Zell will consider selling naming rights to Wrigley Field

[XZero771679666304]

I had this discussion today with UMFAN83. My feeling on this is I am against purposely trying to destroy history. In my mind this is like selling the naming rights to Mount Rushmore, Mount Vernon, or the Statue of Liberty. History is what defines a country and a civilization. When you think of Italy we think of going to see the ruins of ancient Rome. When you think of Greece you think of the Parthenon. When you think of London you think of Big Ben. When tourist's come to Chicago they come to Wrigley Field. I cannot respect any man or any corporation that is willing to do this.

 

Even more so, I think selling the naming rights to Wrigley will lead to completely renovating the stadium. Meaning they will tear down the grandstand and rebuild. Since I forsee this happening I am happy that Zell is selling the stadium and the team separately. Because if it was the same owner and he destroyed history I can honestly say I don't know if I could be a Cubs fan anymore.

 

No I am not one of those fans who only likes the Cubs because of Wrigley. I will just despise the owner so much, that I would have a hard time bringing myself to follow the team. Don't get me wrong I'm sure I would, but that is how deep my hatred would be. I liken this to the Bill Wirtz effect. Because people hated him so much they stopped supporting a team they loved. Now that he has passed away the fans are coming back.

 

I love Wrigley, but at some point the grandstand will have to be rebuilt, and I have no problem with it. In fact, the sooner the better. That is so long as the rebuild is congruous, and in the same mold as the old grandstand. I love history as well, but it is simply unrealistic to expect Wrigley to remain as it is. It is an old, decaying hulk that needs serious help. Calling it "destroying history" is a bit melodramatic, IMO.

[seanimal]

a bit?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Well, it'd only postpone the day when Wrigley Field can finally be replaced with a modern ballpark, so I guess I'm marginally against it.

[Abe Frohman]

Count me as one who has no problem with the UA signage in the outfield and one who thinks John McDonough was great for this organization.

 

I am right there with you - John McDonough was great at what he did. The concerts seem to be counterproductive with the damage the inflict on the field, though. I have no problem with the Under Armour signs, either. As a matter of fact, the more I think about it the more I like the nostalgia of advertisements throughout the parks.

 

Just don't mess with the Ivy.

[jmajew]

I had this discussion today with UMFAN83. My feeling on this is I am against purposely trying to destroy history. In my mind this is like selling the naming rights to Mount Rushmore, Mount Vernon, or the Statue of Liberty. History is what defines a country and a civilization. When you think of Italy we think of going to see the ruins of ancient Rome. When you think of Greece you think of the Parthenon. When you think of London you think of Big Ben. When tourist's come to Chicago they come to Wrigley Field. I cannot respect any man or any corporation that is willing to do this.

 

Even more so, I think selling the naming rights to Wrigley will lead to completely renovating the stadium. Meaning they will tear down the grandstand and rebuild. Since I forsee this happening I am happy that Zell is selling the stadium and the team separately. Because if it was the same owner and he destroyed history I can honestly say I don't know if I could be a Cubs fan anymore.

 

No I am not one of those fans who only likes the Cubs because of Wrigley. I will just despise the owner so much, that I would have a hard time bringing myself to follow the team. Don't get me wrong I'm sure I would, but that is how deep my hatred would be. I liken this to the Bill Wirtz effect. Because people hated him so much they stopped supporting a team they loved. Now that he has passed away the fans are coming back.

 

I love Wrigley, but at some point the grandstand will have to be rebuilt, and I have no problem with it. In fact, the sooner the better. That is so long as the rebuild is congruous, and in the same mold as the old grandstand. I love history as well, but it is simply unrealistic to expect Wrigley to remain as it is. It is an old, decaying hulk that needs serious help. Calling it "destroying history" is a bit melodramatic, IMO.

 

If they treat Wrigley like they treated another Historical landmark in this city, Soldier Field, it is destroying history. Otherwise it would not have been a historical landmark in the first place. I love Wrigley Field and I personally would rather have a new stadium build not in wrigleyville than alter Wrigley so much where it is unrecognizable. That is my personal preference.

 

I believe Wrigley is one of the defining factors of this city. It is one of those things that the city prides itself on. I understand they have to renovate the stadium. I just don't want it to be unrecognizable. My feeling is if you are going to make it unrecognizable why not just build an entirely new stadium, somwhere else. If you wanted something completely different why not actually do it. Of course the Cubs want to stay in Wrigleyville and the Bears wanted to stay on the lake shore.

[XZero771679666304]

I had this discussion today with UMFAN83. My feeling on this is I am against purposely trying to destroy history. In my mind this is like selling the naming rights to Mount Rushmore, Mount Vernon, or the Statue of Liberty. History is what defines a country and a civilization. When you think of Italy we think of going to see the ruins of ancient Rome. When you think of Greece you think of the Parthenon. When you think of London you think of Big Ben. When tourist's come to Chicago they come to Wrigley Field. I cannot respect any man or any corporation that is willing to do this.

