Outfield Walls To Feature Ginormous Ads (Pictures Added)

[CuseCubFan69]

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.

 

I think they should be built on a small island with a one way bridge attached to it.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'd prefer no ads at all, but this one doesn't really bother me that much.

[Soriano12]

What do the Cubs rank in payroll?

 

Top 5 now?

 

Now compare the teams that have similiar payrolls, I bet their stadiums generate more revenue from ticket sales luxury boxes, etc. I'm also willing to wager Wrigley still has less advertising than those team's respective stadiums. The only thing the Cubs have going from them is the SuperStation.

 

This is simple economics folks, to those who are ripping their hair out, get over it.

[JC]

 

I think they should be built on a small island with a one way bridge attached to it.

 

Looking for a new bridge to live under, Cuse?

[JC]

I'd prefer no ads at all, but this one doesn't really bother me that much.

 

My thoughts exactly.

[CuseCubFan69]

 

I think they should be built on a small island with a one way bridge attached to it.

 

Looking for a new bridge to live under, Cuse?

 

Always. Once you live under a bridge you never go back.

[JC]

 

I think they should be built on a small island with a one way bridge attached to it.

 

Looking for a new bridge to live under, Cuse?

 

Always. Once you live under a bridge you never go back.

 

Well, of course you don't go back. You called for a one way bridge.

[CuseCubFan69]

 

I think they should be built on a small island with a one way bridge attached to it.

 

Looking for a new bridge to live under, Cuse?

 

Always. Once you live under a bridge you never go back.

 

Well, of course you don't go back. You called for a one way bridge.

 

Out of here like a Marquis hanging curve!

[Chris]

Doesn't beat my van down by the river...

[David]

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!

 

Let's not get crazy.

 

Yea, I'm not a huge fan of stadiums in isolated locations with highways and huge airports nearby.

 

Personally, I'd love a new stadium right on the lake shore, as long as the park was designed tastefully. I know it's not realistically feasible and it'll likely never happen, but I think the Chicago lakefront would be one of the coolest locations ever for a ballpark.

 

It would suck a little more in April and (dare I say) October, though.

[CubinNY]

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!

 

Let's not get crazy.

 

Yea, I'm not a huge fan of stadiums in isolated locations with highways and huge airports nearby.

 

Personally, I'd love a new stadium right on the lake shore, as long as the park was designed tastefully. I know it's not realistically feasible and it'll likely never happen, but I think the Chicago lakefront would be one of the coolest locations ever for a ballpark.

 

It would suck a little more in April and (dare I say) October, though.

 

They could referbish the Navy Pier area.

[Derwood]

So is this like the 10th time Wrigley has been "ruined?"

 

No only the 2nd or 3rd.

 

To me ruining is not an all or nothing thing.

 

I like baseball in the sunshine, I like seeing the brick behind home plate, and I like seeing the ivy and nothing else.

 

They lessen the experience by doing this type of thing.

 

funny, I got the ballpark to see two teams playing baseball. The surroundings are just gravy

[Derwood]

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!

 

Let's not get crazy.

 

Yea, I'm not a huge fan of stadiums in isolated locations with highways and huge airports nearby.

 

Personally, I'd love a new stadium right on the lake shore, as long as the park was designed tastefully. I know it's not realistically feasible and it'll likely never happen, but I think the Chicago lakefront would be one of the coolest locations ever for a ballpark.

 

It would suck a little more in April and (dare I say) October, though.

 

They could referbish the Navy Pier area.

 

again?

[CubinNY]

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!

 

Let's not get crazy.

 

Yea, I'm not a huge fan of stadiums in isolated locations with highways and huge airports nearby.

 

Personally, I'd love a new stadium right on the lake shore, as long as the park was designed tastefully. I know it's not realistically feasible and it'll likely never happen, but I think the Chicago lakefront would be one of the coolest locations ever for a ballpark.

 

It would suck a little more in April and (dare I say) October, though.

 

They could referbish the Navy Pier area.

 

again?

 

And put a new baseball park in.

[Derwood]

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!

 

Let's not get crazy.

