Outfield Walls To Feature Ginormous Ads (Pictures Added)

[CubColtPacer]

This is such crap. It's like seeing somebody wearing a wristwatch in "Braveheart".

 

That Under Armour ad is practically an anachronism.

 

well, no, no it isn't. because, see, when you step into Wrigley, it's still actually 2007, not 1933. It's not a museum. The truth is, the Cubs have been extremely great about not simply tearing it down and building a luxury-suit riddled throwback park in Naperville, as that would actually keep them up with the other teams (as far as park revenue).

 

let's not act like the cubs are doing us any big favors. these ads are embarrassing. our pristine ballpark is becoming a parody of its former self, and people like you are stepping up and telling others the cubs are being nice to us.

 

as soon as the cubs figure out a way to swing it so that people won't get mad and they won't lose money, they'll start working on a new ballpark.

 

I guess you haven't noticed how just about every other team in baseball has built a new ballpark, including the recently announced plans for a new yankee stadium. The Cubs are indeed doing us a favor by only putting Under Armor logos on the doors and not building Tribune Park out in Batavia

 

As soon as they figure out how to move without losing the Lincoln Park beergarden crowd and pissing off half their fanbase , they will. These ads are just little steps towards that day.

 

That's going to be pretty tough to figure out.

 

They've already laid the groundwork with their contentious relationship with the neighborhood. The city isn't helping much either by declaring Wrigley a land mark, making any renovations more burdensome.

 

The Cubs have had a contentious relationship with the city and neighborhood for years. This is nothing new.

 

How are you going to turn Cubs fans against Wrigley? People are saying "as soon as they can figure out how to not piss off the fans." How exactly are they going to do this?

 

The fact is, if you put last year's team in some new ballpark in the burbs, the Cubs probably cut their attendance by a third. The Tribune company knows this.

 

They put an ad on the outfield doors. Let's not lose are mind about how the park is now a parody and this is the first step in moving the Cubs.

 

True, the attendance would have been down last year-the attendance would probably be up overall if they went to a new ballpark though. I'm not advocating them going to a new ballpark whatsoever, but it probably would improve average attendance numbers.

 

I don't think it would. The Cubs are perennially 6th in total attendance. It's not because they are good. If they built a larger stadium in the burbs and have teams as bad as they recently have had, I doubt they would match Wrigley's attendance numbers.

 

I think it would even out with a little edge to the new ballpark-many people still want to go up and see a Cubs game, and if they built a nice new ballpark they still would go to a game. For seasons like 2006, the attendance would be down, but those years would be balanced with years like 03 or 04, where the attendance would be up from Wrigley.

[Chris]

I talked to a lot of older people about the "good 'ole days" and they're quick to point out that they weren't all that good.

[Chocolate Milk]

EDIT: Actually, that last joke one I put in might be the most likely. Lets say a chunk of the grandstand falls and the net doesn't stop it from hitting and seriously injuring or killing someone. The city would probably shut Wrigley down, and that would make long term tenancy extremely difficult.

 

This is the only way I see them having to trash Wrigley in the next decade or so.

[David]

I think it would even out with a little edge to the new ballpark-many people still want to go up and see a Cubs game, and if they built a nice new ballpark they still would go to a game. For seasons like 2006, the attendance would be down, but those years would be balanced with years like 03 or 04, where the attendance would be up from Wrigley.

 

Agreed. Plus, don't forget the initial 3-4 year curiosity period where attendance would be high just due to people wanting to check out the new park.

 

A new park, if done properly, could be just as much of a cash cow as Wrigley. Let's not kid ourselves.

[CuseCubFan69]

I think it would even out with a little edge to the new ballpark-many people still want to go up and see a Cubs game, and if they built a nice new ballpark they still would go to a game. For seasons like 2006, the attendance would be down, but those years would be balanced with years like 03 or 04, where the attendance would be up from Wrigley.

 

Agreed. Plus, don't forget the initial 3-4 year curiosity period where attendance would be high just due to people wanting to check out the new park.

 

A new park, if done properly, could be just as much of a cash cow as Wrigley. Let's not kid ourselves.

 

I've always wondered what a cash cow looks like.

[David]

I think it would even out with a little edge to the new ballpark-many people still want to go up and see a Cubs game, and if they built a nice new ballpark they still would go to a game. For seasons like 2006, the attendance would be down, but those years would be balanced with years like 03 or 04, where the attendance would be up from Wrigley.

 

Agreed. Plus, don't forget the initial 3-4 year curiosity period where attendance would be high just due to people wanting to check out the new park.

 

A new park, if done properly, could be just as much of a cash cow as Wrigley. Let's not kid ourselves.