 

Even more so, I think selling the naming rights to Wrigley will lead to completely renovating the stadium. Meaning they will tear down the grandstand and rebuild. Since I forsee this happening I am happy that Zell is selling the stadium and the team separately. Because if it was the same owner and he destroyed history I can honestly say I don't know if I could be a Cubs fan anymore.

 

No I am not one of those fans who only likes the Cubs because of Wrigley. I will just despise the owner so much, that I would have a hard time bringing myself to follow the team. Don't get me wrong I'm sure I would, but that is how deep my hatred would be. I liken this to the Bill Wirtz effect. Because people hated him so much they stopped supporting a team they loved. Now that he has passed away the fans are coming back.

 

I love Wrigley, but at some point the grandstand will have to be rebuilt, and I have no problem with it. In fact, the sooner the better. That is so long as the rebuild is congruous, and in the same mold as the old grandstand. I love history as well, but it is simply unrealistic to expect Wrigley to remain as it is. It is an old, decaying hulk that needs serious help. Calling it "destroying history" is a bit melodramatic, IMO.

 

If they treat Wrigley like they treated another Historical landmark in this city, Soldier Field, it is destroying history. Otherwise it would not have been a historical landmark in the first place. I love Wrigley Field and I personally would rather have a new stadium build not in wrigleyville than alter Wrigley so much where it is unrecognizable. That is my personal preference.

 

I believe Wrigley is one of the defining factors of this city. It is one of those things that the city prides itself on. I understand they have to renovate the stadium. I just don't want it to be unrecognizable. My feeling is if you are going to make it unrecognizable why not just build an entirely new stadium, somwhere else. If you wanted something completely different why not actually do it. Of course the Cubs want to stay in Wrigleyville and the Bears wanted to stay on the lake shore.

 

I have a strong feeling that if/when they do rebuild the grandstand, it won't look like they landed a spacecraft, a la Soldier. I'm sure it will strongly resemble Wrigley as it is now.

 

Either way, I would rather have an updated Wrigley where it is now rather than off in the 'burbs. Half of Wrigley's charm is the location.

[kycubsfan]

I love Wrigley, but at some point the grandstand will have to be rebuilt, and I have no problem with it.

 

I agree, I just hope they don't eliminate the pillars and put the upper deck in another time zone

[hawkcub]

I love Wrigley, but at some point the grandstand will have to be rebuilt, and I have no problem with it.

 

I agree, I just hope they don't eliminate the pillars and put the upper deck in another time zone

 

See through Pillars :D

[Derwood]

first off, Soldier Field was a dump. A dump that had been changed 3 or 4 times before the spacecraft landed on it, so it's not like some 100 year old relic that had never been touched prior to the 21st century.

 

secondly, look at some photos of ballparks from the early 20th century. they more advertisement signage than most minor league parks do

[XZero771679666304]

first off, Soldier Field was a dump. A dump that had been changed 3 or 4 times before the spacecraft landed on it, so it's not like some 100 year old relic that had never been touched prior to the 21st century.

 

secondly, look at some photos of ballparks from the early 20th century. they more advertisement signage than most minor league parks do

 

 

Yeah, no one went to Bears games for the ambiance of Soldier Field.

[seanimal]

first off, Soldier Field was a dump. A dump that had been changed 3 or 4 times before the spacecraft landed on it, so it's not like some 100 year old relic that had never been touched prior to the 21st century.

 

and neither is wrigley.

 

honestly, i can at least understand why people are put off by a name change. I don't agree with it at all, but I understand the sentiment, and that I'm in a pretty small minority on the issue.

 

but not wanting a gutting and rebuild of the grandstands? That I just can't understand. It's going to have to be done, or else the Cubs will have to move. Plus, the grandstands/concourse suck. As long as the general design principle of sacrificing some sight-lines on the lower deck in order to make the upper-deck closer to the action, I'm OK with it. Honestly, I don't really see how there would be room to do it otherwise, but then again i'm not an architect/engineer, so, that opinion's worth pretty much nothing.

[OleMissCub]

Keep the name, scoreboard, bleachers, and outside facade. I'd definitely have no problem with them redoing the grandstand though. The obstructed view seats can be a major pain in the ass. Plus the bathrooms are absolutely horrific.

[seanimal]

keep the troths though, i don't want to have to wait in a line like a woman just cause some dude has an irrational fear of my wang

[jmajew]

I don't think anyone has a problem with improving the stadium as long as it keeps the same ambiance and feel. However, I emphasize this, the things that everyone b*tches about are part of what makes Wrigley so unique and so special. If you take away all of those problems its not going to be Wrigley anymore.

 

I'm all for improving the stadium if it is falling down, which is why I understand the upperdeck has to be redone. However, I don't want change just for the sake of change. I believe people are overestimating how horrible of condition Wrigley is in.

