clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

The Cubs Are NOT Playing At The Cell In 2013

A report (since refuted) on Monday said the Cubs might play a year at the Cell while Wrigley renovations happen.

Jonathan Daniel

A report Monday evening on NBC5 in Chicago stated that the Cubs were "in talks" to play the 2013 season at the home of the White Sox, US Cellular Field, colloquially known as "The Cell".

This was quickly refuted in this article and also by Fox Chicago. I confirmed this myself late Monday.

The Cubs have gone on record multiple times as saying that when renovations to Wrigley Field begin, that they would be done during the offseason and also during road trips during the season. At the moment, no announcement has been made and the last thing I heard, the target date for completion of renovations was 2016, not anything that would suggest that construction would start in 2013.

But what if the Cubs did decide, sometime in the future, that they'd rather play a year at the Cell and renovate Wrigley that way? After the jump, a few thoughts.

You might think that, as much as I love Wrigley Field, I'd be totally against even a one-year temporary move to the Cell.

And you'd be wrong about that. The point of the one-year move would be to renovate Wrigley Field so that it could last another 50, or 75, or even 100 more years. That, of course, I'm all for. Wrigley has a small footprint, but does have the triangle property on which the Cubs are planning on building... something. The proposed Triangle Building has morphed several times, and the Cubs haven't released any specific plans as to what's going to go in there. Presumably, it would include improved player facilities as well as fan amenities. Renovations to the ballpark itself could include new premier seating as well as other fan amenities, bigger clubhouses, etc.

One year at the Cell in exchange for all that? Sign me up.

I will note, however, that some Cubs fans refuse to set foot in the home of the White Sox. To me, that's a ridiculous attitude to take. The Cell is a perfectly nice baseball stadium. Over its 21-year existence, there have been changes and renovations made there that make it more ballpark-like and less flying-saucer-like, which it was when it first opened. Sightlines, at least in the lower deck, are excellent; food choices are generally good, and I have been there many times, including for some games not involving the Cubs, just because I love baseball.

The Yankees moved to Shea Stadium for three seasons, from 1973-75, so that the old Yankee Stadium (since demolished for the new one that opened in 2009) could be renovated. The Yankees won nine pennants and six World Series in the 33 seasons from the reopening in 1976 through their final season there in 2008. We'd take that during the first 33 years of a renovated Wrigley Field, I think.

I still don't think this will ever happen, and certainly not in 2013; again, the Cubs have been consistent in their statements that they intend to do Wrigley renovations while remaining in the ballpark. But if they did decide to move to the South Side for one year sometime in the future in order to bring Wrigley Field into the 21st Century, I'm perfectly fine with that.