Just Another Boring Off-Day

If the Zell deal goes through, it would be smart to divide the park and the team.  They will get more if sold seperately.  The new owner of the team may want the park, but likely would be outbid by someone with a plan for the property.

And yes, the Meigs site makes no sense at all.

I grew up in "Wrigleyville" before it was Wrigelyville. It was just plain Lakeview back then, before Wrigley Field became an icon and the bars sprouted up like dandelions. Back then, it was a middle class to working class neighborhood, and slightly sleazy, especially right around the ballpark. I don't think it would go back to being that way without the Cubs. The bars might suffer, but the ethnic restaurants and the lakefront would keep people coming to the neighborhood.

I'm coming around to the opinion some others have expressed here and that Trib columnist Rick Morrissey wrote about today (it's actually an idea I had about 20 years ago, but never shared with anyone except my brother, so I get no credit for it):

Keep the bleachers and scoreboard, the ivy-covered walls and the Clark and Addison Wrigley Field sign. Then take down the existing grandstand and build something more practical and modern (but keeping the traditional brick wall, old-fashioned lights, etc) where the grandstand now sits.

This isn't my favorite solution (which would be keeping the park as it is and upgrading where necessary), but perhaps it is the most realistic if we want to keep the essence of Wrigley (the neighborhood, the bleachers, the view of neighboring apartment buildings) long into the 21st century.

HOWEVER!!!!!!  It will be the problem if the Trib sells the park to a different owner.  If you are paying >600 mil for this team, I would think you would want to own the park.

I predict (bow down to Mike Murphy) that if the park is sold seperately, the team will move to a new park by 2013.

If the city green lighted a new park, do you not think the city council would revoke landmark status?  It happened to a building in the loop a short while ago.  

It's a problem because Wrigley is not a home park that can be taken advantage of.  It plays as 3 different ballparks and you simply cannot build a team to take advantage of Wrigley when that's true.  If you build a team around power you struggle when the wind blows in.  Cross winds help some while hurting others.  

You build a park and then you build your team around that park.  The hope is that you dominate at home and play .500 on the road.  The Cubs will never dominate at home over long stretches of time because it simply cannot be done.  Not unless you expand the roster to 35 or so and then you're pretty much eliminating any advantage in any home park.  

Wrigley is a huge ballpark when the wind blows in and it's a tiny yard when it blows out.  The Cubs cannot and will not consistently win with Wrigley Field as their home park.  It's impossible.  Yes, literally, it is impossible for that to happen.  Look no further than the Rockies who need two teams to win (one for home games and one for the road games).  The Cubs need 3 just to play at Wrigley.  

Sooner or later they'll win a World Series at Wrigley and then they'll go back to sucking for years and years because the Cubs lack the one thing that every single good team in baseball requires--a home park to build your team around so that you're better at winning baseball in that park than the other team.  

The best thing that could happen to the Cubs is that Wrigley is condemned forcing them to build a new park...hopefully miles and miles away from the lake.  

There's a reason home teams win 55% of the time in baseball and it has nothing to do with the crowd as it might in football or basketball.  It's because teams are built around their home park.  They are built so that you can take advantage of it where others are not likely able to, or are less likely to.