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
A few things
If you you’re still convinced we need a new park:
WHERE?! The suburbs is a HORRIBLE idea. One of the things Wrigley has going for it, which I don’t think you touched on Al, is Wrigleyville. Yes, there’s the bar scene, but it’s a pretty safe neighborhood and there are fun things to do if you aren’t 18-40. Sluggers is fun, tons of places to get a bite to eat. If you move it out to the suburbs, you alienate that age group that lives there. Yes, a lot of that population is made up of yuppies who only go to drink. Personally, I’d rather have them there than have an empty ball park. They’re at EVERY park. Except the Cell because it’s full every day of people who know every single thing about the White Sox (sarcasm).
Part of Wrigley’s beauty is that skyline past the outfield and the ever changing wind is one of the things that makes the park unique. You would lose this in the suburbs. You would also alienate a lot of the fans who live in the city. What’s great about both ball parks in Chicago is that they’re accessible by the L. You lose that factor with a move. In addition, you help the Sox. Moving the team far away makes people who live in the city more likely to go to a Sox game. It’s easy to get in and out of the city if you live far away. Metra is pretty good at getting me to the game without driving far, and I live in the suburbs when I’m home from school.
There’s something to be said about all the players who were here for a year or two and talked about how in their entire careers, nothing compared to a summer at Wrigley. Eric Karros comes to mind, as does Mark Grudzilanek (sp?). Veterans who played their entire careers elsewhere.
Jumbotron: Buy a building across the street and put it on the roof. You might even have enough room for a few rows of seating underneath. I don’t think this is a pressing issue, but it’s an easy fix. The revenue it will bring in will make it pay for itself. I like the idea of the banner. The Sox and Brewers do this well. I like having more than very basic stats when I’m at the game. The information that the MLB app provides isn’t too much of a stretch for something like this.
I think there are some bad seats at Wrigley. Most are in the upper deck. I wouldn’t be opposed to completely rebuilding that, a la what the sox did a few years ago. Underneath the grandstand is an eye sore. A simple layer of white paint makes it look nice again. Minor, relatively cheap fix.
I’d love to see a bridge from the ball park to the red line station. But that’s not a necessity either. Just a convenience.
"Baseball is almost the only orderly thing in a very unorderly world. If you get three strikes, even the best lawyer in the world can't get you off." ~ Bill Veeck
by Musicdude10 on Jun 23, 2011 2:50 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
A "jumbotron" on a rooftop would be a "mini-tron".
Look at, for example, the Miller Beer ad on one of the rooftops. It’s smaller than the existing board. Most Jumbotrons are four to six times the size of the Wrigley board. There just isn’t enough room for it.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
What's wrong with a Mini Tron?
Would it not bring in enough revenue and facilitate replays well enough to justify it?
"Baseball is almost the only orderly thing in a very unorderly world. If you get three strikes, even the best lawyer in the world can't get you off." ~ Bill Veeck
No, because of its size.
Next time you are at Wrigley, stand in the seats opposite the Miller Beer sign. Tell me you could see replays and ads on a board that small from that distance.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Honestly, sitting in the 500s on the 3B line, I think it would work fine.
If the Miller Beer sign was a video screen, I think it would be pretty workable.
An even BETTER idea, now that the 2 parties are on speaking terms (and co-own the AC100 building), would be for the Cubs to call up Gramatis, buy and raze the Budweiser-Horseshoe-United building, and make THAT the jumbotron location.
The lot is essentially unusable as a rooftop building, b/c it only has half a lot of clearance north to south. The lot COULD, however, support a video screen. They could even build a facsimile of the existing roofline with its distinctive “parapet” in the SW corner of the building.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Is it feasible to blow up the stadium and build a new one right on top of it?
I have no idea if that’s possible or not in one off-season, but I didn’t see it mentioned above.
I guess I don’t really care what happens as long as the stadium stays in the same location. To me it’s the mindset of getting away from the city and into a place that feels like it’s a break from real life that makes Wrigley, well, Wrigley. A new stadium in the same location would still have that neighborhood atmosphere, would still attract tons of fans, and would (because of noise laws or whatever they call it) still have lots of day games.
I don’t really care what we do with it, I just want to win a World Series.
Dan
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
No
Stadiums take at least 2-3 years to build. Rebuilding the upper deck would probably take a year as well.
"Baseball is almost the only orderly thing in a very unorderly world. If you get three strikes, even the best lawyer in the world can't get you off." ~ Bill Veeck
could always split home games between
the Cell and Miller Park…if its for a brand new stadium in the same spot I think we could get over it 4 years from now
Middleground approach.
Rebuild the grandstand, but keep the bleachers. That’ll cut the time down. The Cubs would probably have to play home games on the South Side or in Milwaukee for a year. But it beats a total rebuild and saves time.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Doing it split between Miller Park & the Cell isn't realistic.
Players want to have a home for the summer. If it had to be done, it’d be at the Cell.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Oh yeah,
I can totally see Reinsdorf being okay with that.
Minor League Contributing Writer, Athletics Nation.
State high point count: 3/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jun 23, 2011 5:33 PM CDT up reply actions
the bleachers wouldnt
take long to rebuild and a comptant contractor would be able to build the bleachers while the grandstand was having the Sandburg’s put in and then you could re-do them to be able to include advertising and a jumbotron – obviously you would want to wait until the contracts with the current Rooftop clubs ended so you could do what you want to their sightlines.
Why would you rebuild the bleachers?
They are only five years old.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
oh
I didnt know that – I thought they just did some sprucing up back there…I know the Chicago Cubs sign behind the scoreboard looks about 30 years old with some of the rotting boards.
Then simply expand them by about 5 rows and jumbotron away!
I know the Chicago Cubs sign behind the scoreboard looks about 30 years old with some of the rotting boards.
The scoreboard back was completely rebuilt a year ago. Search this site — there are photos of the work.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
If I could add one I would, didn't think about that, sorry.
BTW, we really should be able to edit posts, sometimes just previewing isn’t good enough ya know.
haha ya
Al has said before that if we could then if you come along a couple hours late to the party the discussion might not make any sense and I agree with that
I don't see how that's a problem.
3 years at the Cell is a small price to pay. The Yankees did it back in the 70’s.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Renovation of Soldier Field was done in 20 months
Wrigley would have 18 months if they played in the Cell for one year. A re-construction of the grandstand coud be done in that time period.
Worst case, they might have to make contingency plans for a second year at Comiskey.
It's 106 miles to Chicago...
How about a giant jumbotron in place of the scoreboard?
Take it easy. I was thinking what if they replaced the scoreboard with this jumbotron, yet had the ability to display and use the “video scoreboard” just like the old manual one. For instance, I notice the players like to look up at the newer parks and see their stats with their picture and other info displayed. What if we could do that, while still keeping a video scoreboard that looks just like the original one. You know, they could flash back and forth between actual video and player stats, back to the traditional scoreboard we are used to. Of course it wouldn’t look exactly the same and would be lit up and “simulated”, but if it was possible to make it look much like the current one, would you be able to live with that, or would it ruin Wrigley?
I believe
the scoreboard is a landmark…best bet would be to grease some palms and get one of the rooftops comdemned…
Or bought
Don’t the Cubs own at least one of those buildings across the street?
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Can I start a Hire Jim Riggleman Website?
J/k
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
I'm pretty sure
the Nats are going to replace him with Whitey Herzog. He’s still a year younger than Jack McKeon.
by Josh Timmers on Jun 23, 2011 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions
what an idiot
Blake "The Franchise" DeWitt will lead us to the promised land
by jesus christos on Jun 23, 2011 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Especially for the reason he quit...
"Jim told me pregame today that if we wouldn’t pick up his [contract] option that he wouldn’t get on the team bus today," Rizzo said at a news conference after the Nationals defeated the Seattle Mariners 1-0, lifting the team to a winning record.
The minute they get over .500, he tried a strongarm move and ended his MLB manager career.
Does he have an agent? What in the heck is that kind of “negotiating”?
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Dude, I'd totally LOVE to be a manager of that team right now.
With the Mets in a downward spiral, the Phillies getting no younger, and the Marlins being the Marlins, the Nationals and Braves could be pretty formidable in upcoming years.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
riggs needed job security
and the best way to do that is to in a position where it’s impossible to be fired
Blake "The Franchise" DeWitt will lead us to the promised land
by jesus christos on Jun 23, 2011 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions
And now he'll never manage again. Awesome work, Riggs.
Have you ever seen anyone overestimate their own leverage like that? They’re one game over .500 and he tries an “extend my contract or I’m not getting on the bus” move?