 

I've always wondered what a cash cow looks like.

 

How awesome would it be to have one?

[Chris]

Wonder no more...

 

http://www.reach4success.com/images/cash-cow.jpeg

[treebird]

I talked to a lot of older people about the "good 'ole days" and they're quick to point out that they weren't all that good.

 

i think we have a pretty good idea of what wrigley used to look like.

[Chocolate Milk]

This is such crap. It's like seeing somebody wearing a wristwatch in "Braveheart".

 

That Under Armour ad is practically an anachronism.

 

well, no, no it isn't. because, see, when you step into Wrigley, it's still actually 2007, not 1933. It's not a museum. The truth is, the Cubs have been extremely great about not simply tearing it down and building a luxury-suit riddled throwback park in Naperville, as that would actually keep them up with the other teams (as far as park revenue).

 

let's not act like the cubs are doing us any big favors. these ads are embarrassing. our pristine ballpark is becoming a parody of its former self, and people like you are stepping up and telling others the cubs are being nice to us.

 

as soon as the cubs figure out a way to swing it so that people won't get mad and they won't lose money, they'll start working on a new ballpark.

 

I guess you haven't noticed how just about every other team in baseball has built a new ballpark, including the recently announced plans for a new yankee stadium. The Cubs are indeed doing us a favor by only putting Under Armor logos on the doors and not building Tribune Park out in Batavia

 

As soon as they figure out how to move without losing the Lincoln Park beergarden crowd and pissing off half their fanbase , they will. These ads are just little steps towards that day.

 

That's going to be pretty tough to figure out.

 

They've already laid the groundwork with their contentious relationship with the neighborhood. The city isn't helping much either by declaring Wrigley a land mark, making any renovations more burdensome.

 

The Cubs have had a contentious relationship with the city and neighborhood for years. This is nothing new.

 

How are you going to turn Cubs fans against Wrigley? People are saying "as soon as they can figure out how to not piss off the fans." How exactly are they going to do this?

 

The fact is, if you put last year's team in some new ballpark in the burbs, the Cubs probably cut their attendance by a third. The Tribune company knows this.

 

They put an ad on the outfield doors. Let's not lose are mind about how the park is now a parody and this is the first step in moving the Cubs.

 

True, the attendance would have been down last year-the attendance would probably be up overall if they went to a new ballpark though. I'm not advocating them going to a new ballpark whatsoever, but it probably would improve average attendance numbers.

 

I don't think it would. The Cubs are perennially 6th in total attendance. It's not because they are good. If they built a larger stadium in the burbs and have teams as bad as they recently have had, I doubt they would match Wrigley's attendance numbers.

 

I think it would even out with a little edge to the new ballpark-many people still want to go up and see a Cubs game, and if they built a nice new ballpark they still would go to a game. For seasons like 2006, the attendance would be down, but those years would be balanced with years like 03 or 04, where the attendance would be up from Wrigley.

 

It's all an estimation but a lot of people aren't going to Wrigley for the baseball. People make trips to specifically go to Wrigley. People plan events around going to a game at Wrigley because there is a lot to do around the park.

 

Speaking as someone who lives in the city. I doubt I'd go to more than one game a year, if the park is in Waukeegan or some other trashtastic local. I probably go to between 12-15 games a year now.

 

I honestly think that if the Cubs move out of Wrigley they go from being "THE CUBS" and everything that goes with it, to just another team. No other team in Baseball had a relationship with fans so closely tied to where they play.

[Derwood]

If Wrigley was a museum, it would be The Museum of Bad Baseball

[Chris]

I talked to a lot of older people about the "good 'ole days" and they're quick to point out that they weren't all that good.

 

i think we have a pretty good idea of what wrigley used to look like.

 

And there weren't ads?

[Derwood]

This is such crap. It's like seeing somebody wearing a wristwatch in "Braveheart".

 

That Under Armour ad is practically an anachronism.

 

well, no, no it isn't. because, see, when you step into Wrigley, it's still actually 2007, not 1933. It's not a museum. The truth is, the Cubs have been extremely great about not simply tearing it down and building a luxury-suit riddled throwback park in Naperville, as that would actually keep them up with the other teams (as far as park revenue).

 

let's not act like the cubs are doing us any big favors. these ads are embarrassing. our pristine ballpark is becoming a parody of its former self, and people like you are stepping up and telling others the cubs are being nice to us.

 

as soon as the cubs figure out a way to swing it so that people won't get mad and they won't lose money, they'll start working on a new ballpark.

