Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Guest]

They really don't. The team has played three consecutive seasons of awful baseball. They have had only one really great seasons in the past 20 years and only 2 playoff appearances in the past nine years and they still drew over 2.8 million people. That is phenomenal and is directly due to the fact that they play in Wrigley Field. Wrigley offers a buffer in bad seasons that other stadiums do not. They cannot go on forever as a 70 win team and expect to draw, but as long as they stay relevant and succeed on occasion Wrigley will sell. That is a huge benefit to the team.

 

I cannot imagine they have much interest in spending $1B on a stadium in the suburbs only to risk losing that draw.

 

This is an assertion without evidence. You're making Wrigley the sole reason that Cubs draw better than other teams for no other reason than the fact that it fits your preferred narrative.

I'd love to hear a more plausible rival hypothesis.

 

Anyway, there's plenty of evidence.

[cbbryan]

They really don't. The team has played three consecutive seasons of awful baseball. They have had only one really great seasons in the past 20 years and only 2 playoff appearances in the past nine years and they still drew over 2.8 million people. That is phenomenal and is directly due to the fact that they play in Wrigley Field. Wrigley offers a buffer in bad seasons that other stadiums do not. They cannot go on forever as a 70 win team and expect to draw, but as long as they stay relevant and succeed on occasion Wrigley will sell. That is a huge benefit to the team.

 

I cannot imagine they have much interest in spending $1B on a stadium in the suburbs only to risk losing that draw.

 

This is an assertion without evidence. You're making Wrigley the sole reason that Cubs draw better than other teams for no other reason than the fact that it fits your preferred narrative.

I'd love to hear a more plausible rival hypothesis.

 

Anyway, there's plenty of evidence.

 

Why do they continue to be one of the best draws on the road? Cubs tickets are a premium ticket in SD, or ATL, or Houston...they'd certainly have no problems in Rosemont.

[cbbryan]

 

I find it hard to believe the Cubs would move, but having the leverage can't hurt. That said, think of what the Cubs could do with 25 acresCubs build a whole lot more than a ballpark.

A park and a parking lot

 

Depends on how they do the parking. If they were to build parking garages instead of an open parking lot, I would think they'd have room to build a few businesses. Maybe I'm overestimating the possibilities.

 

Edit: Just an example, the Twins new Target Field is built on an 8 acre plot. Why couldn't the Cubs do something similar?

 

It's a baseball team, they aren't going to be building an amusement park and car wash.

 

I'm talking about restaurants, bars, team shop, etc. A new "Wrigleyville" area that is essentially owned entirely by the Cubs. What are the yearly revenues of the businesses directly surrounding Wrigley (that profit from the Cubs popularity) and what would it do for the Cubs to add that revenue to the club?

[SouthSideRyan]

They really don't. The team has played three consecutive seasons of awful baseball. They have had only one really great seasons in the past 20 years and only 2 playoff appearances in the past nine years and they still drew over 2.8 million people. That is phenomenal and is directly due to the fact that they play in Wrigley Field. Wrigley offers a buffer in bad seasons that other stadiums do not. They cannot go on forever as a 70 win team and expect to draw, but as long as they stay relevant and succeed on occasion Wrigley will sell. That is a huge benefit to the team.

 

I cannot imagine they have much interest in spending $1B on a stadium in the suburbs only to risk losing that draw.

 

This is an assertion without evidence. You're making Wrigley the sole reason that Cubs draw better than other teams for no other reason than the fact that it fits your preferred narrative.

I'd love to hear a more plausible rival hypothesis.

 

Anyway, there's plenty of evidence.

 

Why do they continue to be one of the best draws on the road? Cubs tickets are a premium ticket in SD, or ATL, or Houston...they'd certainly have no problems in Rosemont.

 

Speaking of assertions solely made to fit a narrative

Edited March 23, 2013 by SouthSideRyan

[SouthSideRyan]

 

I find it hard to believe the Cubs would move, but having the leverage can't hurt. That said, think of what the Cubs could do with 25 acresCubs build a whole lot more than a ballpark.

A park and a parking lot

 

Depends on how they do the parking. If they were to build parking garages instead of an open parking lot, I would think they'd have room to build a few businesses. Maybe I'm overestimating the possibilities.