How silly.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
i wish i could be paid millions to do stupid stuff
Blake "The Franchise" DeWitt will lead us to the promised land
by jesus christos on Jun 23, 2011 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions
How strange he resigned
They have a brand new ballpark and according to some people here that makes you an instant World Series contender.
"All of us are in the gutter...some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Al…Well stated and well reasoned, as always. Came in from Colorado to see the Cubs-Yankees for 2 games this past weekend. Hadn’t been back to Wrigley for 3 years. All in all, it’s about the same: A very old ballpark that doesn’t have the amenities of, say, Coors Field in Denver, where I see the Cubs each year. But so what? So I don’t have as many concession areas or washrooms? Big deal. Everything remains reasonably clean, the ballpark employees were helpful, Wrigley itself remains a great place to see a game and the atmosphere around the ballpark is always fun.
Great post. Right on. I think goal should be to maintain Wrigley as long as possible.
by drodd on Jun 23, 2011 3:41 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
I’ve always been a fan of Wrigley field
there is nothing quite like walking up the concourse to have the field unveil itself with each step you take up the ramp. The beauty of the field on a summer day or the crisp air at the ballpark on an early summer evening, there truly isn’t anything that compares to it in baseball. What makes Wrigley unique and special has also been its Achilles heel for years.
Ballpark billboards and advertisements are as old as the game itself, product advertisements allow for millions in revenue. For some strange reason the Cubs over the years have resisted using in park signage, this certainly doesn’t make sense because when WGN went national in the late 70’s, Cubs management in the early 80’s could have gotten a premium for ballpark advertisements because the games were being seen by a national audience. This lack of revenue coupled with inept management has over the years prevented ownership from consistently building upon talent. As I pointed out the other day, it’s very difficult to win a world series if you’re only reaching the playoff’s once or twice a decade, winning a WS more often than not requires consistency.
It’s my contention that the reasons for Ricketts wanting to rebuild Wrigley is so that the Cubs can be economically viable and compete with the larger market teams. What that tells me is that Wrigley in part has been a contributing factor in their perpetual dysfunction. Not just revenue, but lack of player facilities and accoutrements. Could rebuilding the current structure into a more modern facility help in bringing the fans and organization a WS? Sure, it couldn’t hurt.
When a national sportswriter talks about Wrigley being a dump I don’t see it as drumming up attention for themselves, I can see their point. They’ve become jaded enough to not be able to see the beauty that’s on the inside of that ballpark. If all I looked forward to was the amenities at Wrigley, I would probably say it was a dump as well.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
Regarding TV advertising.
I wouldn’t be surprised if, at some time in the future, the Cubs try virtual ads like the Blackhawks do during games at the United Center.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
They use technical magic...
… to insert ads into the crowd shots. On hockey games you see them behind the goals. For baseball? Maybe behind the plate, along with the rolling ads that are on the Wrigley walls.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
ooo
is that like statistical magic that is being used today or more like Harry Potter magic and Dumbledore is sitting in the TV booth waving his wand around?
speaking of HWSNBN
put him to some semblance of use and paint him Coca-Cola bright red so he could go around yelling “COKE WOO COKE WOO COKE WOO!”
I don't think those "legitimate businessmen"
Prefer to advertise in such a public manner.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
The most visible in-park signage for MLB stadiums is the outfield walls
so unless the Cubs cut down the ivy that won’t be happening for them.
The other day I mentioned a Cubs Channel, similar to YES and NESN, once the current broadcasting deals run out. This would go a long way to increasing revenue, and along with the Triangle Building and a better front office it’s something I’d like to see happen before a brand-new stadium is considered.
The Cubs would like to do a TV network.
But right now, they are locked into some long term TV deals.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
CSN Chicago and WGN are available all over the midwest
and WGN is nationwide. The only time I can’t watch games is when they are blacked out on ESPN or FOX, or a WCIU game. And I think you might even be able to get CSN Chicago in other areas, or at least from DISH and DirectTV, so for me, the current for TV is fine.
Coverage as-is works fine, definitely
but with a Cubs Channel the team would own it 100%. At least that’s my assumption of how things are at YES and NESN.
I think that would limit my viewing availability if I were to retire and move to
Mesa, AZ though, that’s the problem I have with it. I can’t watch YES or NESN in the midwest, but WGN at the very least is nationwide.
I guess I am not opposed to that if it is an option
But I don’t want to have to buy an entire MLB package just so I can watch the Cubs. The Chicago Cubs have a huge fanbase in almost all 50 states, so if you take away WGN, you might lose some of that market over time. It might be a tossup as far as bringing in revenue if it shrinks the fanbase over time.
I am down for this
In ways you can’t even imagine. Make a deal with Reinsdorf and Wirtz to make it a Chicago sports superstation with national broadcast rights. Cubs games will take precedence, of course, but it would be fantastic for former Chicagoans.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Can someone explain to me how having fewer and fewer games on WGN is good for the Cubs?
I remember growing up in Houston and watching Cubs games all summer with my dad (who is from Chicago). My kids (when they exist) will probably be Nationals fans because there are so few games on WGN these days. I think there will be a lot fewer (relative to other teams) Cubs fans in future generations because of this.
It isn't. It was a shortsighted attempt to become a CW network.
Same reason, I suppose, that MTV became a teen-programming network instead of airing variable music videos – having a standard slate of programming is easier to sell ads for.
That said, the shows they wound up with all stunk and now the Cubs are scattered around the dial and they’ve squandered the nationwide platform they once had.
And these days, of course, the Trib doesn’t own the Cubs anymore so they don’t even have their own network anyway.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
WGN America
essentially is “grandfathered” with Cubs/Sox games on a National basis. Frankly, I’m surprised MLB allows any games to be delivered on a national basis, as to protect all of their paid vehicles to watch games.
The NBA restricts Bulls games on WGN America. The NHL does not allow games on WGN America, those are for the Chicago market only.
A “Chicago Only” Sports channel would be doomed to fail, as it would not get clearance on most cable and sat. networks. Besides, MLB wouldn’t allow it, anyway due to the aforementioned reasons.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Jun 23, 2011 7:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Ricketts
should not attempt to extort more money from the taxpayers of Illinois.
If he can’t afford to maintain the facility, he needs to sell it to someone who can.
Without getting into the politics of it...
… since I asked for that not to be an issue here… I should point out that every other professional sports team in Chicago plays in a facility that has been paid for in part or whole with public money.
While now is not the right time to do that, I don’t see why the other teams should get this and the Cubs shouldn’t.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
OK
I did say in the original post that I didn’t want this to be about that part of the argument, since we have gone over and over and over that here many times.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
ya
you butted in right as I was double thinking about posting it anyway…hell you could probably start a 2nd blog just about this topic…
I know you are against discussing politics which I understand
Is there an exception if it directly involves the funding of the Chicago Cubs or not? Thanks.
read the fanpost
about the advertisement that the Cubs recently taped to learn why we dont even dabble in politics around here
Haha, I don't even have to read the fanpost to know you are talking
about the LGBT commercial I recently saw. I shall say no more.
You're right, it's not fair in a way but when those venues were constructed...
…it was much happier times. Ricketts is certainly a victim of circumstance, I’ll give him that at least.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
TR did his due diligence, which I didn't fault him for
Nor did I fault him for the Toyota sign, which to me seemed like a test balloon to see how top-of-the-bleachers signage would logistically work.
not that i'm advocating for this mind you...
but if the state ( and i no longer live in illinois, so i have no dog in this fight) says he cant get money from the state to improve his ballpark, why couldnt he take the Scoreboard down and say here it is, i dont want this on my property…i’m going to put a giant massive capitalistic jumbotron on my property, do what ever the crap you feel like with the Landmark. Or if the registry says he cant touch the scoreboard, then just let it fall in disrepair until they have to take it down because it’s no longer safe…Evil suggestions i know, but if ricketts wanted to play evil money hungry owner that’s how i’d go about it.
BTW, the deal Reinsdorf got for Comiskey (The Cell) was about as shady and...
…greasy of a political deal as I’ve ever seen.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
That's true.
It’s a very difficult thing to ask for and do in the current economic climate. That’s where the dilemma is right now.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
United Centre was privately financed
back in the day when it was going to be called, “The New Chicago Stadium”, around 1990-91.
Then UAL came in and put their name on the bldg. I do not recall any public monies going to the construction or maintenance of UC.
Just win the next game...!
Owners and Bank loans
To the extent Reinsdorf was involved is also a question I’ve had for some time. The 2 combined about a quarter of the costs, the rest was bank loans.
The city did contribute infrastructure improvements in the surrounding areas which was sorely needed. Many old run down blgs were also demolished.
