Wrigley Field

[papabear58]

The question is could you build enough seats to make a rebuild worth the money? If the rebuilding company doesn't get an increase in the money comming in either through raising prices or increased number of seats, then why would they? If you can't add enough seats then you're in the same canundrum.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

People would come watch the Cubs if they played on a barge somewhere on Lake Michigan, but that doesn't mean they should do it. There are only two real stadiums left from the old era (once Yankee stadium is gone anyway). You have to have some historical presence in a game that has been around this long, and has meant this much to our country.

[papabear58]

People would come watch the Cubs if they played on a barge somewhere on Lake Michigan, but that doesn't mean they should do it. There are only two real stadiums left from the old era (once Yankee stadium is gone anyway). You have to have some historical presence in a game that has been around this long, and has meant this much to our country.

 

I agree 100%, but I wonder if a cold bottom line business man like Selig will step in and work on it from a sentimental side. The fact is that a new stadium with larger seating capacity will increase revenue which can be shared to the league. If it brings in more money to MLB, I don't see him stopping it.

[Cubsown2007]

If Cuban buys the team Wrigley will stay, IMO. He gets it.

Same goes for Bill Murray.

[Derwood]

People would come watch the Cubs if they played on a barge somewhere on Lake Michigan, but that doesn't mean they should do it. There are only two real stadiums left from the old era (once Yankee stadium is gone anyway). You have to have some historical presence in a game that has been around this long, and has meant this much to our country.

 

and Yankee Stadium's 1970's "upgrades" made it somewhat of an eyesore. It totally lacks any "old time" charm

[TB_11]

People would come watch the Cubs if they played on a barge somewhere on Lake Michigan, but that doesn't mean they should do it. There are only two real stadiums left from the old era (once Yankee stadium is gone anyway). You have to have some historical presence in a game that has been around this long, and has meant this much to our country.

 

and Yankee Stadium's 1970's "upgrades" made it somewhat of an eyesore. It totally lacks any "old time" charm

 

This would be my prediction for what happens to Wrigley going forward. It remains in its current location and retains its defining features - ivy over red brick, the scoreboard - but begins to look like other parks. Renovations would put in more luxury boxes, more advertising in the park, restaurants and games around the walkways, more priority seating similar to the Budweiser right field roof in Fenway, etc.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

If Cuban buys the team Wrigley will stay, IMO. He gets it.

Same goes for Bill Murray.

If Cuban and Bill Murray somehow teamed up to buy this team, I think I'd be in heaven. I know a lot of things would change, but Mark Cuban knows how to field a winning team.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

This would be my prediction for what happens to Wrigley going forward. It remains in its current location and retains its defining features - ivy over red brick, the scoreboard - but begins to look like other parks. Renovations would put in more luxury boxes, more advertising in the park, restaurants and games around the walkways, more priority seating similar to the Budweiser right field roof in Fenway, etc.

That's already started with the Under Armour outfield doors. Actually, it started long before that.

[daske17]

Single family homes in and around the area already sell for no less than $500,000; and that's with the traffic and noise that Wrigley brings in. The condos that would be built could easily be sold for anywhere from $400,000 to $600,000.

 

And the park is now in the hands of a real estate magnate who makes money in his sleep and hates the Cubs. It ain't good.

 

Not to mention Mayor Daley hates the Cubs, so that landmark status was disappear quicker than Adam Greenberg's major league stint.

[Amazing_Grace]

There's no doubt whatsoever that the field, especially the Ivy, scoreboard, and the red sign out front contribute greatly to the Wrigley 'mystique'. I think separating the two from a business standpoint would be disastrous. The only scenario I can envision where the Cubs and Wrigley are not sold together is one where the city somehow gets control of the stadium (they could spin it as the public getting control of a great landmark) and gives the new Cubs owner a good deal to play there.

