Outfield Walls To Feature Ginormous Ads (Pictures Added)

[circlechange]

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.

There's a big difference between lights that allow games to be played at a time when most of the fans don't have work/school and advertisements that detract from the view of the park for all fans.

 

Given the choice between watching an advert-free game with 8,000 fans who are there because they are true fans vs. watching with 40,000 fans who don't care if they are watching baseball with a advert-covered outfield wall: give me A every single time.

[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.

 

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.

 

I think that you're seriously underestimating the draw of Wrigley Field. I have no way to prove it.

 

In any event, I doubt the Cubs move up much from being top 6 in attendance by moving out of Wrigley.

 

You are absolutely kidding yourself if you think a suburban park would average 45-50k in a good season. The Yankees are the only team in baseball over 50k in the last 5 years, and the Cubs fan base doesn't come close to matching the Yankees, no matter what Cubs fans think.

 

It's all a guess, but that's what my guess is.

[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.

 

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.

 

It's relevant to the discussion, so I care. I'm not saying I love those fans but they do make up a good portion of people attending Cubs games. If you don't think so, you're deluding yourself.

 

It's all well and good to say that if the Cubs actually built a great team that people would come to the stadium wherever it was, but they don't build winning teams.

[David]

It's relevant to the discussion, so I care. I'm not saying I love those fans but they do make up a good portion of people attending Cubs games. If you don't think so, you're deluding yourself.

 

It's all well and good to say that if the Cubs actually built a great team that people would come to the stadium wherever it was, but they don't build winning teams.

 

I'm really not sure what your argument is.

 

Are you saying that the Cubs are going to be inept no matter what, so ownership is best off leaving themselves the safety net of drawing big crowds no matter the product by keeping the team in Wrigley?

 

Why would they even bother attempting to win then? Why not cut payroll by 25-40% and make even more money? The need for the, so to speak, "safety net," of crowds no matter the product would be greatly reduced if they simply hired more competent individuals (really, a competent GM) to determine the product on the field. Hell, if they hired a competent enough individual, they could probably cut payroll 25-30% AND win consistently. What benefit is the draw of Wrigley really bringing other than allowing them to continually hire inept people into player personell positions without losing money?

 

The 100 million is being spent, win or lose. Spend it wisely on good players and the team will win consistently. There's no curse or magical mysterious force keeping the Cubs from winning.

 

You're saying that the Cubs organization is better off in Wrigley because they'll draw a big crowd even if they continue to lose as they have historically. Correct?

 

I'm saying that simply making a good hire at GM would eliminate the need for that benefit brought by Wrigley, and, if accompanied by a new stadium, would make the team more profitable by filling up a bigger park with a winner (theoretically even with a lower payroll).

[Chocolate Milk]

You're saying that the Cubs organization is better off in Wrigley because they'll draw a big crowd even if they continue to lose as they have historically. Correct?

 

I'm saying that simply making a good hire at GM would eliminate the need for that benefit brought by Wrigley, and, if accompanied by a new stadium, would make the team more profitable by filling up a bigger park with a winner (theoretically even with a lower payroll).

 

No, I'm not saying that at all. I have been arguing that the Cubs aren't a mortal lock to draw more fans if they build a big stadium out in the suburbs. I'm not saying that Wrigley is helping the Cubs win or anything like that. I'm saying that a lot of fans go to Wrigley because of the park and not as much because of the baseball because the baseball has historically sucked.

 

I think it's easy to say, "Hire a new GM and the team will be better and then you can move it because people like good baseball." than it is to actually do it.

[David]

You're saying that the Cubs organization is better off in Wrigley because they'll draw a big crowd even if they continue to lose as they have historically. Correct?

 

I'm saying that simply making a good hire at GM would eliminate the need for that benefit brought by Wrigley, and, if accompanied by a new stadium, would make the team more profitable by filling up a bigger park with a winner (theoretically even with a lower payroll).

 

No, I'm not saying that at all. I have been arguing that the Cubs aren't a mortal lock to draw more fans if they build a big stadium out in the suburbs. I'm not saying that Wrigley is helping the Cubs win or anything like that. I'm saying that a lot of fans go to Wrigley because of the park and not as much because of the baseball because the baseball has historically sucked.