Just win the next game...!
One last thing
United’s 20-yr naming rights contract ends in 3 years. Think Wirtz got nearly $40M for that deal. I would imagine the [annual] price will go up at least 50% if not more after UAL’s deal ends.
Just win the next game...!
You could add in the fact that Wrigley itself generates millions of dollars of
apparel sales revenue per year for the ownership of the Cubs. It is almost as big of a marketable icon by itself than the team. Destroying Wrigley would be destroying the one and only cash cow icon in sports venues: the Marquee…. which is on hats, t-shirts, pins, stickers, framed photos, coffee mugs, mousepads, and probably close to a hundred other items for sale.
"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)
Eh, they can put the marquee back on the brand-new rebuilt Wrigley Field.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
You are in no position to assess the state of Wrigley Field
None of us are, unless there’s some structural engineers out there commenting.
Even your out of context quotes, when read in full, indicate as much:
“Honestly, I don’t know if that place can survive for five years,” said one of those baseball people. “The infrastructure is in brutal shape.”
No one is badmouthing Wrigley for the sake of badmouthing Wrigley. The defensive 1000-word essay is a little misplaced. Most of what people have talked about needing to happen at Wrigley has to do with replacing the foundational structure and supports for the entire stadium.
I have no idea if that’s necessary, but people sure seem to think it is. I don’t think even Ricketts is stupid enough to put the idea out there that a half a billion dollars is needed to save Wrigley unless it was true.
Your responses to the strawmen quotes attacking Wrigley are nice and all, but none of them address the idea that Wrigley’s rotting from the core out and desperately needs that core replaced. Superficial improvements aren’t fixing that.
by Wreckard on Jun 23, 2011 4:35 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
You are in no position to assess the state of Wrigley Field
Actually, yes, I am, because I have been told that the quote that you blockquoted in your comment is false, by people within the organization.
Does Wrigley need work? Yes. Is it as bad as the mass media would have you believe? Absolutely, definitively not.
Oh, and it was 2200 words, not 1000. But tha
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Doesn't that quote COME FROM inside the Cubs organization?
They were quoting sources in the Cubs’ front office.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Jun 23, 2011 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think that article quoted some of the baseball people.
Who don’t necessarily know all the ins and outs of the situation.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Actually, yes, I am, because I have been told that the quote that you blockquoted in your comment is false, by people within the organization.
That is called “quoting a source” not independently assessing the state of Wrigley.
A source that may have a vested interest in denying the story.
by Wreckard on Jun 23, 2011 5:52 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
As I have said before, I am not revealing my sources here.
However, I can tell you that I trust impeccably the individual who gave me that information.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
This wasn't the same "source" ...
that promised you personally that they would never do that evil bleacher discount ticket promotion again was it?
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Jun 23, 2011 11:46 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
Without going into specific detail
Al’s “source” within the Cubs organization has a pretty crummy track record when it comes to accurate inside information.
What they tell Al or anyone in the media
and what they do sometimes are different. They tell the media what they want to get spread around. All orgs do that, not just the Cubs.
Just win the next game...!
A source that may be a really bad source too
Who do you call if you think you have an issue with your roof? A roofer or a baseball person? I’m calling the roofer.
I don’t know why Jason Stark would talk to a baseball person about Wrigley Field. He should have been talking to a structural engineer. Someone who could provide an accurate, technical assessment of Wrigley Field. Not a guy clocking pitches with a radar gun.
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
by RiskyBusiness on Jun 23, 2011 8:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Part of a reporter's job
is to determine the credibility of his source, as well as the degree of expertise that source possesses.
Jason Stark is an excellent, well respected reporter.
Find us some examples where Jason Stark’s sources were flat out wrong about a story. His article contains direct quotes from sources that Stark has deemed credible.
I can recall numerous times over the years when Al’s Cubs “sources” have been flat out wrong.
To be fair... Stark is well respected, but to assume his sources are always right because he's Jason Stark isn't the right thing to do either.
Without even looking it up, I’d say he has been wrong multiple times with sources he deemed credible. This isn’t a knock on him as a reporter, but simply noting that he, and his sources, are human.
Okay give me some examples
I haven’t been keeping a scorecard, but I read Jason Stark pretty regularly and I can’t remember any examples where he directly quoted sources that proved to be incorrect. You say that has happened multiple times, so give us a couple of examples.
Also note that Al has not given us any direct quotes from his “source” so we can’t really know exactly which part of Stark’s quotes that they dispute. Are they saying the infrastructure is NOT brutal? If so, how would they characterize it? If not brutal, then what? Deteriorating? Stable? Pristine? What?
A well respected baseball reporter
That doesn’t mean he or his sources know squat about structural engineering.
I have more than a few reporters in my family and I’ve been interviewed too. The other part of a reporters job is to develop a story that will sell.
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
by RiskyBusiness on Jun 23, 2011 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions
Poppycock
You don’t get to the position of prominence that Jason Stark has by reporting false stories. This is isn’t the Kokomo Clarion he is writing for.
The claim that the quotes are false simply doesn’t pass the smell test. If Jason Stark sought out an official with the Cubs to get background for his story about Wrigley, you can rest assure he went to somebody who knows what they are talking about.
And there is no way that official says “The infrastructure is brutal” unless he knows for a fact that is the case. Al is really out on a ledge by claiming he has a source that says the quote is false without providing specific rebuttal.
There's a big difference between false and wrong
To a baseball man, "The infrastructure is brutal" could mean much less than what a structural engineer would say. It’s an opinion. Probably not a highly educated opinion, but still an opinion.
Sorry, but I hear baseball people talking about “infrastructure” and I don’t get a warm feeling. baseball people should stick to their lane – baseball.
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
by RiskyBusiness on Jun 24, 2011 1:14 AM CDT up reply actions
Logic being bent like a pretzel here
“Brutal” is a characterization that most everybody understands.
It is a safe assumption that this person was part of conversations or otherwise has access to information from structural inspections.
He is simply using lay language that everybody understands. That is not an indication that he doesn’t have inside information, it simply means he is using shorthand. And it most certainly does not equal that he is expressing an opinion. Much more likely he is merely passing on what he has heard or has seen in report form.
Passing on what he has heard
That’s a game called Telephone…
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
by RiskyBusiness on Jun 24, 2011 1:34 AM CDT up reply actions
You're being ridiculous
Most people are very careful about what they tell reporters, especially when they work for in a business that is very media driven.
What I am saying is that their is every reason to conclude that this source knows what they are talking about, in addition to which a savvy reporter found him/her to be credible.
All you offer in response is silly nonsense that has nothing to do with any of this.
Sorry, not buying it
I live in Chicago and I know what the media and people are like here.
I’ll stick to believing an engineer and his actual report.
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
by RiskyBusiness on Jun 24, 2011 1:44 AM CDT up reply actions
He is offering you the reasons why Al's source might be right.
And you’re the one behaving nonsensically, using the “it’s my way or the highway” approach. How are you so certain Al’s source hasn’t spoken to a structural engineer? It’s probably within his job to get an accurate assessment of the structural integrity of Wrigley Field.
Minor League Contributing Writer, Athletics Nation.
State high point count: 3/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jun 24, 2011 7:03 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm not going to reveal my source.
However, I have no question that this source is credible and knows quite a bit about the situation — far more than anyone in the baseball department of the Cubs would know.
Incidentally, YOU would have more credibility if you’d spell Jayson Stark’s name correctly.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
...
I can recall numerous times over the years when Al’s Cubs "sources" have been flat out wrong.
And I’m willing to bet you stopped by every single time to point this out. Seriously, why do you come by here playing “holier than thou” while doing nothing but bashing Al or the Cubs every single time you come?
And lastly, how do you know Al’s source is wrong this time? Please explain your reasoning. You need to provide links. It’s okay. I can wait.
Minor League Contributing Writer, Athletics Nation.
State high point count: 3/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jun 24, 2011 6:58 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
We may have had this discussion before....
I have a strong understanding of the way things are constructed and maintained, as my profession demands it. Wrigley Field is in no danger of collapsing or crumbling to the ground. Steel will rust if not taken care of, concrete will crack over time but it’s structural integrity is only damaged if this cracking is not managed. If a building is maintained it will stand forever, unless there are fundamental structural or foundational issues. Wrigley does not have these issues because it has already been standing (and being used) for nearly 100 years. The argument that Wrigley is going to fall down, or is "rotting from the core’ are simply false.
The problem with Wrigley is actually not its foundation, but rather all the other things. It was built in a different time for a different time. It is outdated, some of those issues have been addressed, and hopefully more of those issues can be fixed in the near future.
by Imtrejo on Jun 23, 2011 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
If you understand structural engineering
than you must know that rust is a progressive process that will indeed compromise structural integrity over time.