 

I guess you haven't noticed how just about every other team in baseball has built a new ballpark, including the recently announced plans for a new yankee stadium. The Cubs are indeed doing us a favor by only putting Under Armor logos on the doors and not building Tribune Park out in Batavia

 

As soon as they figure out how to move without losing the Lincoln Park beergarden crowd and pissing off half their fanbase , they will. These ads are just little steps towards that day.

 

That's going to be pretty tough to figure out.

 

They've already laid the groundwork with their contentious relationship with the neighborhood. The city isn't helping much either by declaring Wrigley a land mark, making any renovations more burdensome.

 

The Cubs have had a contentious relationship with the city and neighborhood for years. This is nothing new.

 

How are you going to turn Cubs fans against Wrigley? People are saying "as soon as they can figure out how to not piss off the fans." How exactly are they going to do this?

 

The fact is, if you put last year's team in some new ballpark in the burbs, the Cubs probably cut their attendance by a third. The Tribune company knows this.

 

They put an ad on the outfield doors. Let's not lose are mind about how the park is now a parody and this is the first step in moving the Cubs.

 

True, the attendance would have been down last year-the attendance would probably be up overall if they went to a new ballpark though. I'm not advocating them going to a new ballpark whatsoever, but it probably would improve average attendance numbers.

 

I don't think it would. The Cubs are perennially 6th in total attendance. It's not because they are good. If they built a larger stadium in the burbs and have teams as bad as they recently have had, I doubt they would match Wrigley's attendance numbers.

 

the Cubs are 6th in attendance because they sell out a 38,000 seat park. If they had a 45,000 seat park, the % of tickets sold could go down but the overall attendance could go up

[Chocolate Milk]

This is such crap. It's like seeing somebody wearing a wristwatch in "Braveheart".

 

That Under Armour ad is practically an anachronism.

 

well, no, no it isn't. because, see, when you step into Wrigley, it's still actually 2007, not 1933. It's not a museum. The truth is, the Cubs have been extremely great about not simply tearing it down and building a luxury-suit riddled throwback park in Naperville, as that would actually keep them up with the other teams (as far as park revenue).

 

let's not act like the cubs are doing us any big favors. these ads are embarrassing. our pristine ballpark is becoming a parody of its former self, and people like you are stepping up and telling others the cubs are being nice to us.

 

as soon as the cubs figure out a way to swing it so that people won't get mad and they won't lose money, they'll start working on a new ballpark.

 

I guess you haven't noticed how just about every other team in baseball has built a new ballpark, including the recently announced plans for a new yankee stadium. The Cubs are indeed doing us a favor by only putting Under Armor logos on the doors and not building Tribune Park out in Batavia

 

As soon as they figure out how to move without losing the Lincoln Park beergarden crowd and pissing off half their fanbase , they will. These ads are just little steps towards that day.

 

That's going to be pretty tough to figure out.

 

They've already laid the groundwork with their contentious relationship with the neighborhood. The city isn't helping much either by declaring Wrigley a land mark, making any renovations more burdensome.

 

The Cubs have had a contentious relationship with the city and neighborhood for years. This is nothing new.

 

How are you going to turn Cubs fans against Wrigley? People are saying "as soon as they can figure out how to not piss off the fans." How exactly are they going to do this?

 

The fact is, if you put last year's team in some new ballpark in the burbs, the Cubs probably cut their attendance by a third. The Tribune company knows this.

 

They put an ad on the outfield doors. Let's not lose are mind about how the park is now a parody and this is the first step in moving the Cubs.

 

True, the attendance would have been down last year-the attendance would probably be up overall if they went to a new ballpark though. I'm not advocating them going to a new ballpark whatsoever, but it probably would improve average attendance numbers.

 

I don't think it would. The Cubs are perennially 6th in total attendance. It's not because they are good. If they built a larger stadium in the burbs and have teams as bad as they recently have had, I doubt they would match Wrigley's attendance numbers.

 

the Cubs are 6th in attendance because they sell out a 38,000 seat park. If they had a 45,000 seat park, the % of tickets sold could go down but the overall attendance could go up

 

It could, but I doubt it would. I doubt 20 thousand people would have gone to a non-Wrigley park to see last year's crew.

[sethuel1]

This is such crap. It's like seeing somebody wearing a wristwatch in "Braveheart".

 

That Under Armour ad is practically an anachronism.

 

well, no, no it isn't. because, see, when you step into Wrigley, it's still actually 2007, not 1933. It's not a museum. The truth is, the Cubs have been extremely great about not simply tearing it down and building a luxury-suit riddled throwback park in Naperville, as that would actually keep them up with the other teams (as far as park revenue).

