Chicago City Council trying to sterilize Wrigleyville

[SouthSideRyan]

 

If the fans will still attend no matter what even in a new ballpark, then we're screwed.

 

Lower payroll doesn't always equal a worse product, BTW. That's pretty interesting logic on your part. Did you miss the Marlins, Angels, and White Sox World Series recently?

 

So what exactly is your argument? That the Trib doesn't mind spending money on the team, but they just don't care if it wins? Isn't that completely backasswards logic? Considering they'd make more money by winning with competent management? That is if they're the money grubbing take advantage of lemmings owners you portray them as.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Because, as we all know, the Cubs have made no effort to win over the last few years. That's why they gave Prior a huge contract straight out of college. That's why they traded for DLee and immediately signed him for 3 years. That's why they gave Aramis Ramirez a nice extension right before Opening Day last year. That's why they've picked up (at least at the time) very good relievers every off-season for the last three or four years. That's why they signed Sammy to a gargantuan contract back in the early 2000s. That's why they gave Wood a rich extension.

 

I could go on, but I think you get the point, which is that this ownership group has actively tried to win. Wrigley's not holding us back, injuries, bad managing and suboptimal performance are.

 

Soul's convoluted logic(correct me if I remember wrong) says that if we had a new ballpark, then we wouldn't have a guaranteed revenue through ticket prices. Then in order for ownership to make money, they'd have to make sure the product was good, which means firing front office people in addition to supplying a high payroll. We'll ignore the parts about Cub fans coming out no matter the stadium, and that new management(while I'm certainly not against getting rid of Hendry/Baker/etc.) is no guarantee of success. Even if fans stopped coming to the new stadium, then any owner ever is going to lower payroll, which will lead to a worse product, and so on...

 

If the fans will still attend no matter what even in a new ballpark, then we're screwed.

 

Lower payroll doesn't always equal a worse product, BTW. That's pretty interesting logic on your part. Did you miss the Marlins, Angels, and White Sox World Series recently?

 

So if a team can't be successful with a high payroll, lowering it gives it a chance to succeed? I don't know why I'm even arguing this after "If the fans will still attend no matter what even in a new ballpark, then we're screwed.".

[rocket]

thank god the red sox got rid of fenway for a more modern ballpark before they finally won a world series. boston's new modern park filtered out the bandwagon fan. without that move, they were screwed.

[Soul]

Because, as we all know, the Cubs have made no effort to win over the last few years. That's why they gave Prior a huge contract straight out of college. That's why they traded for DLee and immediately signed him for 3 years. That's why they gave Aramis Ramirez a nice extension right before Opening Day last year. That's why they've picked up (at least at the time) very good relievers every off-season for the last three or four years. That's why they signed Sammy to a gargantuan contract back in the early 2000s. That's why they gave Wood a rich extension.

 

I could go on, but I think you get the point, which is that this ownership group has actively tried to win. Wrigley's not holding us back, injuries, bad managing and suboptimal performance are.

 

Soul's convoluted logic(correct me if I remember wrong) says that if we had a new ballpark, then we wouldn't have a guaranteed revenue through ticket prices. Then in order for ownership to make money, they'd have to make sure the product was good, which means firing front office people in addition to supplying a high payroll. We'll ignore the parts about Cub fans coming out no matter the stadium, and that new management(while I'm certainly not against getting rid of Hendry/Baker/etc.) is no guarantee of success. Even if fans stopped coming to the new stadium, then any owner ever is going to lower payroll, which will lead to a worse product, and so on...

 

If the fans will still attend no matter what even in a new ballpark, then we're screwed.

 

Lower payroll doesn't always equal a worse product, BTW. That's pretty interesting logic on your part. Did you miss the Marlins, Angels, and White Sox World Series recently?

 

So if a team can't be successful with a high payroll, lowering it gives it a chance to succeed? I don't know why I'm even arguing this after "If the fans will still attend no matter what even in a new ballpark, then we're screwed.".

 

I'm not sure why I'm arguing with you, either, to be honest. Some ballclubs win with a high payroll philosophy, some win with a lower payroll philosophy. Just because a team had to switch from one to the other doesn't mean they automatically lose. Marlins have won it both ways in handful of years, while we continued to lose. There's a ballclub that needs to win to put people in the seats. And so they do.

 

You're a smart guy, so figure it out.

 

I'm going to bed.

[Soul]

 

If the fans will still attend no matter what even in a new ballpark, then we're screwed.