As I have mentioned before, Sun Devil Stadium in Tempe, AZ has this issue and it has been around for over 50 years. They have used pressure washers to clean it over the years and the residual water has made the steel rebar rust to the point where the north end zone will have to be torn down and rebuilt or abandoned.
Do you know for a fact that there are no such rust issues with the steel supports at Wrigley? The fact that it has been around for 100 years and hasn’t fallen down yet is not proof of anything. There are plenty of 100 year old buildings than have had to be demolished or abandoned.
Rusting is a progressive
That can easily be maintained by scraping and painting. If the rust on a steel beam, column or girder get to the point where structural integrity is compromised you replace that piece of steel. The rust problems at Sun Devil are not being helped by spraying water on them. As I stated earlier if there isn’t endemic problems, which Sun Devil apparently has, a building will stand forever if taken care of.
There are plenty of 100 year old buildings that are being torn down. Most of which they tear down because there is money to be made(or saved) with a newer more modern building. There are building in near perfect buildings that are 500 years old, if not older. I will say again that the myth of Wrigley Field being ready to fall down is false.
Rust? In southern AZ?
Rust? Did Tempe have drainage issues during monsoon season? By that I mean where in by there were low lying areas where water could be allowed to seep into cracked concrete areas? That would cause rust on rebar but the water would have to be present a significant amount of time. Rebar is alwatys coated with polymers to limit moisture intrusion issues.
Did this pressure washing often result in pooled water for prolonged times? If not, it would not cause prohibitive rust due to the very low humidity there.
Rust forms proportionally to the amount of exposure of iron to water and oxygen. With southern AZ’s very dry climate (bet your dew point is around 35F today with air temps over 100F), there is not enough water vapor in the air to precipitate rust formations, even on the most exposed iron beams. Often there are barrier metals and metal alloys that are used on the exterior to retard rust formations. One element commently found is nickel.
The other thing that could have happened – which is indicative of a design flaw or unexpected change in the structural members – is if the concrete was subjected to tensile forces (pulling) rather than compression forces (pushing). Concrete performs well in compression but poor in tension.
Lastly did anyone ever mention intermetallic formation? That is a huge issue in many industries and its resulting failure modes are accelerated by high temperatures.
Just win the next game...!
The "no parking" complaint is absolutely ridiculous IMHO.
First of all, there IS parking. If you can’t afford the lots right around the park, DeVry is an excellent option for only $6 and they shuttle you to and from the park. We use that all the time when we drive.
But the main reason I find this complaint ridiculous is that they offer so many other options for transportation. We’ve tried almost every combination of train, bus, bike, L, cab, car, walking, running to Wrigley there is. Most of the other parks we’ve been to we can only get to by driving at it’s usually more than $6 to park. I think it’s the perfect location.
Fasten those seat belts...
Try the Park and Ride from Woodfield.
$4 each way.
Minor League Contributing Writer, Athletics Nation.
State high point count: 3/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jun 23, 2011 5:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Who runs that?
The mall?
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Ah
I see you’ve answered this below. Cool – where does it pick up/drop off?
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Pace Northwest Transportation Center, I believe.
There’s a parking lot there, and it’s only about 5 minutes walking, if that, from Woodfield.
Minor League Contributing Writer, Athletics Nation.
State high point count: 3/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jun 23, 2011 6:57 PM CDT up reply actions
This center is on Kimberly Drive,
Right next to the Post Office IIRC.
Minor League Contributing Writer, Athletics Nation.
State high point count: 3/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jun 23, 2011 6:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Hang on...I may have spoke a little too soon.
I believe DeVry is only for nights and weekends, so days could present a problem unless you fork over some bigger bucks for a lot.
Fasten those seat belts...
I've never heard anyone...
complain about no parking at Wrigley, but I guess some people do.
You’re right though, it is ridiculous. The Red Line stops a block from the ballpark; why would anyone WANT to drive in the first place? And if you must, then find someone who lives in Lakeview and pay them 50 cents for a 24 hour parking pass (what it costs those of us who live here and buy them) and park for as long as you want. It always cracks me up when I see people paying $25 to park down by the Vic when they could literally pay 50 cents to park even closer to Wrigley.
NEVER, EVER, had a problem parking at Wrigley and I've never paid more...
…than $10 for parking.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
McDonalds lot?
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
That's pretty risky...I've found a couple of garages over on Southport...
…that have been my go to places. Their pretty good with getting your car in and out, never had any problems.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
The only time since 2006
I haven’t used the Woodfield CTA Park and Ride shuttle to go to Wrigley Field was Sunday night’s Cubs-Yankees game. The reason for this was because I was already downtown during the day and took the Red Line to Wrigley.
I always use the CTA Park and Ride shuttles to get to and from the ballpark.
Minor League Contributing Writer, Athletics Nation.
State high point count: 3/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jun 23, 2011 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions
Anyone who pays $25+ to park has no idea what they're doing.
"They sell every ticket to every game, win or lose!" - Tom Ricketts
I went to last Wednesday night's game
and parked a block east of the Fullerton red line “L” stop on Fullerton Ave. Free parking, readily available, no meters there. Took the red line two stops to Wrigley. $4.50 round trip, easy come, easy go.
by sanshokubento on Jun 24, 2011 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions
I park sometimes down that way and just walk
But then again I stop in at Lucky’s each way too.
Just win the next game...!
Excellent Analysis
As a Wrigley Employee, I agree with 99% of what you say. The park admittedly needs some tending to (especially the home AND away clubhouses) but a lot of those needs would be taken care of with the Triangle Building. That being said, the stumbling block there is completing the building itself. It has been a topic of discussion for YEARS now and hopefully they will begin to make progress on it sometime soon. The only thing I would argue is the whole day game/night game thing not mattering; like I said, I’m an employee there and doing even MY job in the daytime hours is more taxing than during night hours, I would imagine playing 9 innings of proffessional baseball would be no different.
Other than that, great read, hopefully the guys upstairs put some of their (and your) ideas in motion. I agree that Wrigley is a sacred piece of land and don’t plan on saying goodbye to it anytime soon. (P.S.: Whoa, $35 mil from ads?! Maybe we could take after the Red Sox in that light, I wouldn’t mind seeing other ads in the park, especially considering how many things the Cubs already allow to be sponsored.)
JoeFlah
Most people (that are currently employed) work daytime hours.
What is it in your position that makes working daytime hours more taxing? I’ll understand if you don’t want to divulge too much information about what you do but I find it interesting about the day/night factors and what it is about the difference that would make it easier for players if they played the majority of their games at night. I have a few thoughts on it but I’m curious to read your take.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
The lack of shade and humidity mostly
To clear things up, I’m an usher (BTW love my job), and I’m somewhat active throughout the game. I’m always on my feet. I have the benefit of catching some shade every now and then when I work down on the concourse, but on the days where I’m stationed to be mostly outside and away from any shade, that sun continuously beating down on you can really get to you. It also always seems to be more humid in the daytime, like your swimming in your own uniform during day games. Generally at night, even in the summer, its nice and breezy and 80 degrees feels more like 70. In the day, those 80 degrees feel like 95 and that sun is relentless. The sun/humidity combo can really drain you, especially over a long homestand like that 9-gamer we recently had. Hopefully that clears some things up.
JoeFlah
Thanks for the response...btw you are one lucky guy.
My theory isn’t all that much different than yours. When the Cubs have a home stand first they are coming home from a road trip where the majority of their games are played under the lights, so there is a brief period of adjustment sometimes when coming home. In the middle of a home stand the drain of day games (especially the weekend) may have more of an effect on the Cubs than their opponent because they only have to deal with a 3 maybe 4 game series. Couple the heat of the day with the fact that the majority of these players do live a life away from the field at night and you have can have a dog tired team during home stands.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
BTW, this theory does not apply to this years team. You know why.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
I actually want to study this
My hypothesis is that The Day Game Effect is most pronounced during a Cub’s first year on the team, and disappears almost entirely by the middle of their second – they just get used to it. It’s a decent-sized research project, though, so feel free to bring this up again after my life calms down a bit (sometime around September at this rate).
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
I wonder if with the wild swings (temp and atmosphere) from city to city and...
…then coming home, I wonder if they ever really get used to it. Two days ago when we had those really bad storms, the humidity was the highest it’s been in almost a year. 85deg with over 90% humidity, I don’t see how you can adjust to that. That would make for an interesting study, who knows maybe you could solve the riddle that is the Cubs.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
What about a team from a warm weather city...