 

let's not act like the cubs are doing us any big favors. these ads are embarrassing. our pristine ballpark is becoming a parody of its former self, and people like you are stepping up and telling others the cubs are being nice to us.

 

as soon as the cubs figure out a way to swing it so that people won't get mad and they won't lose money, they'll start working on a new ballpark.

 

I guess you haven't noticed how just about every other team in baseball has built a new ballpark, including the recently announced plans for a new yankee stadium. The Cubs are indeed doing us a favor by only putting Under Armor logos on the doors and not building Tribune Park out in Batavia

 

As soon as they figure out how to move without losing the Lincoln Park beergarden crowd and pissing off half their fanbase , they will. These ads are just little steps towards that day.

 

That's going to be pretty tough to figure out.

 

They've already laid the groundwork with their contentious relationship with the neighborhood. The city isn't helping much either by declaring Wrigley a land mark, making any renovations more burdensome.

 

The Cubs have had a contentious relationship with the city and neighborhood for years. This is nothing new.

 

How are you going to turn Cubs fans against Wrigley? People are saying "as soon as they can figure out how to not piss off the fans." How exactly are they going to do this?

 

The fact is, if you put last year's team in some new ballpark in the burbs, the Cubs probably cut their attendance by a third. The Tribune company knows this.

 

They put an ad on the outfield doors. Let's not lose are mind about how the park is now a parody and this is the first step in moving the Cubs.

 

True, the attendance would have been down last year-the attendance would probably be up overall if they went to a new ballpark though. I'm not advocating them going to a new ballpark whatsoever, but it probably would improve average attendance numbers.

 

I don't think it would. The Cubs are perennially 6th in total attendance. It's not because they are good. If they built a larger stadium in the burbs and have teams as bad as they recently have had, I doubt they would match Wrigley's attendance numbers.

 

the Cubs are 6th in attendance because they sell out a 38,000 seat park. If they had a 45,000 seat park, the % of tickets sold could go down but the overall attendance could go up

 

Agreed, but you'd be losing a ton of people that live in the city and go to games due to the location of the park. a TON. Plus all of the pilgrimagers

[Derwood]

i bet they would. See, when you remove all the jokers who are at the park for the nostalgia and the beer, then all the real Cubs fans can actually get tickets. And all those people who live out in the burbs who can't get in to the city to see games will be more than happy to drive to the new park.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Considering what the Cubs charge for tickets and how many people are on the waiting list for season tix, I'm fairly certain the Cubs could make as much in a new park.

 

It may not sell-out all the time, but the addition of luxury areas and club seats and other ways that new parks make money, the Cubs might make more money off fewer fans.

[David]

I talked to a lot of older people about the "good 'ole days" and they're quick to point out that they weren't all that good.

 

i think we have a pretty good idea of what wrigley used to look like.

 

And there weren't ads?

 

Maybe, maybe not. But there definitely weren't lights. Or luxury suites. Or electronic scoreboards. Or TV's in the grandstands. I guess Wrigley has been ruined for decades now.

[Derwood]

I talked to a lot of older people about the "good 'ole days" and they're quick to point out that they weren't all that good.

 

i think we have a pretty good idea of what wrigley used to look like.

 

And there weren't ads?

 

Maybe, maybe not. But there definitely weren't lights. Or luxury suites. Or electronic scoreboards. Or TV's in the grandstands. I guess Wrigley has been ruined for decades now.

 

the "good old days" had a bunch of games with 8,000 people in attendance with games being called due to darkness

[David]

I talked to a lot of older people about the "good 'ole days" and they're quick to point out that they weren't all that good.

 

i think we have a pretty good idea of what wrigley used to look like.

 

And there weren't ads?

 

Maybe, maybe not. But there definitely weren't lights. Or luxury suites. Or electronic scoreboards. Or TV's in the grandstands. I guess Wrigley has been ruined for decades now.

 

the "good old days" had a bunch of games with 8,000 people in attendance with games being called due to darkness

 

Oh, how I wish I could go back and live in those days.

[Chocolate Milk]

i bet they would. See, when you remove all the jokers who are at the park for the nostalgia and the beer, then all the real Cubs fans can actually get tickets. And all those people who live out in the burbs who can't get in to the city to see games will be more than happy to drive to the new park.

 

Without Wrigley, the Cubs are just another team that perpetually sucks. The Cubs already outdraw a bunch of bigger stadiums of better ball clubs because of Wrigley.

 

I'd just keep jacking up the ticket prices rather than rolling the dice that you can recreate the magic of Wrigley somewhere else. You'd have to hope that 3+ million people are driving out to bumble-f to see one of the worst teams in baseball.