 

Lower payroll doesn't always equal a worse product, BTW. That's pretty interesting logic on your part. Did you miss the Marlins, Angels, and White Sox World Series recently?

 

So what exactly is your argument? That the Trib doesn't mind spending money on the team, but they just don't care if it wins? Isn't that completely backasswards logic? Considering they'd make more money by winning with competent management? That is if they're the money grubbing take advantage of lemmings owners you portray them as.

 

Spending money isn't the same as a commitment to win. Not sure what it will take to get that through people's thick skulls, but hey----the record speaks for itself.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

If the fans will still attend no matter what even in a new ballpark, then we're screwed.

 

Lower payroll doesn't always equal a worse product, BTW. That's pretty interesting logic on your part. Did you miss the Marlins, Angels, and White Sox World Series recently?

 

So what exactly is your argument? That the Trib doesn't mind spending money on the team, but they just don't care if it wins? Isn't that completely backasswards logic? Considering they'd make more money by winning with competent management? That is if they're the money grubbing take advantage of lemmings owners you portray them as.

 

Spending money isn't the same as a commitment to win. Not sure what it will take to get that through people's thick skulls, but hey----the record speaks for itself.

 

BUT WHY WOULDN'T THE TRIB COMMITT TO WIN IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO SPEND ANYMORE MONEY??? IT WOULD MAKE THEM MORE MONEY THAT WAY.

[J.R.]

The Marlins' park is so bad that it drives fans away, a major factor in the dismantling of both of their championship teams.

 

The '97 "White Flag Trade" was indirectly brought about by the suckiness of the Sox' park - Reinsdorf was bleeding cash, and decided to pull the plug.

 

Popular, moneymaking parks are an asset, not a handicap. Stadiums that no one likes are a major hinderance to profit and sustained winning.

[srbin84]

The Trib pays enough money to win the the world series, Hendry just has mispent big chunks of it in recent years.

[Soul]

The Marlins' park is so bad that it drives fans away, a major factor in the dismantling of both of their championship teams.

 

The '97 "White Flag Trade" was indirectly brought about by the suckiness of the Sox' park - Reinsdorf was bleeding cash, and decided to pull the plug.

 

Popular, moneymaking parks are an asset, not a handicap. Stadiums that no one likes are a major hinderance to profit and sustained winning.

 

Yeah, but those teams have won the World Series. Isn't that the goal?

[erik316wttn]

The Marlins' park is so bad that it drives fans away, a major factor in the dismantling of both of their championship teams.

 

The '97 "White Flag Trade" was indirectly brought about by the suckiness of the Sox' park - Reinsdorf was bleeding cash, and decided to pull the plug.

 

Popular, moneymaking parks are an asset, not a handicap. Stadiums that no one likes are a major hinderance to profit and sustained winning.

 

Yeah, but those teams have won the World Series. Isn't that the goal?

 

Yes. But you still haven't explained how tearing down Wrigley is going to help us accomplish that goal.

[South Side]

The '97 "White Flag Trade" was indirectly brought about by the suckiness of the Sox' park - Reinsdorf was bleeding cash, and decided to pull the plug.

 

Popular, moneymaking parks are an asset, not a handicap. Stadiums that no one likes are a major hinderance to profit and sustained winning.

 

Actually, most Sox fans that stopped attending did so as a reaction to the 1994 strike, not the "suckiness of the ballpark". Sox attendance averaged 33,500 per game from '91 until the strike in '94 (actually better than the Cubs). Even if you exclude '91 on the basis that the park was new, the team still averaged 32,000 per year, pretty good at the time, and far better than they ever did at Old Comiskey. It wasn't until '95 that it dropped to the 20k level it hung at for a while. If it was a reaction to the park, it would have dropped in '92, as everyone had their chance to form an opinion by then. You can't tell me it took four years to decide that the parked sucked, although the media certainly tried to sell that point.

 

And yes, there is a reason that most of the older parks have been torn down, and most of the new parks have higher attendance than their predecessors. The Cubs can market Wrigley as one of the few remaining old parks successfully only because most of the other old parks have been replaced, not because it is necessarily better than the modern parks. Being unique is marketable, it brings in tourists.

[goonys evil twin]

The Cubs can market Wrigley as one of the few remaining old parks successfully only because most of the other old parks have been replaced, not because it is necessarily better than the modern parks. Being unique is marketable, it brings in tourists.

 

Wrigley was bringing in tourists and marketed as part of the package long before all these modern parks started popping up.