… coming in to face the Cubs in April when it’s freezing?
Chicago isn’t the only city that has those kinds of weather swings.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
But the majority of the season is played during the dog days of Summer
We’re just theorizing about what effects day baseball has on players.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
Really?
The way the weather has been in Chicago lately, you’ve got maybe two warm months.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
^Absolutley
They have splits for everything these days and sabermetrics blow my mind with how specific they get, someone should be able to find some good data on this majority day game thing.
JoeFlah
Being from Wisconsin,
I get a lot crap in regards to Wrigley being a “dump” or “the largest bar in the world”. The Brewer fans rave up here because Miller Park has fireworks, a slide, jumbotron, large amounts of parking, loud music, sausages running around the field, and other shenanigans. If that’s the reason you’re going to ball games, then maybe you should find a new hobby. To me, there is one HUGE difference between Wrigley Field and Miller Park…. Wrigley Field is a ballpark, Miller Park is a stadium (to me, those are two very different things). If you want to be entertained while your team is putting you to sleep, go to Miller Park, if you’re interested in baseball and care about your team’s well being, go to Wrigley Field.
by Andrew Carl on Jun 23, 2011 7:02 PM CDT reply actions 3 recs
I agree.
I do feel that Wrigley is more about watching the game. That’s why I don’t like some of the ideas floating around like the jumbotron. To me if you want to watch a game on a TV, stay at home or go to a bar. I like that they don’t have the “other shenanigans”.
I do enjoy Miller Park though and love the sausage races.
Fasten those seat belts...
if you want that stuff you should have to go to a A+/-, AA,or AAA team
i dont want that crap on my field.
That hot dog gun in Iowa is a blast.
Get it?…a blast. There was also a wallaby or something running around the field along with some food and drink items from Kum & Go in a race. I didn’t mind and expected it there, but please not at Wrigley.
Fasten those seat belts...
I don't know man
Miller Park is great. I’d take that stadium over Wrigley pretty much any day of the week. I LOVE Wrigley Field, but to say it is better than Miller Park is ridiculous.
They're different animals.
There are a lot of things I enjoy about Miller Park, but for my money, I’d rather spend the day at Wrigley.
I spent 90% of my money on women and drink. The rest I wasted - George Best
Yup,
I know I compared the two up top, but they’re quite incomparable. Also, the fact that the Milwaukee Brewers play there doesn’t really better my opinion of the ballpark haha. I guess that would make me a little biased.
Point-by-point...
• No, its not a dump. It’s a one-of-a-kind antique that should be preserved essentially as is, but used as a working baseball museum, concert venue, and playing field for selected professional and amateur sporting events. It simply is no longer suitable as a home field for the Cubs to compete with the rest of baseball, unless massive renovations are made that include modification of the park’s dimensions. I’m not talking about food courts, better restrooms, or bomb shelter-style clubhouses under the outfield – those problems are incidental to the need to put the Cubs in a playing environment that minimizes the constant readjustments that only our team is forced to make on a regular basis when starting and ending road trips.
• Yes, in any given year the Cubs can get lucky and sweep the playoffs if everything breaks right, as almost happened in 2003. What also can be said with confidence is that the Cubs will not be able to build a consistent winner – a team capable of five consecutive seasons at .530 or above – so long as the team plays at Wrigley Field. The fact is, the Cubs have not been able to put together a five year stretch of that kind since the 1930’s and, since 1973, have not even been able to stay above .500 for any three-year stretch, with the lone exception of Piniella’s first three.
• Any problems with Wrigley’s sightlines and seating are incidental to me. Fans, or at least Cubs fans, don’t expect creature comforts, nor should they. The beauty of Wrigley Field includes its distressed aspects, like a pre-Prohibition bar or pub that has some history. But although my objections don’t include this type of complaint, I certainly understand how fans might appreciate modern surroundings.
• RE: Jumbotron – Pay the ransom for that dump on the corner of Waveland and Kenmore, tear it down, and set up a giant videoboard on top of some of those supports we see under highway billboards. It’ll pay for itself in no time. Also, it presumably would carry information at least as essential as knowing the inning-by-inning score of a Kansas City at Minnesota game.
• RE: Free Agents – Of course the ballpark is a factor, especially when it becomes a detriment to signing top free agents at market rates. For example, I’m confident those extra two years on Sori’s contract were a "Wrigley Field premium" that Hendry and McDonough were forced to offer in order to sign him. Any ballplayer wants to work in an environment that will highlight his skills and lead to a long career. I can’t imagine any agent seriously advising a slick-fielding outfield prospect to showcase his skills at Wrigley Field, any more than he would advise a pitching prospect to look forward to dealing with Wrigley’s 355 ft. power alleys and unpredictable, game-changing wind currents.
• RE: Brick Walls – Obviously, they are a hazard. I’m surprised OSHA hasn’t applied its’ heavy hand to the matter. Any rebuild on this site would have to address this issue.
• RE: No parking – I agree with you, for the same general reasons I used to dismiss complaints about restricted views and other discomforts. Taking the “L” or other public transportation to Wrigley is an essential part of the ballpark experience.
• RE: Yes, we do need a new ballpark to start fresh, either at the current site, or somewhere north of Madison Street. The sad but little-known legacy of Wrigley Field is that its’ existence is the due only to the incredible selfishness and determination of Philip Wrigley to preserve the park – at all costs – as an essential component of Wrigley Company advertising and promotion. If not for his purpose, tenacity, wealth, and media influence, the park would have been replaced by the mid-1960’s, as it should have been. It falls to this generation to sweep out the Wriglean Stables, even if we need to re-route the Chicago River to get the job done.
"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
We keep talking about brick walls
but outfield padded walls in many new parks are vanishing to scoreboards. Am I the only one to notice this??
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Jun 23, 2011 8:06 PM CDT up reply actions
I believe those scoreboards...
… which are in Miller Park, Toronto, and others, have nets in front of them to protect players.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
I thought pirate nets were only for falling concrete?
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
by RiskyBusiness on Jun 23, 2011 8:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, I could be wrong but my understanding was that it's not nets that teams have in front of scoreboards.
I believe most wall scoreboards have chain-link fences protecting them. Still not very forgiving on the body but I would have to say much more forgiving than the brick wall.
"If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's life without even considering if there are men on base." --Dave Barry
That's true. But it sure ain't padded
Would you want to run into a mesh fence against an LED board? I was surprised when the new parks placed boards on the walls, as I thought there was an MLB rule, or directive, that future outfield walls were to have some sort of padding, or at least — were able to give a bit.
So, the fact that Wrigley has brick walls doesn’t mean squat to MLB.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Jun 23, 2011 10:39 PM CDT up reply actions
A Kansas City Royal player
made a running catch deep in the warning track last night in K.C. and banged hard right into the LED panels that make up the scoreboard. You could actually see the LED panels flex when he hit them, and if there was any protection, it was not evident.
Still not anything like running into a brick or concrete wall, however.
If Wrigley had been replaced in the mid 1960's...
… it would have been replaced with a monstrosity like they built in St. Louis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. All of those stadiums are gone now, replaced with ballparks that look a lot like… Wrigley Field.
I just don’t know why you are so insistent that Wrigley has to go. It’s not the problem and in fact, is part of the solution. It doesn’t matter, since ownership is committed to renovation and upgrade.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
The funny thing about is the park dimensions are not an issue
At least not according to Bill James. The data suggest that you get left-handed power hitters – Mr Prince Field to Blue and Red courtesy telephone. but ballparks like Great American are just as good for right handed power hitters. And for all home runs, the white sox have a higher index number than the Cubs.
The dimensions are fine and the ivy is probably helpful. The ivy – with brick behind it – reminds players that they can’t run full steam into the wall. But padded walls provide the illusion of safety. And that’s when injuries occur.
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
by RiskyBusiness on Jun 23, 2011 8:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Because the dramatic contrast in playing conditions at Wrigley compared to the rest of the league since 1940...
… has forced generations of Cubs to make extra and otherwise unnecessary adjustments to playing conditions at the beginning and end of every road trip. As we might agree, there usually is only a fine line of difference in talent level between most big league teams. Consequently, the distractions caused by Wrigley’s unique conditions may prove decisive in any pennant race. Some of the best examples of this include the Cubs failures in the Astrodome even when we likely had the best team in the league. The adjustment to “the snakepit” was simply too much.
In any case, a new park or major renovation of Wrigley would hardly be an Astrodome-type monstrosity. Baseball thankfully has progressed beyond the era of the multi-purpose.
