Walter E. Smith Field?

[YearofDaCubs]

What isn't a joke is Wrigley giving up the bleacher's naming rights. What a sell out organization.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/output/cubs/cst-nws-bud31.html

 

Who cares? It's discreet and it's the world we live in.

 

Don't you have better things to worry about this team than them selling naming rights to the bleachers? Or is it just another area for you to criticize?

Why do you care what I worry about? If there's something I like or don't like about the Cubs organization it makes sense to post it on a Cubs board. Last time I checked NSBB.com was a Cubs board. You have a tendency to call out a lot of people on this board who openly criticize the Cubs. I don't know what your story is and frankly, I don't care but there are a lot of things I don't like what this organization does.

 

You actually think it's the organizations idea? I would bet both my limbs it's straight down from the Tribune Company.

I don't know from whom it's coming from. I personally believe that Wrigley Field because of its landmark status and the fact it is one of the oldest stadiums out there should not be touched. I'm not a fan of the restaurant/bleachers upgrades they have done. IMO some things are best left alone and I think Wrigley is one of those places.

 

Well to me, it reeks of the Tribune Company. Their stock is down, they are looking for ways to make money, this seems to be an easy way. I don't think the Cubs themselves are struggling for money, I really would alot of money this is a decision from the very top down.

 

Which is why the Cubs need to be sold. I mean I don't like it myself, but I don't really care, and I'd rather they field a winning playoff team than focus on naming rights to their bleachers.

I think we can all agree that we would rather see the Cubs make the playoffs than argue names etc. You are right though, it might be best for us fans and the Cubs org to be sold to somebody else other than stay connected to a publicly traded company.

[SouthSideRyan]

.

 

Which is why the Cubs need to be sold. I mean I don't like it myself, but I don't really care, and I'd rather they field a winning playoff team than focus on naming rights to their bleachers.

 

Yep, that's why Jacque Jones is in RF, because Hendry was too busy thinking about what beer to sell the bleachers to.

[Soul]

 

I do. But I still say if they're going to replace the real Wrigley piece-by-piece with new construction, and then sell each part for extra revenue, then I'd rather dispense with the coy disguises and just build an actual modern state-of-the-art ballpark.

 

between Daley/city counsel and Wrigley being listed on the National Registry of Historic Places, the coy disguises are necessary. there are many politicians telling them what they cannot do with their building, so they have to jump through the hoops and do what they can.

 

Exactly, and if they ever did build a modern stadium, they'd have to do so in a boring suburb somewhere. I don't care about the physical structure of Wrigley nearly as I do the location. I love that the stadium is in a great neighborhood in the middle of the city. So many other ballparks are glorified rest stops on the side of a highway, or part of a city's industrial area, surrounded by abandoned or broken down buildings. I hope they keep improving Wrigley bit by bit in it's current location, because I don't want to drive to a McBallpark in Naperville in the future to see the Cubs.

 

ne'er truer words been spoken.

 

Give me McBallpark in Naperville. I'll take the Cubs with me and you can have HiTops and Murphy's.

 

j/k. Sort of. I mean, are you saying Murphy's is all that matters, even if the renovations result in terrible ballpark?

[goonys evil twin]

j/k. Sort of. I mean, are you saying Murphy's is all that matters, even if the renovations result in terrible ballpark?

 

No, I'm saying I don't see the renovations as turning it into a terrible ballpark, and as long as they can keep it viable, I prefer it where it is than in the suburbs. I only go to a few games a year. I'll still watch games wherever they are played, and be the same fan. But it will be a lot less fun to go out there for a game or two if they are in the burbs.

 

I think the uproar over the changes is just the typical fight against change of any kind. I think it will actually end up better, and a few years later people aren't going to be longing for the days when it was something else.

 

I think the location is much better than the stadium itself, even though I love the stadium. I'd rather they build a whole new park on the current location than move the current park to a different location.

 

But first and foremost on my mind is always the team.

[Soul]

j/k. Sort of. I mean, are you saying Murphy's is all that matters, even if the renovations result in terrible ballpark?

 

No, I'm saying I don't see the renovations as turning it into a terrible ballpark, and as long as they can keep it viable, I prefer it where it is than in the suburbs. I only go to a few games a year. I'll still watch games wherever they are played, and be the same fan. But it will be a lot less fun to go out there for a game or two if they are in the burbs.

 

I think the uproar over the changes is just the typical fight against change of any kind. I think it will actually end up better, and a few years later people aren't going to be longing for the days when it was something else.

 

I think the location is much better than the stadium itself, even though I love the stadium. I'd rather they build a whole new park on the current location than move the current park to a different location.

 

But first and foremost on my mind is always the team.

 

They could do this. But I never hear anyone talk about it, and with the renovations being done I feel pretty safe saying it isn't an option being discussed seriously. But I would have preferred it to the piece-by-piece upgrade path.

 

The Grandstands. That's going to be the determining factor. They eventually must be updated, and it will be a large project which will contribute greatly to the future look and feel of the stadium.