[Guest]

Miller Park is just a more fun place to watch a ballgame than Wrigley now... and staff who seem genuinely glad to have you there, even if you are a Cub fan.

Of course they're happy to see Cub fans. If it weren't for us they probably wouldn't have jobs. ;)

[J.R.]

Yeah, but those teams have won the World Series. Isn't that the goal?

 

I'd argue that both won in spite of their small fan bases and rotten parks, not because of them.

 

The Marlins couldn't generate the revenue necessary to maintain a championship team. It remains to be seen if the Sox can, but note that they've drastically remade their park in the image of the old timers in an effort to make the place attractive.

 

I suppose the point of all this is that you won't find a single GM who sees a crappy, half-empty park as a competitive advantage.

 

Wrigley should be the perfect situation for a home team - opponents have to face the Cubs in front of ravenous crowds, at odd hours and on a field surrounded by bricks. The park isn't substandard; it's the Cubs' own fault that they can't take advantage of what should be the greatest home field in the league.

[Soul]

The Marlins' park is so bad that it drives fans away, a major factor in the dismantling of both of their championship teams.

 

The '97 "White Flag Trade" was indirectly brought about by the suckiness of the Sox' park - Reinsdorf was bleeding cash, and decided to pull the plug.

 

Popular, moneymaking parks are an asset, not a handicap. Stadiums that no one likes are a major hinderance to profit and sustained winning.

 

Yeah, but those teams have won the World Series. Isn't that the goal?

 

Yes. But you still haven't explained how tearing down Wrigley is going to help us accomplish that goal.

 

I have tried to. But alas, it appears my explanation is not acceptable :(

 

I just want to win before I die. I sat and watched my Dad die without ever having seen his beloved Cubs win it. I don't want to be the same. And you know, I don't think that's going to happen when the Trib can count on a packed house to watch a last place ballclub.

[goonys evil twin]

I think the idea that Wrigley hurts the Cubs because it always sells out and therefore there is no motivation to win is complete BS.

 

First off, it didn't always sell out, or come close really. That's a relatively new phenomenon. How would you explain all the pre sell-out failure? Second, the only way you could defend this claim is if the stadium kept selling out, and ownership stopped providing ample money for management to use to win. That's not the case. The Cubs have been one of the very few teams in baseball to increase spending on payroll each year this decade. Most other teams cut back, some very significantly (Dodgers/Braves). The Cubs kept spending. Third, the recent trend of sell-outs is directly related to the recent trend of the Cubs actually being a threat to win it all. 98 was a taste, but 2003 was the real deal that increased demand. The tickets sold in 2004 were because of the success in 2003. Fans in general still see this as a team that can make some noice, and that's why they will spend. Why do fans see this as a team that will make some noice? Because ownership gave management enough money to get some real players on the team. Ownership knows that if they return to the sub .500 seasons like 2005 on a consistent basis, that demand will diminish, revenue will diminish.

 

They are never going to be a top 2 or 3 payroll ballclub. But they will be in the next group of teams. Personally I can live with that, and every other fan should be able to as well.

 

The Cubs failures are entirely due to management failings, not ownership's lack of motivation to win, or Wrigley freaking Field. White Sox ownership and Florida ownership put no more effort into their winning seasons than the Cubs put into their disappointing season. It's not about motivation for ownership, it's about management decisions and execution by on field personel.

[J.R.]

Actually, most Sox fans that stopped attending did so as a reaction to the 1994 strike, not the "suckiness of the ballpark". Sox attendance averaged 33,500 per game from '91 until the strike in '94 (actually better than the Cubs). Even if you exclude '91 on the basis that the park was new, the team still averaged 32,000 per year, pretty good at the time, and far better than they ever did at Old Comiskey. It wasn't until '95 that it dropped to the 20k level it hung at for a while. If it was a reaction to the park, it would have dropped in '92, as everyone had their chance to form an opinion by then. You can't tell me it took four years to decide that the parked sucked, although the media certainly tried to sell that point.

 

The Cubs' attendance took a hit too, but they managed to outdraw the Sox in '97 with a horrible, horrible team. Had Jerry been able to put more people in the seats, he could have stemmed the red ink and kept chasing Cleveland. A great park would have helped him do that.

 

And yes, there is a reason that most of the older parks have been torn down, and most of the new parks have higher attendance than their predecessors. The Cubs can market Wrigley as one of the few remaining old parks successfully only because most of the other old parks have been replaced, not because it is necessarily better than the modern parks. Being unique is marketable, it brings in tourists.