 

I think it's easy to say, "Hire a new GM and the team will be better and then you can move it because people like good baseball." than it is to actually do it.

 

OK, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. My fault. But I wasn't saying that you were saying that Wrigley is helping them win. I'm just saying that, financially, the team wouldn't need the added draw of the park if they'd just field a better team. A major market team spending this much money shouldn't have so much trouble contending. As for it being easier said than done to hire a competent GM...it is, and it isn't.

 

A team spending $100+ mil on payroll should be doing better than the Cubs have for the last few years. To me, that's more than just a sign of not having a good GM. It's a sign of having a bad, even terrible, GM, and possibly some bad luck.

 

Anyone who is remotely competent should have no trouble putting a competitive team on the field with the resources the Tribune (even before this offseason) has been putting out. My point is just that they don't need (hell, they don't even really take advantage of it) that draw that is Wrigley itself. They're spending enough to win, why not actually do the job by having the money spent properly?

 

That's the missing piece. Someone who will know how to allocate the resources to make this top payroll team a top winning team. If the Cubs, as a business looking to make a profit, had that, they wouldn't need the ability to draw big crowds on bad high-payroll teams (which is basically what they have now). The need or place for those Wrigley-only fans would be greatly lessened.

[Chocolate Milk]

Well, most people are saying I'm wrong, so maybe I am. I just feel that Wrigley field is so tied to Cubs fandom that if they left, some of fanbase and what makes the Cubs unique, would be lost. Maybe I have a skewed perspective from living a block from the stadium and going to a bunch of games over the last 2 years.

[Soul]

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

 

I remember when that shirt used to say 312 on it, as all of Chicago was 312 and all the suburbs were 708

 

I remember when Naperville was 312.....

 

Yes, I am old. 8-)

[David]

Well, most people are saying I'm wrong, so maybe I am. I just feel that Wrigley field is so tied to Cubs fandom that if they left, some of fanbase and what makes the Cubs unique, would be lost. Maybe I have a skewed perspective from living a block from the stadium and going to a bunch of games over the last 2 years.

 

In that regard, you're definitely not wrong. It would be different, no doubt.

 

I'm just not so sure it would be worse (for fans of the actual team and for the team itself).

[1908]

Well, most people are saying I'm wrong, so maybe I am. I just feel that Wrigley field is so tied to Cubs fandom that if they left, some of fanbase and what makes the Cubs unique, would be lost. Maybe I have a skewed perspective from living a block from the stadium and going to a bunch of games over the last 2 years.

I wonder if there's a correlation between the number of games attended at the park and dislike of this move. I've attended 35+ games a season since 2000 and I hate it. Some of the strongest proponents of the change in this thread live hundreds of miles away from the park.

[CuseCubFan69]

Well, most people are saying I'm wrong, so maybe I am. I just feel that Wrigley field is so tied to Cubs fandom that if they left, some of fanbase and what makes the Cubs unique, would be lost. Maybe I have a skewed perspective from living a block from the stadium and going to a bunch of games over the last 2 years.

I wonder if there's a correlation between the number of games attended at the park and dislike of this move. I've attended 35+ games a season since 2000 and I hate it. Some of the strongest proponents of the change in this thread live hundreds of miles away from the park.

 

That's probably true. What would you suggest they do for extra income?

[David]

Well, most people are saying I'm wrong, so maybe I am. I just feel that Wrigley field is so tied to Cubs fandom that if they left, some of fanbase and what makes the Cubs unique, would be lost. Maybe I have a skewed perspective from living a block from the stadium and going to a bunch of games over the last 2 years.

I wonder if there's a correlation between the number of games attended at the park and dislike of this move. I've attended 35+ games a season since 2000 and I hate it. Some of the strongest proponents of the change in this thread live hundreds of miles away from the park.

 

 

Maybe, maybe not. I live in the suburbs and go to 20-25 games a year.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Well, most people are saying I'm wrong, so maybe I am. I just feel that Wrigley field is so tied to Cubs fandom that if they left, some of fanbase and what makes the Cubs unique, would be lost. Maybe I have a skewed perspective from living a block from the stadium and going to a bunch of games over the last 2 years.