[sethuel1]

I talked to a lot of older people about the "good 'ole days" and they're quick to point out that they weren't all that good.

 

i think we have a pretty good idea of what wrigley used to look like.

 

And there weren't ads?

 

Maybe, maybe not. But there definitely weren't lights. Or luxury suites. Or electronic scoreboards. Or TV's in the grandstands. I guess Wrigley has been ruined for decades now.

 

the "good old days" had a bunch of games with 8,000 people in attendance with games being called due to darkness

 

Oh, how I wish I could go back and live in those days.

The bathrooms were probably pretty close to the same though

[CaliforniaRaisin]

http://www.festastuff.com/Merchant2/fall_images/W0765.jpg

 

Don't let Tim see that.

[CubColtPacer]

i bet they would. See, when you remove all the jokers who are at the park for the nostalgia and the beer, then all the real Cubs fans can actually get tickets. And all those people who live out in the burbs who can't get in to the city to see games will be more than happy to drive to the new park.

 

Without Wrigley, the Cubs are just another team that perpetually sucks. The Cubs already outdraw a bunch of bigger stadiums of better ball clubs because of Wrigley.

 

I'd just keep jacking up the ticket prices rather than rolling the dice that you can recreate the magic of Wrigley somewhere else. You'd have to hope that 3+ million people are driving out to bumble-f to see one of the worst teams in baseball.

 

No, the Cubs are different because they have one of the largest fanbases in the country, and that is due in a large part to WGN. Wrigley is a side benefit (and an awesome experience) but people still travel up there to watch their team play, not necessarily for the ballpark that it is in. If the new ballpark is one of the better new ballparks, plenty of people would show up unless the Cubs are way out of the race (which out of the last 7 years I'd only count 2 years as those years where attendance would suffer-2002 and 2006). Many other years though the Cubs could get 45-50K there per game, and even if they don't average that as vance said the extra luxuries that they would put in would make them more money then Wrigley ever could.

[David]

i bet they would. See, when you remove all the jokers who are at the park for the nostalgia and the beer, then all the real Cubs fans can actually get tickets. And all those people who live out in the burbs who can't get in to the city to see games will be more than happy to drive to the new park.

 

Without Wrigley, the Cubs are just another team that perpetually sucks. The Cubs already outdraw a bunch of bigger stadiums of better ball clubs because of Wrigley.

 

I'd just keep jacking up the ticket prices rather than rolling the dice that you can recreate the magic of Wrigley somewhere else. You'd have to hope that 3+ million people are driving out to bumble-f to see one of the worst teams in baseball.

 

But who cares about those people who just go there to see Wrigley? I'd rather not have them around anyway. Easier for me to get a ticket.

 

And, let's be serious, if the Cubs managed their resources better, they could field a winning team consistently enough in any stadium that they could consistently draw sellouts in this market. They're still spending with the big guys.

 

It's not like they've got a low payroll here to take advantage of the fact that the Wrigley fans will flock to the park to see any product.

 

They'd still sell out a new park, and sell it out consistently. Player personnel decision making would just have to improve. Instead of spending 100 million on a last place team, they'd actually have to spend that same amount of money and have people who know how to build a winning team running it.

 

People want to talk like the Cubs are making out like bandits, having this fanbase that will flock to the park regardless of what's out on the field and somehow taking advantage of that fact. In reality, they're just running in place. The Cubs are spending enough that they should be winning and winning every year. The problem is incompetence in management.

Edited February 15, 2007 by David

[Lefty]

Seriously, who cares?

 

I don't get why people flip out or even care about stuff like this.

 

If it were up to me, they'd tear the place down and build a new retro park (with an ample supply of decent bathrooms) near the lake. Oh, and with no obstructed view seating. Plus, they wouldn't have the neighborhood (which, admittedly, is probably the best part of Wrigley) limiting their night games. Come to think of it, I'm not even sure Wrigleyville isn't a bigger factor in that whole Wrigley aura than the stadium itself.

 

 

I'm not nearly as big a Wrigley fan as I am a Cubs fan.

 

/rant

 

AGREED! I would not want it by the lake though. Summer is summer, but in April and May I could use a few extra degrees. I always thought a ballpark off I-90 right before the O'Hare turnoff. Then you are right on the Jefferson Park-O'Hare Train, near the tollway as well. And you would actually have room for parking. Make it happen Trib!

 

Baseball stadiums should not be built near highways. We don't need to replicate crap places like Philly, Miami and Shea with nothing around the stadium. Any new stadium has to be located within walking distance of multiple postgame options.

 

If you build it, they will come.