"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
Consequently, the distractions caused by Wrigley’s unique conditions may prove decisive in any pennant race
Emphasis added to the key word there. As I noted above, I am willing to do the research to see if we can find any statistical evidence for there being something about Wrigley or more day games which has impacted the team as a whole for decades. I will not have time to start this for a while (perhaps in the off-season), and I’ll solicit contributions for factors to study ahead of time. I will post my study proposal here and I would appreciate it if you would look it over and let me know if you have any further additions or comments.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Sounds good – I'll be glad to follow-up.
You may want to include seasons as early as 1941, the first year when all NL parks except Wrigley and Braves Field had lights. That year coincides nicely with the start of the Cubs’ steady decline that eventually led to the Terrible Twenty years of ‘47-’66.
Of course, there was the fluke ‘45 pennant at the end of WWII that tends to mislead us into thinking the Cubs of the early ’40’s were good. They weren’t, and the no lights status of Wrigley Field when six of the other seven NL teams had night schedules may have been a factor in the Cubs sudden fall from the ranks of baseball’s elite.
Also, it’s interesting to note that Braves’ Field had its first night game on May 11, 1946, shortly before the perennial second division Braves suddenly became contenders, ultimately winning the 1948 NL pennant.
"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 most interesting thing
would be to see the difference in number of day games from June 15th to August 30th (typically the hottest part of the summer). If the Cubs scheduled it correctly they could use most of their 30 games during this period to reduce any effect that day games have on the players.
As a strategy to win games, your suggestion makes sense.
Unfortunately, MLB makes the schedules. Also, I imagine the Cubs’ front office wants to spread out those 30 games to maximize income from broadcast rights.
"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
Some folks will always be insistent on getting rid of the ballpark
but not necessarily because pinheads like Peter Gammons called it a dump. A lot of folks want creature comforts. It is what it is. Doesn’t bother me Wrigley doesn’t have those. As far as I’m concerned, they could keep most of the internals the same for the fans with the exception of a few more johns and better food too.
But Wrigley NEEDS skyboxes, lots of them, great ones too not the crap they have now. THAT is the revenue stream to capture with ballpark changes.
Just win the next game...!
i'd be okay if they carved out all around the playing field
and left the bleachers but blew everything else up….
Sounds cool on the surface
but completely unpractical from an engineering, legal and economic means.
Just win the next game...!
right, i know.
most people arent fascinated with the outside beauty of Wrigley, its more the inside, if they could some how come up with a way to keep the playing field the brick and the bleachers with the scoreboard and build around it, i’d be perfectly fine with it.
I don't think most people responding here want Wrigley to go
They want it to be improved and if it can’t be improved, then it should be replaced. It’s as simple as that.
The Cubs are at a competitive disadvantage playing at Wrigley Field. I love Wrigley as much as you do, but the ballpark needs a ton of work and some more night games wouldn’t hurt either……
FYI, people have been calling it a dump even before '07-
Google results through June of ’07
"That might be how you roll at Camp Anawanna, Budnick. But where I come from, we only salute Old Glory." -moroots on May 23rd
by South Side Expat on Jun 23, 2011 7:35 PM CDT reply actions
This is just plain wrong.
bq.What also can be said with confidence is that the Cubs will not be able to build a consistent winner – a team capable of five consecutive seasons at .530 or above – so long as the team plays at Wrigley Field. The fact is, the Cubs have not been able to put together a five year stretch of that kind since the 1930’s and, since 1973, have not even been able to stay above .500 for any three-year stretch, with the lone exception of Piniella’s first three.
The ballpark is not why this happened. The ballpark had nothing to do with decade after decade or horrid drafting and development that is beyond even mathematical possibility for failure. Just go look at the Cubs’ draft picks and minor leagues since WWII. They had a short burst in the early 60s with Williams, Hubbs, Santo, Kessinger, Holtzman, Niekro etc. and the Dallas Green era of Dunston, Maddux, Smith, Walton, Grace, Palmeiro etc.
That is it. You can not sustain winning of any kind whether you play in Thillens Stadium or Yankee Stadium if you can’t develop decent talent. It’s just not possible, And the Cubs have been amazing at their inability to consistently develop major league talent.
I agree that Wrigley Field had less impact on the team's play or recruitment efforts prior to the early '70's,
when it became the last of the old NL ballparks. At that point, the contrast in playing conditions at Wrigley compared to the rest of the league led to some brutal roadtrips, as the team was regularly forced to adjust to Astroturf everywhere, along with conditions at domed monstrosities in Houston and Montreal.
Of course, because of Phil Wrigley’s no lights policy, his ballpark had a negative impact on Cubs’ play from the early 1940’s, when every other club in the league already had installed lights. As we know, Wrigley did made two moves to light the park: once in 1941, when he made the public relations gesture of contributing steel light towers to the war effort, and again in 1944, when he was ready to attach lights to wooden towers.
But Wrigley suddenly lost interest in lights in 1945, which, probably not incidentally, was the time when the Dodgers started signing players from the Negro Leagues. As you and I have discussed in earlier posts, it seems likely Phil’s sudden decision to kept lights out of Wrigley Field was based in part on his perceived fear of racial conflict in the stands or around the ballpark, combined with the obvious fact that crowd control much easier for day games, especially when attendance is < 5,000.
He had the money and influence to absorb whatever fallout his unwillingness to compete on modern terms might bring, so he was happy to run the Cubs on a break-even basis, so long as he could keep using those invaluable “naming rights” at his ballpark to help sell Doublemint.
"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
I'll take issue with your remarks about race...
… considering the Cubs were at the forefront of signing black players through the 1950s and early 1960s.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
He may have signed several black players in the early 1950's,... but how many actually played for the Cubs?
The fact is Wrigley waited seven full seasons after Jackie Robinson arrived in Brooklyn, and nearly three years after the White Sox traded for Minnie Minoso, before he brought any black players to Wrigley Field.
I believe Wrigley’s reluctance to integrate the Cubs, as well as his resistance to night baseball, was based mostly on his perception of the risks involved in attracting racially-mixed crowds to night games at Wrigley Field in the Chicago of the 1940’s, combined with his genuine need to protect enormous business interests outside of baseball.
He had a lot more to lose than other owners, and consequently was content to let them experiment in Brooklyn, Boston, and New York for several years before he cautiously integrated the Cubs late in 1953. Even then, he moved to integrate only after a dramatic drop in attendance at Wrigley Field had pushed the Cubs into the red for the first time under Phil’s ownership. This drop was the direct result of the Braves’ move to Milwaukee, where the former Boston club would quickly become Chicagoland’s National League team-of-choice for the rest of the decade.
Of course, Wrigley kept the "no lights" policy until his death in 1977. Why didn’t he sell the team? Surely he knew that his unwillingness to compete on modern terms would doom the Cubs to life in the second division. Only one answer makes sense: He considered the advertising and promotional value of the Wrigley name on a big league ballpark to be indispensable to promoting Wrigley products. This had been the principal reason his father had purchased majority interest in the Cubs in 1923, and it was a business advantage he was determined to keep at all costs.
Fortunately for Phil and his heirs, he had the money and media influence to withstand all criticism of the way he ran the Cubs, and he was content to run the team on a break-even basis, so long as he could enjoy the enormous value-added benefits of the Wrigley name above the entrance to his ballpark.
"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
There is no doubt that PK Wrigley ran his franchise into the ground.
If the 1969-era group had won just one World Series, the future of the team might have been very different.
I think you overrate the presence of the Braves in Milwaukee for the Cubs’ decline. They were declining before that, and that was short-lived, as the Braves left there by 1965.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
The Braves hold on Chicago fans was short-lived but intense...
Growing-up on the West Side in the ’50’s, I was surrounded by Sox fans, and when my family moved to Glenview in 1957, I figured to meet some other seventh-graders who followed the Cubs. To my surprise, most everyone seemed to be on the Braves’ bandwagon, a trend that lasted until the Braves’ playoff failure against the Dodgers in ’59, and of course the White Sox pennant run that same year.
I imagine Cubs’ sentiment in those years was still strong along the lakefront, from the Loop to Lake Forest, but west of the Edens or Skokie Highway was Braves’ Country, in an atmosphere that had much more in common with the farm country around Kenosha and Racine than it did with Lakeview or Lincoln Park,
I haven’t checked the attendance figures for 1953, but I imagine attendance at Wrigley dropped by 300-400K, while the Braves were drawing 1.5MM+. This was the first time the Cubs had been in the red, and I imagine seeing the Braves succeed in the Midwest without incident while fielding an integrated team led Phil to take the cautious late season steps of finally bringing up Gene Baker, and paying a king’s ransom of $35K to purchase Ernie Banks from the Negro League.