 

Yea, I'm not a huge fan of stadiums in isolated locations with highways and huge airports nearby.

 

Personally, I'd love a new stadium right on the lake shore, as long as the park was designed tastefully. I know it's not realistically feasible and it'll likely never happen, but I think the Chicago lakefront would be one of the coolest locations ever for a ballpark.

 

It would suck a little more in April and (dare I say) October, though.

 

They could referbish the Navy Pier area.

 

again?

 

And put a new baseball park in.

 

the logistics are a nightmare. too much of navy pier is very new.

[David]

I was thinking of the Meigs Field/Northerly Island area. I probably should pay more attention, but what has been going on with that land? Edited February 15, 2007 by David

[Chocolate Milk]

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!

 

Let's not get crazy.

 

Yea, I'm not a huge fan of stadiums in isolated locations with highways and huge airports nearby.

 

Personally, I'd love a new stadium right on the lake shore, as long as the park was designed tastefully. I know it's not realistically feasible and it'll likely never happen, but I think the Chicago lakefront would be one of the coolest locations ever for a ballpark.

 

It would suck a little more in April and (dare I say) October, though.

 

They could referbish the Navy Pier area.

 

again?

 

And put a new baseball park in.

 

the logistics are a nightmare. too much of navy pier is very new.

 

They should burn down navy pier and salt the earth where it once stood.

[Derwood]

tell that to Chicago Shakespeare

[rocket]

how about we keep wrigley where it is and don't change it

[Soul]

So is this like the 10th time Wrigley has been "ruined?"

I haven't been ticked off before now at anything personally. The homeplate signage was inevitable. The Bud Light bleachers, eh. The computer scoreboards around the park, yes, please. But this is needless and stupid.

 

All these things you speak of were sources of great angst when they were announced. Now they're just passing memories.

 

It's all inevitable. All ballparks will eventually have many more ads. Wrigley field will eventually be called "Bank One Park at Wrigley Field" or some such nonsense. The old grandstands will eventually be replaced. EVERTHING will eventually be replaced.

 

The past is the past.

 

Let's win a World Series, shall we?

[Soul]

how about we keep wrigley where it is and don't change it

 

You mean stop the hands of time? I'd love to, but my Mom told me it doesn't work that way.

[Chocolate Milk]

how about we keep wrigley where it is and don't change it

 

You mean stop the hands of time? I'd love to, but my Mom told me it doesn't work that way.

 

Really? Because I think that's the plan for the forseeable future.

[Soul]

how about we keep wrigley where it is and don't change it

 

You mean stop the hands of time? I'd love to, but my Mom told me it doesn't work that way.

 

Really? Because I think that's the plan for the forseeable future.

 

They've been replacing pieces of the ballpark for years. How is that not changing anything?

[Chocolate Milk]

how about we keep wrigley where it is and don't change it

 

You mean stop the hands of time? I'd love to, but my Mom told me it doesn't work that way.

 

Really? Because I think that's the plan for the forseeable future.

 

They've been replacing pieces of the ballpark for years. How is that not changing anything?

 

I thought he was referencing the moving of the park.

[Andy]

So is this like the 10th time Wrigley has been "ruined?"

I haven't been ticked off before now at anything personally. The homeplate signage was inevitable. The Bud Light bleachers, eh. The computer scoreboards around the park, yes, please. But this is needless and stupid.

 

All these things you speak of were sources of great angst when they were announced. Now they're just passing memories.

 

It's all inevitable. All ballparks will eventually have many more ads. Wrigley field will eventually be called "Bank One Park at Wrigley Field" or some such nonsense. The old grandstands will eventually be replaced. EVERTHING will eventually be replaced.

 

The past is the past.

 

Let's win a World Series, shall we?

They weren't sources of angst for me. The way I saw it, we needed the homeplate signage to get network games because they wanted to do their green-screen advertising thing. The computer scoreboards were a great addition, I love them. And the bleacher thing paid for new and better bleachers so I was all for that too.

 

This will put some money in the Cubs' pocket, but it has absolutely no side benefit at all, whereas the previous three things did, at least IMO.