 

I have no problem with the neighborhood----I love it. I was born and raised in Naperville though, so I can't join in the popular hate-Naperville sentiment.

[goonys evil twin]

They could do this. But I never hear anyone talk about it, and with the renovations being done I feel pretty safe saying it isn't an option being discussed seriously. But I would have preferred it to the piece-by-piece upgrade path.

 

The Grandstands. That's going to be the determining factor. They eventually must be updated, and it will be a large project which will contribute greatly to the future look and feel of the stadium.

 

I have no problem with the neighborhood----I love it. I was born and raised in Naperville though, so I can't join in the popular hate-Naperville sentiment.

 

I don't think there is any way they could rebuild on the same location. The city would not allow it, or they would make it so difficult, that they would almost be forced to go elsewhere.

 

I don't mean to pick on Naperville, I just picked a name. I just hate the idea of them moving to any suburb. It would be a boon to whichever town they choose, but a bummer for me, and probably most other Cubs fans.

[Wilson A2000]

As part of the deal, Walter E. Smithe will be putting a permanent dome on top of the field. Their architects did a terrific job blending the traditional, old Wrigley Field with modern amenities. A new baseball venue is a great gift to the city of Chicago.

[Roast]

April Fools, people. April Fools.

 

ITS MARCH FREAKIN 31ST

 

 

DONT SCARE ME LIKE THAT.

 

 

*sigh*

[Cubfanintheknow]

Smithe brothers are now running commercials saying they are NOT buying the naming rights and are not going to be re-naming Wrigley Field.

 

But they accomplished their mission. There sure was a lot of talk about their little scheme.

[ConstableRabbit]

Hahaha my mom and barber each brought this up to me this morning. I was thinking oh man, some folk are so gullible. A DOME?!?!?! :lol:

 

However, "Snakes on a Plane War Memorial Stadium" sounds like a great idea to me.

[VicCub]

Wrigley Co should pay for the naming rights or we should sell them to some other company. Wrigleys has gotten 25 years of free advertising since they sold the team to the Trib.

 

I believe that Wrigley Field's original name was Cubs Park. We should either change it back or sell the rights and add payroll.

 

If it will have a corporate name anyway, why not make some dough?

[Jon]

Wrigley Co should pay for the naming rights or we should sell them to some other company. Wrigleys has gotten 25 years of free advertising since they sold the team to the Trib.

 

I believe that Wrigley Field's original name was Cubs Park. We should either change it back or sell the rights and add payroll.

 

If it will have a corporate name anyway, why not make some dough?

Weeghman Park lasted for about 6 years and then Cubs Park for 6 more. It was named in honor of owner William Wrigley, though, not the Wrigley company. The only difference between that and Comiskey Park is that Wrigley also had his name attached to his gum company. Otherwise it's the same concept.

[J.R.]

So long as the Doublemint Twins are kept off the scoreboard, I don't think the Wrigley Field name is doing the gum company much good. There's no "Wrigley Gum" - it's all Freedent, Doublemint, Extra, etc.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Weeghman Park lasted for about 6 years and then Cubs Park for 6 more. It was named in honor of owner William Wrigley, though, not the Wrigley company. The only difference between that and Comiskey Park is that Wrigley also had his name attached to his gum company. Otherwise it's the same concept.

 

Exactly. It'd be like changing the name of Fenway Park or Yankee Stadium. You just don't do it.

 

I'm realistic though, and I know that someday it's going to change. But I hope that when they do change it, they do it respectfully and go with something like, "Budweiser presents Wrigley Field", or "Wrigley Field presented by Google". (Company names are just fillers)

[VicCub]

Wrigley Field may have been named in honor of Mr. Wrigley, but at some point Wrigley's became a corporation. Commiskey and Fenway are not corporations.

 

If we have a corp named field (which we do- Wrigley's is a corporation) we may as well get some of that corp dough IMO.

[VicCub]

'So long as the Doublemint Twins are kept off the scoreboard, I don't think the Wrigley Field name is doing the gum company much good. There's no "Wrigley Gum" - it's all Freedent, Doublemint, Extra, etc.'

 

I disagree. Why does BASF advertise if they don't make products, they just make products better? Wrigley is a corporation and you can be sure that Wrigley Field doesn't hurt their name regognition among investers.

[J.R.]

The current situation could actually serve as a negative for the gum company - for many, the mention of the Wrigley name conjures images of baseball instead of chewing gum.

[VicCub]

If Wrigley Co had a problem with the name Wrigley Field, they would demand that the Trib change it. Corporations only care about the bottom line. Wrigley Co loves the free advertising IMO.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

They could demand that the Trib change it, but the Trib wouldn't have to do it. The stadium was named after a person, not a company. Just because Wrigley is now a corporation doesn't mean they can change anything that says Wrigley just because they don't like it. The only person who would have any sort of real beef with getting Wrigley taken off the stadium would be Mr. Wrigley himself.