 

Most of Wrigley's peers were demolished because they were piss poor or their surrounding neighborhoods could no longer support a park. Wrigley and Fenway remain because they were worth keeping, not because of some random circumstance.

[Soul]

I think the idea that Wrigley hurts the Cubs because it always sells out and therefore there is no motivation to win is complete BS.

 

First off, it didn't always sell out, or come close really. That's a relatively new phenomenon. How would you explain all the pre sell-out failure? Second, the only way you could defend this claim is if the stadium kept selling out, and ownership stopped providing ample money for management to use to win. That's not the case. The Cubs have been one of the very few teams in baseball to increase spending on payroll each year this decade. Most other teams cut back, some very significantly (Dodgers/Braves). The Cubs kept spending. Third, the recent trend of sell-outs is directly related to the recent trend of the Cubs actually being a threat to win it all. 98 was a taste, but 2003 was the real deal that increased demand. The tickets sold in 2004 were because of the success in 2003. Fans in general still see this as a team that can make some noice, and that's why they will spend. Why do fans see this as a team that will make some noice? Because ownership gave management enough money to get some real players on the team. Ownership knows that if they return to the sub .500 seasons like 2005 on a consistent basis, that demand will diminish, revenue will diminish.

 

They are never going to be a top 2 or 3 payroll ballclub. But they will be in the next group of teams. Personally I can live with that, and every other fan should be able to as well.

 

The Cubs failures are entirely due to management failings, not ownership's lack of motivation to win, or Wrigley freaking Field. White Sox ownership and Florida ownership put no more effort into their winning seasons than the Cubs put into their disappointing season. It's not about motivation for ownership, it's about management decisions and execution by on field personel.

 

How can a ballclub be this bad for so long if it is really trying? It doesn't make sense to me. If you're putting forth the effort, eventually the payoff will come, won't it? It always has in my life. I can trace every success in my life to effort, and any sustained failure to lack of sustained effort. Sometimes you fail when you really try, sure. But 100 years? Even 20 years.

 

I can't explain the pre-tourist-attraction Cubbies lack of success, as you said. Maybe they just didn't give a damn about anything back then? But I can tell you most of the country expects the Cubs to be a non-playoff team this year, including many Cub fans. Hasn't stopped the gate, though. I don't think fans are buying 2006 tickets at the predicted sell-out rates because they think the Cubs are a genuine contender. Maybe in 2004, yeah. But my point is, if you are the Trib why continue at 2004's level of effort when the revenue stream is largely the same?

 

As you call tell, I'm just very frustrated. Sorry...

[goonys evil twin]

How can a ballclub be this bad for so long if it is really trying? It doesn't make sense to me. If you're putting forth the effort, eventually the payoff will come, won't it?

 

Incompetent leadership has been the problem, year in and year out. Piss poor management decisions have killed this team. And I'd say there was less effort by ownership years ago than there is now. They put a ton of effort into turning the farm system around, and went after the top of the line executive at the time, MacPhail, and went after the biggest name manager available (not to mention, most overpaid). But they've made a bunch of terrible personel moves through the years.

 

 

But my point is, if you are the Trib why continue at 2004's level of effort when the revenue stream is largely the same?

 

Because the revenue stream will not be largely the same. Greater success brings far greater revenue. More sub .500 seasons will hurt revenue. Ownership knows this.

 

The 2006 team is just as capable of winning as the 2005 and 2004 teams, they have continued with the same effort. It's not a matter of effort, it's a matter of management efficiently utilizing the resources provided by ownership. Could they pony up a little more? Sure, every owner in every city in every sport could pony up a little more. But Cubs ownership is not any worse than 95% of the rest of the sporting world. Cubs ownership is not the reason why other teams have had more success. STL, ATL and HOU owners aren't putting in more effort than the Cubs ownership. The difference is the management of those teams have done a better job.

 

As you call tell, I'm just very frustrated. Sorry...

 

You don't have to apologize for your frustration. We're all frustrated. But I think you can do a better job at aiming your frustration at the right party. The Cubs don't lose because of Wrigley. They don't lose because of ownerhsip. They lose becuase of management. Or should I say they fail to win enough because of management? Either way, the level of effort provided by ownership should be more than enough for competent management to make this a consistently successful team, and if that happens, they will win it all some day.

[SouthSideRyan]

Step 1: Horrible Ballpark and Low payroll

Step 2: ?

Step 3: World Series Champs!

