5/31 Astros (Lyles) @ Cubs (Z!) 7:05pm CDT, CSN TV

[XZero771679666304]

Imitating Milwaukee's stadium is about the worst idea I've ever heard. What an abomination.

 

 

Yeah, because implementing one aspect of it is like cloning it.

 

Implementing a bunch of random aspects of several is just going to make a monstrosity. Baseball is played in some great stadiums. None of them have roofs. All of the really enjoyable ones are open air. A couple uncomfortable games in April does not change the need for stadium design.

 

Yeah, because making a frankenstein stadium is also what I said. The point was that you can make an enclosed stadium without making it a hermetically sealed cave.

 

And "A couple uncomfortable games in April" is understating things a bit. There are more than a few places where most of the games in April and early May are kind of miserable more often than not. Slapping a retractable roof on a few of them is hardly a shocking or offensive proposition.

[jersey cubs fan]

That is all true, but the game would be losing nothing by adopting more enclosed stadiums, particularly in more problematic climates. It wouldn't drastically improve the game, but it would improve it. I'm not saying it should be done, but it wouldn't be some sort of affront to the game's history or spirit or any such nonsense.

 

It would absolutely lose a lot. There are no good domed stadiums, so you'd have to figure out a way to build one that isn't lame. You'd also have to figure out a way to pay for all those rebuilds when the rare instances where weather is a problem doesn't come close to justifying the investments. The Yankees and Red Sox play in just as much crap as the Cubs do every April and most Octobers and their fans find a way to actually enjoy being there regardless. Crappy 45 degree games in April suck when your team sucks, they suck a lot less when your team is good.

[jersey cubs fan]

Slapping a retractable roof on a few of them is hardly a shocking or offensive proposition.

 

Or even a remotely feasible proposition.

 

 

It's actually a completely absurd idea.

[CyHawk_Cub]

Cobs. Bad.

 

And I have a place to watch games, where it's climate controlled. It's called my living room. Converting the Cubs' home park to a climate controlled haven wouldn't make it a draw for me when the teams is bad.

[XZero771679666304]

That is all true, but the game would be losing nothing by adopting more enclosed stadiums, particularly in more problematic climates. It wouldn't drastically improve the game, but it would improve it. I'm not saying it should be done, but it wouldn't be some sort of affront to the game's history or spirit or any such nonsense.

 

It would absolutely lose a lot. There are no good domed stadiums, so you'd have to figure out a way to build one that isn't lame. You'd also have to figure out a way to pay for all those rebuilds when the rare instances where weather is a problem doesn't come close to justifying the investments. The Yankees and Red Sox play in just as much crap as the Cubs do every April and most Octobers and their fans find a way to actually enjoy being there regardless. Crappy 45 degree games in April suck when your team sucks, they suck a lot less when your team is good.

 

Cold games suck regardless. I imagine they also affect walk up ticket sales pretty significantly as well. I don't care if the team looks like a contender or not, I plan my trips to Wrigley in the summer, regardless of the price/availability of tickets. Cold, gray April baseball sucks any way you slice it. How they put an open air stadium in a place like Minneapolis still boggles my mind.

 

And there are good enclosed stadiums. Enclosed =/= domed. There aren't/weren't any good domes, but they are a becoming a relic of the past. Safeco is a nice place to see a game, not every enclosed stadium has to be Tropicana Field or Rogers Centre. I think down the road we'll see architectural innovations that make enclosed stadiums even better and more common.

[XZero771679666304]

Slapping a retractable roof on a few of them is hardly a shocking or offensive proposition.

 

 

 

 

It's actually a completely absurd idea.

 

What I meant was building future stadiums enclosed, not modifying the existing ones. Which is a prudent and absolutely non-absurd idea.

[SouthSideRyan]

Imitating Milwaukee's stadium is about the worst idea I've ever heard. What an abomination.

 

 

Yeah, because implementing one aspect of it is like cloning it.

 

You're cloning the worst part of it.

[SouthSideRyan]

That is all true, but the game would be losing nothing by adopting more enclosed stadiums, particularly in more problematic climates. It wouldn't drastically improve the game, but it would improve it. I'm not saying it should be done, but it wouldn't be some sort of affront to the game's history or spirit or any such nonsense.

 

It would absolutely lose a lot. There are no good domed stadiums, so you'd have to figure out a way to build one that isn't lame. You'd also have to figure out a way to pay for all those rebuilds when the rare instances where weather is a problem doesn't come close to justifying the investments. The Yankees and Red Sox play in just as much crap as the Cubs do every April and most Octobers and their fans find a way to actually enjoy being there regardless. Crappy 45 degree games in April suck when your team sucks, they suck a lot less when your team is good.