"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 Ideal Future? Rebuild in place
I love Wrigley Field, but I would not be opposed to a major rebuilding of the grandstand, in place (the bleachers having already been rebuilt recently).
I would really like to eliminate those sight-lines that are blocked by posts. I would not be opposed to a few luxury boxes, if they helped bring in some revenue. I wonder if, using modern building materials and techniques, a new Wrigley grandstand could be built, that evoked the original Wrigley. I am thinking of the way that the Ford Mustang was redesigned a few years ago, to evoke the classic 1964 model? That was beautiful design work. That would be my ideal future for Wrigley.
"Wait, are you saying I'm a sunshine-pumping, koolaid-drinking, Soriano-loving, rainbow-rising, unicorn-riding, double-clutching, Sweet Lou-backing, Hendry-supporting, hey hey whaddya saying, Cubs are going all the waying, glass is overflowing, Rothschild is all-knowing, Cubs fan? - ballhawk
There isn't room behind the park along Addison to build without posts since the
alternative is a cantilevered design which requires far more room. I guess you could do something where the upper deck is supported by cables attached to a massive pole but I doubt there’s room for that either. I think poles are here to stay.
Can't agree totally...
…at a minimum, modern structural steel and concrete could reduce the number of columns, if not eliminate most of them.
Structures were severely over-designed 100 years ago…probably what has contributed to Wrigley lasting as long as it has.
It's 106 miles to Chicago...
Great post Al!
Regardless of who agrees or who disagrees about all this,the best part about this article to me was the heart thought put into it. Great read Al! I am fully against any changes towards modernization and spam advertisement for money. I believe we do need better training areas though and more comfort for the players.
by bleedinblue76 on Jun 23, 2011 8:11 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
I can't love wrigley until the Cubs have won a world series there
As it is now, the place only reminds me how long it’s been since that happened; that stadium is as close to a symbol of losing as there is.
Money will determine where the stadium goes or whether the stadium stays, as it should.
IMO the stadium is just the packaging; all I care about is getting the best product on the field as possible to maximize the Cubs chances of winning a WS. Whatever needs to happen to do that, I am for.
"Playoffs?!" -Jim Mora
by Castro Por Presidente on Jun 23, 2011 8:16 PM CDT reply actions
Wrigley Field Jumbotron
Here is an idea for jumbotron placement. One on each side of the scoreboard. I don’t know how or what, but I am sure it would be a cash cow for the Cubs. Since money is an issue, it may be necessary for Wrigley. To max the income it would need to be where the most eyes can see it, like next to the scoreboard. The park has lots of visual balance. That is why they would might want two.
I could see them doing that..
…. IF they could figure out how to support two such structures.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Won't happen
Roof tops are blocked. 1010 Waveland and 3639 Sheffield & North.
Remember the small screens that were put up near the foul poles for the Winter Classic drew a lot of ire from the rooftops.
Just win the next game...!
Would that not block
certain rooftop views?
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Jun 23, 2011 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions
if you guys get bored
you can read this fine piece of comedy regarding that SS guy
Blake "The Franchise" DeWitt will lead us to the promised land
It's not the ball park...
The Cubs aren’t going to win with mediocre pitching, bad defense, and slow foot-speed.
I’m 30, and I don’t remember any Cubs team that was built to manufacture runs and hit for average and steal bases. Sure, they maybe have had one or two guys who were quick… but they need a group of hard-nosed players who are going to put effort at the forefront. And it would be nice to be one of the youngest teams in baseball for once.
OK, so small ball might not be as exciting to watch as a bunch of home run hitters…
But we’re talking about Wrigley Field here. The wind blows in a whole bunch and if you don’t have the ability to manufacture runs, you’ll lose. Everybody else has gotten this memo but the Cubs.
ok
and the wind blows out a bunch of the time, if you have a team full of Juan Pierre’s you have no chance of winning the slug fests
Bah
I hate old things. I still have nightmares about that scene in “A League of Their Own” where the creepy old bats flop around and play baseball.
"It's all in the game, yo"
The biggest problem
to me is one you glossed over Al—the sightlines and experience in a huge portion of the park are not good. The back half of the terrace section is dark, musty and you can’t see flyballs. The huge portion of the upper deck is bad too.
I agree with you that the capacity isn’t the problem. But if you are going to have a smallish stadium, you need to have great views from nearly all the seats, and the Cubs don’t have that. They need to rebuild the infield stands with a cantilevered upper deck.
DEJESUS!!!
This can be solved
the sightlines and experience in a huge portion of the park are not good. The back half of the terrace section is dark, musty and you can’t see flyballs.
If/when they re-do the skyboxes. That is the perfect opportunity to push the upper deck up several more feet. The skyboxes’ bottom are several feet higher, the upper terrace reserved has more “head room” and the sightlines improve.
Also, on the darkness, that is improved too and don’t forget if they properly open up the facade facing the mainstreets (ugly concrete walls gone), that too will help.
Just win the next game...!
I don't think the Cubs are going to leave Wrigley in our lifetimes.....
but major money has to be invested(from Mr Ricketts himself) in making the ballpark not worrysome for the future. Example…..the upper deck is badly in need of a restructuring. I know this pains for me to type and others might pain to read, but I’m up for what the Yankees did in the 70s while their old ballpark was getting renovated. If anyone recalled, they played in God-awful Shea for two years I think. If the Cubs plan on going that road in the furtue…that might mean…playing a couple years at the Cell, or up in Miller Park. I think that move will pay off in the long run. It will just be tough watching games at the Cell or elsewhere temporary.
I love Wrigley Field like everyone else. I grew up a mile north on Clark st, and my parents still live by there on Sunnyside. But I just want to see the Cubs in a World Series, winning a WS…where they play at or where they clinch is secondary.
Two Words: Salty Saltwell
the writers talking about wrigley being a dump drives me crazy.
When was the last time Peter Gammons or Rick Morrissey sat in the seats as fans? They viewpoint is completely selfish. They don’t like the press box (which is awful), the fact it takes them awhile to leave the upper deck, and they cant park right outside. Thats their personal gripes. Its easier to do their job in other stadiums. The press conference room is bigger and so is the clubhouse. Wrigley Field doesn’t accommodate them, so they don’t like it. But Wrigley field is for the fans attending the game. That is the reason there is a game and they forget it.
Secondly just cause something is new doesn’t make it better. I could go to the new bar in town with lazyboy seats, projections screens, 4 star food, girls in bikinis and lasers everywhere, but that doesn’t necessarily make it better than the local tap. I’m their to drink just as in wrigley i’m there to watch baseball. Everything else is just noise.
Not fenway
Wrigley isn’t Fenway cubs fans get to caught up in that.
As for the Munich stadium I wouldn’t go that rte. The stadium pictured is out of date and the soccer team plays in a new stadium.
by gonzaga101 on Jun 23, 2011 11:04 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
OT: Kerry Wood
What’s the status on his blisters? Will he return from the DL before July 4th?
Viva la Cubs Révolution!!!
Here's a question.
Anyone been to Wrigley on crutches? I’m aware it’s not very handicap friendly. I’m usually way up in 517. I’m having some knee problems and may likely need to bring my crutches to get up the ramps next time I go. I don’t want them in the way or blocking anyone’s view behind me or to bother anyone. Any ideas how or where to stash them? Thinking an usher might be helpful. Is it stupid to even bother like my husband says? He took my daughter last time, but I think where there is a will, there is a way and I don’t want to miss another game.
Just thought I’d ask here since we are discussing problems with Wrigley Field anyway.
Fasten those seat belts...
not at Wrigley
but I’ve been to Minute Maid on crutches. What I did was just set my crutches down on the ground under my seat and the neighboring seats for part of the time, and jamming them down into the row in front of me the other part of the time. Nobody around me objected – people are generally pretty understanding. You might also consider calling the box office and seeing if you can exchange your tickets for seats in the handicap areas, although you’d probably have to pay the difference in cost.
by false cognate on Jun 24, 2011 8:27 AM CDT up reply actions
Thanks.
It’s definitely not so bad that I need a special seat. Not sure if there is room to place them under the seats, but if that doesn’t work I bet if I put them on their shortest setting I can stand them up next to me in a way that is around shoulder height so they wouldn’t be blocking views. Like I said, where their is a will, there is a way.
Fasten those seat belts...
They have elevators for people in your situation.
As for the crutches, I am sure you can get an usher to stash them away for you.
Never saw elevators there.
Then again, I’ve never had the need to look.
Fasten those seat belts...
by katie casey on Jun 24, 2011 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions
Third base side
They are right behind the last row of seats in line with the bullpen on the third base side. They don’t let anybody use them, but I am sure that they would give you a ride.