[goonys evil twin]

Step 1: Horrible Ballpark and Low payroll

Step 2: ?

Step 3: World Series Champs!

 

Steal underpants?

[South Side]

Most of Wrigley's peers were demolished because they were piss poor or their surrounding neighborhoods could no longer support a park. Wrigley and Fenway remain because they were worth keeping, not because of some random circumstance.

 

Most of Wrigley's peers were torn down in the 60's. While I'm too young to remember, from pictures it appears that many were every bit as nice as Wrigley (and definitely as nice as Fenway). A few were victimized by teams moving westward, but most were replaced because the trend was toward huge, circular, interstate convenient astroturfed nightmares that would support not only baseball but the influential NFL/AFL as well.

 

If baseball owners of the 60's would not have believed that modern, oversized stadiums were the wave of the future, perhaps a few more of the older stadiums could have survived if properly maintained. While the last couple of decades of Wrigley ownership didn't accomplish much on the field, at least they didn't make the mistake so many other teams made.

[J.R.]

Most of Wrigley's peers were torn down in the 60's. While I'm too young to remember, from pictures it appears that many were every bit as nice as Wrigley (and definitely as nice as Fenway). A few were victimized by teams moving westward, but most were replaced because the trend was toward huge, circular, interstate convenient astroturfed nightmares that would support not only baseball but the influential NFL/AFL as well.

 

Shibe Park was a very nice park in the beginning, as was old Comiskey; both were allowed to fall apart.

 

Crosley Field became untenable once Interstate 75 was built just across the left field fence.

 

Forbes Field was made less than ideal because of the ever-expanding university campus that had it landlocked.

 

Tiger Stadium remained in use because the Tigers' owners saw the folly in moving to Pontiac with the Lions in the '70s, but the surrounding neighborhood eventually crumbled, leaving ownership dead set against any further renovations by the 1990s.

 

Ebbets Field and the Polo Grounds were of course abandoned by westward expansion; the Mets played at the latter at their inception, but by all accounts the place had been let go, and was in shambles in those days.

 

Wrigley and Fenway are here now because their owners believed in their value and their respective neighborhoods didn't betray them.

 

If baseball owners of the 60's would not have believed that modern, oversized stadiums were the wave of the future, perhaps a few more of the older stadiums could have survived if properly maintained. While the last couple of decades of Wrigley ownership didn't accomplish much on the field, at least they didn't make the mistake so many other teams made.

 

I agree 100%. With the exception of the Cards, those stadiums ripped the soul out of every team that took one.

[SouthSideRyan]

Step 1: Horrible Ballpark and Low payroll

Step 2: ?

Step 3: World Series Champs!

 

Steal underpants?

 

Wow, 5 minutes. Impressive.

[DtownPride]

Being from the Detroit area, we had some of the similiar thoughts about Tiger Stadium, yet there are some differences too.

 

Being only 23, I remember going to Tiger Stadium as a kid and teenager and loving it. It was magical to see the first look at the grass as you walked from the concourse to the stands. I loved Tiger Stadium.

 

But as attendance dwindled, as the facilities got worse, and as the ballpark did not look as good, it was not too painful to accept a new park. Tiger Stadium was great, but it just seemed like it was time for a change. People were not coming to Tiger Stadium most of the 90s. The team was bad, the stadium was old, and attendance was horrible. Attendance only perked up in 1999 when it was Tiger Stadium's last year.

 

I love Comerica Park. It seems to fit Detroit so well. It really feels open and a part of the city, and has been/will continue to be a key to improving Dowtown Detroit. It seems to fit the attempted resurgence of Detroit.

 

However, from an outsider looking at Wrigley Field, I would be all for preserving the park. Tiger Stadium was a huge fortress, with full upperdeck all the way around....a lot of structure. Wrigley Field, with no outfield upper decks, less structure, seems better able to last a long time and be refurbished. While Tiger Stadium represents baseball history to a lot of folks, Wrigley Field is a true baseball icon. I could not imagine or want the Cubs to play anywhere else. It seems a lot of Chicago is already great, and it seems Wrigleyville is a great place to be on game days/nights. Attendance is good, and I just think getting a new ball park anytime soon would not really be necessary.

 

It is interesting to note that attendance at Comerica Park has not been great, but is good in June, July, August, and is improving as the Tigers are. So a new park does not guarantee great attendance for many years, ultimately the product dictates that. Because as I mentioned earlier, the Tigers were not drawing well at Tiger Stadium either in the 90s, despite a classic, historic ballpark everybody here loved.