For the most part, I'm excited about the likely Wrigley renovation, but while I do not have a problem with the five-year timetable, I'm trying to think of a way it might be done in three or four that could be beneficial to all parties involved (although it should be noted that the Cubs may not want to shorten it).
The decision appears to have been made not to vacate Wrigley, but what if the team played at Miller Park in April, May and September for the next three years and at Wrigley in June, July and August? This could have many benefits to most parties involved:
- It would enable the project to be done in three or four seasons since it would extend prime construction time by three months each year (for these workers, the toughest time is the heat of the summer) - leaving only June, July and August where they could not work (and even then, some things could be accomplished while the team was on road trips or no game was taking place). It would also allow for better weather throughout the season, since Miller Park has a retractable roof.
- For the Cubs, it would allow for some of the revenue-producing enhancements to kick in sooner; would increase demand for tickets in June, July and August at Wrigley; perhaps bring in some new fans; and draw wider attention to the renovation.
- For the Brewers, it would be an added revenue source and could alert more people to the appeal of Miller Park.
- For the city of Milwaukee, it would also be a revenue boost.
I'm sure there are more benefits, as well as several negatives. After all, you'd think if this idea had merit, the Cubs would have already pitched it. But what do my fellow Cubs fans think?