 

Edit: Just an example, the Twins new Target Field is built on an 8 acre plot. Why couldn't the Cubs do something similar?

 

It's a baseball team, they aren't going to be building an amusement park and car wash.

 

I'm talking about restaurants, bars, team shop, etc. A new "Wrigleyville" area that is essentially owned entirely by the Cubs. What are the yearly revenues of the businesses directly surrounding Wrigley (that profit from the Cubs popularity) and what would it do for the Cubs to add that revenue to the club?

 

Nobody wants to [expletive] hang out at bars in Rosemont, IL

[cbbryan]

Why do they continue to be one of the best draws on the road? Cubs tickets are a premium ticket in SD, or ATL, or Houston...they'd certainly have no problems in Rosemont.

 

Speaking of assertions solely made to fit a narrative

 

I think it's fair to look at fan attendance. It is true that Cubs games tend to sell very well, regardless of the location of the game.

 

Once again, I don't want the Cubs to move to Rosemont. It would be my preference that Wrigley is revamped and restrictions on games were lifted, but I can certainly see the benefits to moving the team if Tunney and the rooftops want to hold up progress.

[Geech]

This is an assertion without evidence. You're making Wrigley the sole reason that Cubs draw better than other teams for no other reason than the fact that it fits your preferred narrative.

I'd love to hear a more plausible rival hypothesis.

 

Anyway, there's plenty of evidence.

 

Well, one such hypothesis is that the Cubs' superior drawing power is due to a variety of factors, not all of which are tangible. In short, the Cubs just have a more appealing brand than someone like the Mets. Part of that is Wrigley field, but I certainly don't think it's reasonable to ascribe all of the extra pull as being due to Wrigley alone.

 

This should be something we can test at least a little bit, although I don't know who might compile this kind of data. Do concerts at Wrigley draw more? Has another team over played "home" games at Wrigley against someone other than the Cubs? How were those numbers compared to their usual? You claim there's plenty of evidence, and I'm generally curious to see what evidence you're thinking of that supports Wrigley Field as the sole factor.

[BeerHere]

Build a winning organization, people will come. Shift the organization away from the "lovable losers in beautiful Wrigley Field" to a consistent winner, playoff contender and WS champion, people will come.

[Backtobanks]

Build a winning organization, people will come. Shift the organization away from the "lovable losers in beautiful Wrigley Field" to a consistent winner, playoff contender and WS champion, people will come.

 

Just make sure you don't come up short and become a mediocre team with a chance to make the playoffs playing in a sterile, suburban ballpark.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm going to weigh in on this, and I'm going to try to avoid the hyperbole that's been exhibited from some on both sides. Also, I'm going to fully admit that since I'm a non-Chicagoan Cubs fan, I may not be as knowledgeable or in tune with all the nuances of the Chicago-area fans.

 

The emphasis and priority should be continuing to play at Wrigley. The field is uniquely linked to the franchise, and there's no doubt it is an experience that is unique and has value. However, the supremacy of this option is also linked to the Cubs being able to schedule, market, do what they want with their field, as most other teams can.

 

If that happens to not be the case....

 

then, the Cubs may have to explore other options.

 

How these other options compare will depend on a variety of factors. The main issue for the Cubs will be profitability away from Wrigley vs profitability at Wrigley, taking into account the limitations that playing at Wrigley contains.

 

While everyone may have a preference, the real question will be how much moving will hurt them as a franchise vs the gains that moving may or may not bring.

 

For example, if the Cubs build a new stadium and field in an area such as Rosemont and also own the parking lots, that could produce a revenue source that may make up for loss of attendance. Also, they could have more luxury suites in such a park.

 

Finally, let me state so no one misunderstands my view. I believe the Cubs should do everything they can to continue to play at Wrigley, but if they continue to be unecessarily limited, then moving may not be a bad option, depending on a lot of other factors, such as how much a suburban area will contribute to a new stadium, how much the Cubs could make at the new stadium in areas other than just ticket sales, etc.

[Sammy Sofa]

This is an assertion without evidence. You're making Wrigley the sole reason that Cubs draw better than other teams for no other reason than the fact that it fits your preferred narrative.

I'd love to hear a more plausible rival hypothesis.

