do you want to have wrigley renamed

[hardcorecubfan]

As of the following link

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071220&content_id=2334894&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

 

Sam Zell would like to sell the naming rights to Wrigley Field.

would this bother you if they changed our beloved field's name?

[hardcorecubfan]

I can see the National Historic Preservation people a bit upset. I would be willing to form an angry mob if they did, anybody want to join me?

[Roast]

I'll join said angry mob.

[Guest]

Abso-frickin-lutely.

[TruffleShuffle]

ads on the outfield wall, lights on the grandstands... some things i can adjust to

 

it's wrigley field. certain places - wrigley, fenway, yankee stadium - cannot be [expletive] out.

[Derwood]

I can live with a renaming if it's something like "Wrigley Field at AT&T Park" or something

[hardcorecubfan]

I can live with a renaming if it's something like "Wrigley Field at AT&T Park" or something

 

Nice compromise

[Yanksfan1523]

There are other ways to increase revenue.

[Roast]

There are other ways to increase revenue.

 

Like winning a world series, perhaps.

[Yanksfan1523]

There are other ways to increase revenue.

 

Like winning a world series, perhaps.

 

If the Cubs ever won a World Series, it would be like they were printing their own money!

[rocket]

if they changed the name i'm sure everyone in the world would still call it wrigley field.

[wvcbxl]

Why are the thread title ("Do you want to have Wrigley renamed") and the actual question ("Does it bother you that Wrigley field could be renamed?") exactly opposite in meaning?

How can you be sure everyone has answered to the same question?

[Derwood]

there are 100 things more important to worry about with the Cubs than this

 

If the Cubs win 10 straight world series in Tampax Park w/ Wings instead of Wrigley Field, is this really a problem?

[TruffleShuffle]

there are 100 things more important to worry about with the Cubs than this

 

If the Cubs win 10 straight world series in Tampax Park w/ Wings instead of Wrigley Field, is this really a problem?

 

yes, actually

[sandberg23]

there are 100 things more important to worry about with the Cubs than this

 

If the Cubs win 10 straight world series in Tampax Park w/ Wings instead of Wrigley Field, is this really a problem?

 

yes, actually

 

Especially considering tampax don't have wings...ouch just thinking about that.

[GhostRunner]

there are 100 things more important to worry about with the Cubs than this

 

If the Cubs win 10 straight world series in Tampax Park w/ Wings instead of Wrigley Field, is this really a problem?

Why is this so hard to grasp?

 

Yes, we all understand that the primary purpose of an MLB team is to win the World Series. That's obviously the first and foremost concern for all the players, fans, executives, and the city as a whole. But why the oft-used implication that this can come at the expense of practically everything else? Winning may be everything, but when you're a fan of a sports team, it's not the only thing.

 

Willingness to throw aspects that make the Cubs the Cubs under the bus just to win a World Series is disgusting ... if you renamed the ballpark to Tampax Field, and the club became the Chicago Hygenics, and the uniform colors switched to pink and powder blue, and the place was plastered wall-to-wall with Massengill advertising, but - oh! Hallelujah! - they win the World Series, is it really worth it in the end? Are you satisfied with having sold a part of your identity for that victory?

 

Maybe my example is blowing things way out of proportion, but no more so than your original premise. The ballpark's name is important, more important to most fans than some may realize. And selling the naming rights - altering a core factor of the team and changing something all Cubs fans relate to and identify with - does not guarantee anything, nor do I think it would change much in the way of team payroll.

[Derwood]

there are 100 things more important to worry about with the Cubs than this

 

If the Cubs win 10 straight world series in Tampax Park w/ Wings instead of Wrigley Field, is this really a problem?

Why is this so hard to grasp?

 

Yes, we all understand that the primary purpose of an MLB team is to win the World Series. That's obviously the first and foremost concern for all the players, fans, executives, and the city as a whole. But why the oft-used implication that this can come at the expense of practically everything else? Winning may be everything, but when you're a fan of a sports team, it's not the only thing.

 

Willingness to throw aspects that make the Cubs the Cubs under the bus just to win a World Series is disgusting ... if you renamed the ballpark to Tampax Field, and the club became the Chicago Hygenics, and the uniform colors switched to pink and powder blue, and the place was plastered wall-to-wall with Massengill advertising, but - oh! Hallelujah! - they win the World Series, is it really worth it in the end? Are you satisfied with having sold a part of your identity for that victory?