I wonder if there's a correlation between the number of games attended at the park and dislike of this move. I've attended 35+ games a season since 2000 and I hate it. Some of the strongest proponents of the change in this thread live hundreds of miles away from the park.

 

That may be a true correlation. It also may be due to the fact that many of us farther away have watched as many Cub games or more in parks other than Wrigley. We are conditioned to the ads in these parks, so even with some signage at Wrigley it is still a purer experience than those other places.

 

Furthermore, since we may only experience Wrigley once or twice a year at that, the team is far more important than the preservation of the ballpark.

 

If the Cubs moved into a new park, I'd still want to make a yearly trip to see them at home.

 

As I said earlier, I'd prefer no signage, but all in all, it doesn't make as much difference to me as the team on the field.

 

Also, in regards to a new park. While the charm and nostalgia of Wrigley would be lost, a new park, if done right, could add much that might enhance a trip to a game.

[1908]

What would you suggest they do for extra income?

Make WGN television pay them a fair price for the broadcasting rights.

[CubinNY]

I wonder if there's a correlation between the number of games attended at the park and dislike of this move. I've attended 35+ games a season since 2000 and I hate it. Some of the strongest proponents of the change in this thread live hundreds of miles away from the park.

 

I agree.

[CuseCubFan69]

What would you suggest they do for extra income?

Make WGN television pay them a fair price for the broadcasting rights.

 

Robbing Peter to pay Paul, eh? Would that work since they own both?

 

Maybe a supersports station like YES?

[1908]

Maybe a supersports station like YES?

Certainly has worked for the Yankees. Won't happen as long as the Cubs have the incestuous relationship with WGN television.

[1908]

Maybe, maybe not. I live in the suburbs and go to 20-25 games a year.

I suspect you're in the minority.

[cbbryan]

It's only a ballpark. 8-[

 

I was waiting for that! LOL!

[Soul]

Maybe a supersports station like YES?

Certainly has worked for the Yankees. Won't happen as long as the Cubs have the incestuous relationship with WGN television.

 

Maybe WGN could spin off a new channel. They've got to start thinking about doing something because that one channel is kind of stagnant.

[CubinNY]

It's only a ballpark. 8-[

 

I was waiting for that! LOL!

 

I've already told my wife that should something happen to me I want my ashes spread at Wrigley. I don't care where or how she does it.

[David]

Maybe, maybe not. I live in the suburbs and go to 20-25 games a year.

I suspect you're in the minority.

 

Probably. But I've always considered myself a fan of the Cubs, not really of Wrigley Field. It's the team and it's history that I love. Yes, Wrigley is a part of the history, but times change and you have to let the past go.

[1908]

Maybe, maybe not. I live in the suburbs and go to 20-25 games a year.

I suspect you're in the minority.

Probably. But I've always considered myself a fan of the Cubs, not really of Wrigley Field. It's the team and it's history that I love. Yes, Wrigley is a part of the history, but times change and you have to let the past go.

Rationalize the change however you'd like. I don't like it; the team, ballpark and neighborhood are all intertwined to me.

[A New Era]

I don't think the add stands out much if you ask me.

 

Infact, in that picture. It looks kinda neat. Adds sort of a new age "stamp" uniformely perfect on the left and right side right into the door that was the already there, anyway. It's not like it's a billboard. They painted the door. And it looks neato.

 

But I'm in the minority and I'll probably be yelled at for not being a "true cubs fan". :cry:

[CubinNY]

I don't think the add stands out much if you ask me.

 

Infact, in that picture. It looks kinda neat. Adds sort of a new age "stamp" uniformely perfect on the left and right side right into the door that was the already there, anyway. It's not like it's a billboard. They painted the door. And it looks neato.

 

But I'm in the minority and I'll probably be yelled at for not being a "true cubs fan". :cry:

 

I don't like it, but they already have "Sears" all over the dugout.

 

I guess it's kind of like your favorite college band "selling out" to make some bucks.

 

oh yea, YELL!