 

It comes down to the question of what keeps the Cubs at Wrigley. There are a lot of good reasons why the Cubs should move, including more seating, more amenities, more luxury boxes, lower maintenance costs, etc. On the other hand, there's really only a couple of reasons they continue to stay. First is the Wrigley mystique and second is the fact that the stadium is bought and paid for while a new stadium would require a significant initial investment, and possibly giving up the complete ownership of the stadium. Obviously, if Zell tries to sell the team without the field, reason 2 is gone and the only thing left to keep the Cubs in Wrigley is just the tradition. In today's world, tradition and mystique alone don't count for much, and this would be no exception. I doubt that Zell or anyone could profit over the long term from keeping the stadium but not the team unless they really intended to tear it down and sell the land, but I doubt very much the city would ever allow that. For Zell to refuse to sell the field would be to shoot himself in the foot, as the team would leave and he'd likely be stuck with an old stadium that couldn't be torn down due to landmark issues.

 

The team would survive without Wrigley, just as it would survive without WGN national telecasts, but I don't think it would be as valuable or as popular without Wrigley. It would represent a significant loss, and a prospective buyer would certainly recognize that. A buyer would not purchase a team without knowing that the people he just bought it from weren't going to turn right around and hold him up for an outrageous sum just to play in the stadium; the deal would have to be in place. Overall, the Cubs and Wrigley go together. Wrigley makes the Cubs more valuable and the Cubs make Wrigley more valuable. In the langage of business, that's called synergy, the combination of two business entities together is greater than the sum of their separate values. If they are severed, value is lost on both sides. This is why, ultimately, I doubt they will be separated. Neither a buyer nor a seller wants to get anything less than the maximum value from their assets.

[Soul]

If Cuban buys the team Wrigley will stay, IMO. He gets it.

Same goes for Bill Murray.

 

Is Bill Murray a realistic possibility, or just a pipe dream?

 

Anyway, the only thing there is to get about the Cubs is that we haven't won a World Series in 100 years, and that above all else needs to be fixed.

[BDWeav71]

I've always thought that eventually this is what is going to happen..

 

 

The Cubs will end up building a new stadium, somewhere in Chicago. They will play around 65-70 or so of their home games at this new stadium (New Wrigley), and have key series/games played at Old Wrigley for a very premium cost. It was just an idea I had, although im pretty sure upkeeping two stadiums is nearly impossible for any major sports franchise to hold within their budget.

[Amazing_Grace]

I've always thought that eventually this is what is going to happen..

 

 

The Cubs will end up building a new stadium, somewhere in Chicago. They will play around 65-70 or so of their home games at this new stadium (New Wrigley), and have key series/games played at Old Wrigley for a very premium cost. It was just an idea I had, although im pretty sure upkeeping two stadiums is nearly impossible for any major sports franchise to hold within their budget.

 

This would be what I would expect to happen if the city somehow ends up buying the stadium.

[Sammy Sofa]

The sentimental side of me wants to see them finally win a WS while at Wrigley. Once that's done, I'd better live with the building of a new stadium. Even then, I'd like it if they kept the brick wall with the ivy, plus the classic scoreboard and the red marquee sign out front. Held, I'd rather the new place could somehow still be called "Wrigley Field." I do not, however, want to see them outside of Chicago. I've seen people mention building a new place in the suburbs, and that just doesn't seem right.

[papabear58]

The sentimental side of me wants to see them finally win a WS while at Wrigley. Once that's done, I'd better live with the building of a new stadium. Even then, I'd like it if they kept the brick wall with the ivy, plus the classic scoreboard and the red marquee sign out front. Held, I'd rather the new place could somehow still be called "Wrigley Field." I do not, however, want to see them outside of Chicago. I've seen people mention building a new place in the suburbs, and that just doesn't seem right.

 

Not right, but entirely possible. I want to see them continue to play at Wrigley Field, but that will require rennovations. I think the best thing is if the City agrees to let them truly rennovate the stadium while keeping the three major historical pieces in place. If they don't I'm sorry to say that I seriously question the viability of Wrigley Field in this sale.

[Balsa]

I would hope that the Cubs play at Wrigley Field for many seasons to come.