Didn't Santo use them to get up to the broadcast booth?
I spent 90% of my money on women and drink. The rest I wasted - George Best
Wrigley is a dump...
but its my dump. It was my fathers dump…, my grandfathers dump… and even my great grandfathers dump (who also saw games at West Side Grounds).
It’s now my kids dump too…the fifth generation. I hope to be alive to see the sixth generation enjoy it too.
Look, in the space the ball park occupies, there are limited options to notably increase revenue streams. No, it will NOT get torn down and re-built there, but just “better”.
But if the team can do these things, it will get a lot of good press:
- Improve the suites significantly (perhaps by even completely re-doing the upper deck) and not screw up the view of the terrace. The Cubs need to more than double the suite count and make them HIGHLY desirable for businesses.
- Modestly increase advertising. OK the Toyota sign seems poorly thought out (think it was just a backhand to Horseshoe). The oft-discussed ribbon board and [more] electronics beneath the iconic 1937 scoreboard could also help.
- Get the night game count up to 40 games+ while improving advertising dollars via TV ( “Cubs TV” ?? ). The Cubs need to explore their own TV network. If that means getting out of Comcast Sportsnet, so be it. Look at what YES TV does for the Yanks.
- Triangle bldg has been discussed a lot. It’s needed and we all know it’ll help. Indirectly it could also help lend to more non-baseball events at Wrigley. Remember the Cubs do NOT have to share 34% of their gate for concerts and other “events”.
Wrigley can survive thrive for another 20-30 years. But like all other things, it must be well thought out and planned accordingly. Ancillary stuff like more/better johns, wider concourses, better food yadda yadda yadda, will all come along for the ride when they re-do the skyboxes and perhaps, the upper deck.
Just win the next game...!
Nicely written Al
And I agree wholeheartedly. While there are many, many things that need adjustment and updating, it’s do-able, while maintaining the essence of why we all fell in love with the park and the franchise in the first place.
It’s home.
(And frankly, neither Mrs. Zeke nor I can figure out why Wrigley isn’t the greatest home field advantage in the NL. Heck, the Cubs should be winning at least 55 home games EVERY year.)
There are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. Who says baseball isn't a religion?
Heck, the Cubs should be winning at least 55 home games EVERY year.
Only with the best players.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
An Actual Engineering Report from Actual Engineers
I googled “wrigley field engineering report” report and found a Chicago Tribune article from after the falling concrete incident in 2005. The report cited in the article is from the engineering firm of Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates. From the report:
Nevertheless, “given their condition after 40 years of service, the upper-deck precast members should not require replacement in the near-term [certainly not in the next 10 years],” the report said.
Who are Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates? According to wikipedia – architects, engineers, and materials scientists specializing in the investigation, analysis, testing, and design of repairs for historic and contemporary buildings and structures.
What have they done? Soldier Field assessments, Wacker Drive reconstruction studies, Alcatraz cellhouse structural stabilization and seismic upgrade designs, and the I-35W Mississippi River bridge collaspe investigation.
If Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates is still providing engineer assessments to the Cubs, I feel confident that an accurate renovation plan could be developed for Wrigley Field.
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
by RiskyBusiness on Jun 24, 2011 1:23 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Exactly correct, and that corresponds to what my source told me about the structure of the park.
It’s fine for the foreseeable future. Whoever told Jayson Stark it couldn’t last “five years” was simply wrong.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
"Forseeable future" and "near-term" are not the same things
This 6 year old report said that they’d certainly last 10 years. So it doesn’t necessarily contradict or confirm anything.
Besides, as a company selling the team and stadium, owning the newspaper running the article, there’s a lot of reasons why they may have selectively quoted that report.
Then lets get a little closer
Here’s a link to an abstract of the full report – Wrigley Field: Forensic Investigation and Structural Analysis of the Friendly Confines. This is from the American Society of Civil Engineers web site. You have to pay for the full report, which was presented to the city.
From the abstract:
Structural analysis of the grandstands, on-site strain and vibration measurements during a crowded baseball game, and laboratory testing did not reveal any systemic structural deficiencies.
Also, the authors of the engineering report presented it to the Forensic Engineering Proceedings of the Fourth Forensic Engineering Congress, held in Cleveland, Ohio from October 6-9, 2006. So the report is pretty public.
I am highly doubtful of the premise that the Tribune selectively quoted from the engineering report. The engineer report was presented to the City of Chicago Building department. If there were any major points in the report that pointed to major structural flaws, they could easily be have been reported by now.
I don’t know of a more recent engineering report on Wrigley Field. I would assume a report was done as part of the due diligence of the Ricketts’ purchase of the Cubs. And a structural engineering report was probably used as part of the renovations plans last November.
So I have engineering report that are public vs. Jason Stark’s baseball source stating “The infrastructure is in brutal shape.” I’m going to stick with the engineering report.
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
by RiskyBusiness on Jun 24, 2011 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Time to play my old record
Hate them or love them, the Packers did it right. From what I’ve been told, Lambeau Field before the renovation had it’s issues. The Packers are a small-market team that had to think big-market to raise their revenues without making their product to expensive for their fans to consume. Through a controversial plan that involved a county-wide TIF district, the Packers went from this:
to this:
The atrium with hourly tours, hall of fame museum, restaurant, ice cream parlor, and expanded pro shop made Lambeau Field a year-rpund destination. Banquet areas and exhibition halls in the upstairs by renovated suites have played host to weddings, high school dances, marathon expos, and more, which brings even more people to Lambeau. Instead of the selling the naming rights to the field itself, it received comparable amounts by selling the rights to entrances and has signage all over the concourse.
The end result: When I finally got to go to a home Packers game, it was at the same stadium fans had gone to when it opened in 1957. While they will have to be creative in the future to keep on bringing in revenue, this COMPLETE RENOVATION of Lambeau Field makes it so when I am blessed to have kids some day, they will get to go the same stadium I went to. I see no reason why the Cubs can’t do this. It’s just a real shame we can’t work something out with the state to get one of their top tourist attractions some much needed money.
"You just don't know understand how frustrating this is"- Kevin Borseth
by TkGoUWGB on Jun 24, 2011 2:56 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
You're so right!
I live about a half hour south of Lambeau and try to get there as much as I can during the season. It is everything a stadium should be. It’s nice going to a game knowing you’re not going to have a bad seat because there isn’t one in the stadium. The atrium gives that newer feel to the stadium and the aluminum bleachers on a sub 30 degree night give it that old Lambeau feel. They did everything right with the renovations of Lambeau, hopefully they do the same with Wrigley.
Three things
1. Lambeau is a LOT newer than Wrigley. Big renovation only 46 years after original construction. That’s less than half the age of the original Weeghman Park, 1914 and just over half the age of the upper deck addition, 1927. The older the joint the more difficult and challenging reconstruction is w/o complete demolition.
2. Lambeau has significantly more additional land area to work with. Wrigley is bound by its 4 streets, including the small area that may one day be the triangle bldg. Clark, Addison, Waveland & Sheffield just can’t be shut down for an indeterminant time during re-construction. That adds to constuction logistics and cost.
3. Lambeau never had an upper level supported by open air poles, did it? The upper deck at Wrigley (coupled with the EXTREMELY limited land area) presents even more complications to renovation with the only exception again, complete demolition.
Just win the next game...!
This may sound crazy,
But I agree with both you and TkGoUWGB. I went to Lambeau Field before the renovations happened, in October 2000, but haven’t gone to a Packers game since.
You definitely have great points, as do TkGoUWGB, so I think both people are worth listening to here.
Minor League Contributing Writer, Athletics Nation.
State high point count: 3/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jun 24, 2011 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions
TkGoUWGB brings up great points
And IMHO the job they did up there was outstanding. Wrigley is just a much bigger challenge, though a lot can be done.
Just win the next game...!
Yes.
At Wrigley, the constraints are much tighter than they are at Lambeau (no TWSS, please), so there is less room to work with.
Minor League Contributing Writer, Athletics Nation.
State high point count: 3/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jun 24, 2011 6:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Completely agree with you Al
Its just a bunch of minor things that Wrigley needs. But it’s a matter of ACTUALLY DOING THEM.
Also, on the jumbotron subject. I feel like I’ve brought it up before. But the building out in left center, (has an advertisement on it for a casino i think on the roof, used to be budwieser) why can’t the Cubs buy that building and put a jumbotron on top of it? Best of both worlds, keeps the ballpark’s old style, doesnt draw away from the landmark scoreboard in center, but it provides video replay and a bajillion amount of info right in front of the fans.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bleed Cubbie Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Chicago Cubs Game Threads
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