 

Cold games suck regardless. I imagine they also affect walk up ticket sales pretty significantly as well. I don't care if the team looks like a contender or not, I plan my trips to Wrigley in the summer, regardless of the price/availability of tickets. Cold, gray April baseball sucks any way you slice it. How they put an open air stadium in a place like Minneapolis still boggles my mind.

 

And there are good enclosed stadiums. Enclosed =/= domed. There aren't/weren't any good domes, but they are a becoming a relic of the past. Safeco is a nice place to see a game, not every enclosed stadium has to be Tropicana Field or Rogers Centre. I think down the road we'll see architectural innovations that make enclosed stadiums even better and more common.

 

Target Field is gorgeous, my 2nd favorite behind PNC.

[XZero771679666304]

That is all true, but the game would be losing nothing by adopting more enclosed stadiums, particularly in more problematic climates. It wouldn't drastically improve the game, but it would improve it. I'm not saying it should be done, but it wouldn't be some sort of affront to the game's history or spirit or any such nonsense.

 

It would absolutely lose a lot. There are no good domed stadiums, so you'd have to figure out a way to build one that isn't lame. You'd also have to figure out a way to pay for all those rebuilds when the rare instances where weather is a problem doesn't come close to justifying the investments. The Yankees and Red Sox play in just as much crap as the Cubs do every April and most Octobers and their fans find a way to actually enjoy being there regardless. Crappy 45 degree games in April suck when your team sucks, they suck a lot less when your team is good.

 

Cold games suck regardless. I imagine they also affect walk up ticket sales pretty significantly as well. I don't care if the team looks like a contender or not, I plan my trips to Wrigley in the summer, regardless of the price/availability of tickets. Cold, gray April baseball sucks any way you slice it. How they put an open air stadium in a place like Minneapolis still boggles my mind.

 

And there are good enclosed stadiums. Enclosed =/= domed. There aren't/weren't any good domes, but they are a becoming a relic of the past. Safeco is a nice place to see a game, not every enclosed stadium has to be Tropicana Field or Rogers Centre. I think down the road we'll see architectural innovations that make enclosed stadiums even better and more common.

 

Target Field is gorgeous, my 2nd favorite behind PNC.

 

It is gorgeous, but that's not the point. Alaska is gorgeous too, but I don't want to go there. Not that I wouldn't go to a summer game at Target, but that's about the only time you'd see me in the Twin Cities. Minnesota weather absolutely sucks for 70% of the year.

[SouthSideRyan]

Target Field is gorgeous, my 2nd favorite behind PNC.

 

It is gorgeous, but that's not the point. Alaska is gorgeous too, but I don't want to go there. Not that I wouldn't go to a summer game at Target, but that's about the only time you'd see me in the Twin Cities. Minnesota weather absolutely sucks for 70% of the year.

 

Average high temp of 57 in April, 58 in October.

 

Very little precipitation as well.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why don't you just not go to the half a dozen or so terrible games a year? I think the teams can live with your lack of business for the relative handful of games a year that are affected and continue to benefit from playing in cost effective outdoor stadiums.

[jersey cubs fan]

Slapping a retractable roof on a few of them is hardly a shocking or offensive proposition.

 

 

 

 

It's actually a completely absurd idea.

 

What I meant was building future stadiums enclosed, not modifying the existing ones. Which is a prudent and absolutely non-absurd idea.

 

They've just built several very expensive stadiums in "choppy weather" cities without wasting money on enclosing them because unlike you they realize it's not prudent. You don't slap a roof on Yankee stadium because it can still snow in April. Roofs aren't just slapped on. They are incredibly costly unnecessary items.

[Guest]

The problem as I see it is Tom Ricketts seems to be more worried about Wrigley Field than putting a winning product on the field. He thinks the park is the reason people come to the game because that is what he did. I can't believe that he, his siblings or any of his close advisors can't see the need for change.

 

I really don't understand this kind of sentiment. Yes, I want the Ricketts to do what needs to be done, but it's not like they've let these stellar FA classes get by them in the time they've owned the team. Unless you were expecting them to command the FO to start trading the farm or blow even more bloated contracts on mid-level FA then there hasn't been much to do right now to dramatically change this team.

 

And Wrigley is a dump that's literally falling apart. It's a huge part of the investment for anyone that owns the team and it needs a ton of upgrades and work sooner rather than later.

 

I think this offseason will be the first real indicator of their level of commitment to the product on the field.

 

In my opinion, the indicator will be what happens in the draft. Last year's draft ended up being somewhere in the middle of the road compared to other teams budget-wise, especially after the Cubs drove a dump truck full of money up to Matt Szczur's house. If the Cubs are willing to spend on their first round pick and also draft and sign guys who fall into later rounds because of signability concerns, that would tell me this team is going in the right direction.

 

The Cubs spent more than normal in the international free agency market last year and were amongst the biggest spending teams in MLB despite a down year in Asia.