 

Maybe my example is blowing things way out of proportion, but no more so than your original premise. The ballpark's name is important, more important to most fans than some may realize. And selling the naming rights - altering a core factor of the team and changing something all Cubs fans relate to and identify with - does not guarantee anything, nor do I think it would change much in the way of team payroll.

 

not winning is what makes the Cubs the Cubs. so yes, i'd like to change some tradition

[GhostRunner]

not winning is what makes the Cubs the Cubs. so yes, i'd like to change some tradition

Wow, no offense, but that's totally myopic IMO.

 

I share the sentiment about changing the tradition of non-winning, of course ... but the Cubs will still be the Cubs when they win the World Series again, provided new management doesn't screw it up by changing the team's identity. The Red Sox are still the Red Sox, although the attitude of the fan base and their public perception has certainly changed since.

 

To each his own, I suppose. :|

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't like polls that offer such limited choices.

 

I would be a bit bummed if tomorrow it was renamed Caterpillar Stadium. It would be annoying even if it was Wrigley Field at Boeing Park. But it would be far more appealing than Wrigley Jr. out in Naperville, or many other options. The Cubs are in a great position financially, compared with other teams. But they still have several disadvantages. Their stadium sucks as a revenue source. The ad space is very limited. They can't go 90% night games like most teams. They don't have a monopoly on an enormous market like the Red Sox, or compare to the Yankees in terms of revenue. They are better than most, but well below the elite.

 

It's kind of hypocritical of fans to expect the best from the team but also place frivolous limits on what they can do for revenue. The only reason the 2008 Cubs have any chance of contending is because they are blowing away the competition in payroll.

 

What I want is to enjoy watching/going to Cubs games. First and foremost in that enjoyment is quality of the team. Secondly is where they play. You simply cannot beat going to an afternoon game during the summer at Clark and Addison. The name plays a part in that, but in my opinion, it's way down the list of things that matter. The occasional night game hasn't ruined anything. The bleacher exansion and naming hasn't hurt anything. The under armour ads haven't hurt anything. The little ads in and around the dugouts (Sears, Walter Smythe) are harmless, as are the small digital scoreboards.

 

The green machine behind home plate is a bit of an eyesore, but no more so than the old guy in the pink hat. If the Cubs are good and playing where they are playing, I think they will be at least as enjoyable to watch as they are now, with an already corporate named stadium.

 

Frankly, I'd prefer a corporate sponsor to naming it after the owner anyday, at least corporate sponsorship can help the team on the field, whereas ego stroking does nothing.

[hawkcub]

If it was renamed you don't think MLB would block that. It's Wrigley Field for crying out loud.

[jersey cubs fan]

If it was renamed you don't think MLB would block that. It's Wrigley Field for crying out loud.

 

I would be shocked if they even considered blocking it. That would be incredibly stupid, and they'd have no right or justification.

 

For goodness sake, it's named after an owner/corporation already.

[hawkcub]

If it was renamed you don't think MLB would block that. It's Wrigley Field for crying out loud.

 

I would be shocked if they even considered blocking it. That would be incredibly stupid, and they'd have no right or justification.

 

For goodness sake, it's named after an owner/corporation already.

 

Very true but it's been Wrigley for decades. It's one of the few places where casual and even non baseball fans can answer the following question:

 

What is the name of the place where the Chicago Cubs play?

 

Baseball is about history and this would be an attack on baseballs history.

[TruffleShuffle]

It's kind of hypocritical of fans to expect the best from the team but also place frivolous limits on what they can do for revenue. The only reason the 2008 Cubs have any chance of contending is because they are blowing away the competition in payroll.

 

no, the only reason they're going to compete in 2008 is that they're blowing the competition away in payroll with a gm who has made numerous inept decisions and a farm system that totally sucks. the cubs are going to have a payroll close to $125m this season. i don't think people expect the cubs to be the yankees, making the playoffs every year, but with being in the top quarter of mlb salary capabilities, they should certainly be more successful than they have been. you could give this regime $200m a year and they'd still f it up.

 

and i think it's pretty stupid to use "frivolous limits" for not renaming a stadium that has borne the same name for 75 years. somewhere in there, history and nostalgia do play a role.