[Tyrant]

Well, it'd only postpone the day when Wrigley Field can finally be replaced with a modern ballpark, so I guess I'm marginally against it.

 

+ 1

[David]

I don't think anyone has a problem with improving the stadium as long as it keeps the same ambiance and feel. However, I emphasize this, the things that everyone b*tches about are part of what makes Wrigley so unique and so special. If you take away all of those problems its not going to be Wrigley anymore.

 

I'm all for improving the stadium if it is falling down, which is why I understand the upperdeck has to be redone. However, I don't want change just for the sake of change. I believe people are overestimating how horrible of condition Wrigley is in.

 

I honestly don't agree that terrible bathrooms, obstructed view seating, and, to some extent, extremely cramped concourses (not sure how much they can do about that) are any part of what makes it Wrigley to me.

 

The aesthetics of the field, walls, scoreboard, etc and the fact that you are so close to the field are what makes Wrigley awesome to me. None of that would be lost.

Edited February 29, 2008 by David

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Things that I would love to see retained if Wrigley is renovated or a new stadium is constructed: bricks and ivy, outfield scoreboard, marquee.

 

On the other hand, it would be nice if a new stadium or a renovated stadium did not have so many poles that block the view. Watching a game from the 200 level seats can be a pain. First it's quite common for a pole to block view of part of the field and it's nearly impossible to track the flight of a fly ball from those seats. Some of the same problems exist in the upper levels of the upper deck as well.

 

While all stadiums have some sightline problems, Wrigley has a significant number of them.

[Springfield_CUBBY]

Morrissey chimes in . . .

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-080228-cubs-naming-rights-rick-morrissey,1,7374571.column

Buying naming rights to Wrigley is like buying naming rights to the sun.

 

The romantics who are in an uproar about a possible name change need to save their indignation for something that matters. The joke will be on the corporate rube who believes that, by acquiring naming rights to the ballpark, he's buying high-quality advertising.

 

The indignation that's being thrown on this fire is humorous. People are getting upset that a moneymaking enterprise (Tribune Co.) is trying to make more money. And this surprises you how? Just because you've become emotionally attached to Wrigley Field doesn't change the fact the building exists to extract money from your wallets and purses. That is its only purpose in life.

 

Some things are worth fighting for; this isn't one of them. If the naming rights to the Liberty Bell were sold, it's hard to believe people would start calling it the Taco Bell Liberty Bell just because some corporate agreement had been reached.

 

Has Ricky been reading our board???

[Tyrant]

 

Has Ricky been reading our board???

 

Probably not.

[jmajew]

 

Has Ricky been reading our board???

 

Probably not.

 

Yes you can always count on a Tribune employee to give you their true feelings on the topic.

[RedIvyCub]

Count me as one who has no problem with the UA signage in the outfield and one who thinks John McDonough was great for this organization.

 

JMHO, you have been fleeced.

[RedIvyCub]

Does Zell have anything to do with the Under Armour adds in the power alleys? I don't have a big problem with that, but I don't think he gives a squirt of piss for the Cubs or Wrigley Field, just the opportunity to make a buck off it.

 

Nope, blame your Pal John McDonough (and his lacky Jay Blunk) for the UA signs in the outfield. Knew as soon as MacPhail was gone and no longer there to stop him that something would go on those outfield doors. Was chomping at the bit as many as five years ago wanting to put Nike swooshes on the outfield doors and was shut down.

 

bitter much?

 

Nope, just honest.

[RedIvyCub]

Am I the only one who's just like, bewildered after watching Zell drop f-bombs at the drop of a hat during some major press conference?

 

Holy crap that's who owns the Cubs now? :huh:

 

And many just couldn't wait for any individual to buy the Cubs from the evil corporation.

 

Actually, the only video I saw was when he was talking to employees and muttered under his breath more or less. I didn't see one at a major press conference.

 

Makes you realize the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence and the old Tribune guard doesn't seem so bad right now. They respected the history of this franchise and the ballpark.

[javy knows my name]

Just my two cents...for so many years, people complained about the Tribune and how they just wanted to line their pockets. Funny, Tribune is now run by Zell but everyone flat out blames Zell, not Tribune. Just another example of the grass not always being greener on the other side of the fence.

And don't forget that people in glass houses sink ships.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a jerk.

[XZero771679666304]

Things that I would love to see retained if Wrigley is renovated or a new stadium is constructed: bricks and ivy, outfield scoreboard, marquee.

 

 

 

That's really it. As long as those things are intact (I would include the bleachers, but since they were just renovated, I don't see it being an issue), and any renovation is congruous, the rest doesn't matter.

 

The grandstands/bathrooms/concourse are not charming, they suck.

 

Seeing that the bleachers were just renovated and the field replaced, we aren't going to see a new stadium in the near future. So significant improvements are going to have to be made.