 

I just hope the Cubs new owner sees it that way too. :-#

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

This is just a random question that has crept into my head recently after I had a conversation with some people that are from Georgia. It seems to me that the Cubs fans that actually were raised in Chicago care more about keeping Wrigley Field than the people that live outside of Chicago. That stadium is a part of our city, and we take great pride in our city, and especially our "landmarks". So has anyone else noticed this? Or have I just been talking to a different sample of people. Cause many of the Cubs fans I know that live outside of Chicago see Wrigley as just an out of date stadium without the amenities of the newer ballparks. Many of them say they would have no problem with the Cubs building a newer stadium. But the people actually from Chicago see this as a travesty (myself included). Wrigley has been the Cubs home for so long, that it just seems wrong to me to even think about moving them out of there, or God forbid, tearing it down and putting up a new park. It'd be almost like seeing your childhood home demolished to make room for some gaudy condos.

[papabear58]

This is just a random question that has crept into my head recently after I had a conversation with some people that are from Georgia. It seems to me that the Cubs fans that actually were raised in Chicago care more about keeping Wrigley Field than the people that live outside of Chicago. That stadium is a part of our city, and we take great pride in our city, and especially our "landmarks". So has anyone else noticed this? Or have I just been talking to a different sample of people. Cause many of the Cubs fans I know that live outside of Chicago see Wrigley as just an out of date stadium without the amenities of the newer ballparks. Many of them say they would have no problem with the Cubs building a newer stadium. But the people actually from Chicago see this as a travesty (myself included). Wrigley has been the Cubs home for so long, that it just seems wrong to me to even think about moving them out of there, or God forbid, tearing it down and putting up a new park. It'd be almost like seeing your childhood home demolished to make room for some gaudy condos.

 

I, despite the travesty, have never traveled to the hallowed halls of Wrigley Field. Nor have I visited my mecca (Soldier Field). I do not live in nor have I yet visited Chicago, but I love my Bears, Cubs, Bulls, and Blackhawks and would feel that it is a horrible travesty if Wrigley Field ever was torn down or unused by the Chicago Cubs.

[David]

I'm from Chicago (well, suburbs) and I wouldn't mind a new stadium, assuming it's done right, at all.

 

It could go either way.

[The Voice of Reason]

Keep the bleachers, centerfield scoreboard and outfield ivy walls as is.

 

Bring the rest of Wrigley field into the 21st century while attempting to keep as much character as possible. Put in more revenue producing skyboxes and more wash rooms and get rid of the bad smell, bad food and falling concrete. I would bet fixing/replacing the stadium from foul pole to foul pole could be accomplished with only having to play one season at US Cellular.

 

Do not build a new stadium in the suburbs.

[Backtobanks]

People would come watch the Cubs if they played on a barge somewhere on Lake Michigan, but that doesn't mean they should do it. There are only two real stadiums left from the old era (once Yankee stadium is gone anyway). You have to have some historical presence in a game that has been around this long, and has meant this much to our country.

 

I would love to keep Wrigley, but you're kidding yourself if you think that people would watch the Cubs "on a barge in Lake Michigan". One of the major reasons the Cubs have drawn all of these millions of fans while playing lousy baseball is that Wrigley Field has become a place to party. The Cubs would attract a lot of fans while a new stadium is "new" or while they have a winning team. If they played lousy baseball for a few years in a row, attendance would drop considerably. Look at the attendance figures for the Cubs during their lousy years (70's) and compare them to after the "Harry Caray Party Days". Please note that the quality of baseball in many instances wasn't very much different.

[UK1679666180]

I don't care either way, while I enjoy Wrigley, the BS the Cubs have to endure b/c of the neighborhood and landmark status would not bother me one bit if they decided it would be best to move.

 

Con't tearing down Cabrini Green and put it there. Have the local bars and condos surround it.

[Sammy Sofa]

Con't tearing down Cabrini Green and put it there. Have the local bars and condos surround it.

 

I wouldn't mind that at all. I live relatively close to the site and the neighborhood down here is awesome. Lots of classic style homes and businesses.

Edited April 4, 2007 by Sammy Sofa

[rocket]

the cubs would survive a new stadium. they are one of the top road draws in baseball.

 

that said, i want to keep wrigley.

[papabear58]

the cubs would survive a new stadium. they are one of the top road draws in baseball.

 

that said, i want to keep wrigley.

 

It's not as much about surviving, but it's more about the style in which they survive.