 

Anyway, there's plenty of evidence.

 

Well, one such hypothesis is that the Cubs' superior drawing power is due to a variety of factors, not all of which are tangible. In short, the Cubs just have a more appealing brand than someone like the Mets. Part of that is Wrigley field, but I certainly don't think it's reasonable to ascribe all of the extra pull as being due to Wrigley alone.

 

This should be something we can test at least a little bit, although I don't know who might compile this kind of data. Do concerts at Wrigley draw more? Has another team over played "home" games at Wrigley against someone other than the Cubs? How were those numbers compared to their usual? You claim there's plenty of evidence, and I'm generally curious to see what evidence you're thinking of that supports Wrigley Field as the sole factor.

 

The Cubs' drawing ability around the country is based on something pretty tangible; the proliferation of WGN around the country for decades. You couple that with the team coming from a big market that has a lot of expats and retirees to other states and you have most of your answer.

[Geech]

This is an assertion without evidence. You're making Wrigley the sole reason that Cubs draw better than other teams for no other reason than the fact that it fits your preferred narrative.

I'd love to hear a more plausible rival hypothesis.

 

Anyway, there's plenty of evidence.

 

Well, one such hypothesis is that the Cubs' superior drawing power is due to a variety of factors, not all of which are tangible. In short, the Cubs just have a more appealing brand than someone like the Mets. Part of that is Wrigley field, but I certainly don't think it's reasonable to ascribe all of the extra pull as being due to Wrigley alone.

 

This should be something we can test at least a little bit, although I don't know who might compile this kind of data. Do concerts at Wrigley draw more? Has another team over played "home" games at Wrigley against someone other than the Cubs? How were those numbers compared to their usual? You claim there's plenty of evidence, and I'm generally curious to see what evidence you're thinking of that supports Wrigley Field as the sole factor.

 

The Cubs' drawing ability around the country is based on something pretty tangible; the proliferation of WGN around the country for decades. You couple that with the team coming from a big market that has a lot of expats and retirees to other states and you have most of your answer.

 

I actually think WGN is much better answer than Wrigley, but that may be my own bias since it's mostly how my fandom was stoked.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

I find it hard to believe the Cubs would move, but having the leverage can't hurt. That said, think of what the Cubs could do with 25 acresCubs build a whole lot more than a ballpark.

A park and a parking lot

 

Depends on how they do the parking. If they were to build parking garages instead of an open parking lot, I would think they'd have room to build a few businesses. Maybe I'm overestimating the possibilities.

 

Edit: Just an example, the Twins new Target Field is built on an 8 acre plot. Why couldn't the Cubs do something similar?

 

It's a baseball team, they aren't going to be building an amusement park and car wash.

 

I'm talking about restaurants, bars, team shop, etc. A new "Wrigleyville" area that is essentially owned entirely by the Cubs. What are the yearly revenues of the businesses directly surrounding Wrigley (that profit from the Cubs popularity) and what would it do for the Cubs to add that revenue to the club?

 

It is already going to cost them at least $1B to build a new stadium. Then it will cost them several hundred million to build a fake Wrigleyville complex surrounding the ballpark to distract people from realizing they are in Rosemont.

 

 

They aren't going to do it. Thankfully.

[Guest]

 

It is already going to cost them at least $1B to build a new stadium. Then it will cost them several hundred million to build a fake Wrigleyville complex surrounding the ballpark to distract people from realizing they are in Rosemont.

 

 

They aren't going to do it. Thankfully.

 

Or it very easily might cost them half that. Or nothing. Or some other amount we that we have no idea about.

[jersey cubs fan]

I actually think WGN is much better answer than Wrigley, but that may be my own bias since it's mostly how my fandom was stoked.

WGN was showing you day baseball games at Wrigley Field.

 

Wrigley Field still exists, WGN's relevance does not.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

It is already going to cost them at least $1B to build a new stadium. Then it will cost them several hundred million to build a fake Wrigleyville complex surrounding the ballpark to distract people from realizing they are in Rosemont.

 

 

They aren't going to do it. Thankfully.

 

Or it very easily might cost them half that. Or nothing. Or some other amount we that we have no idea about.

 

In what dream world?

[Guest]

 

It is already going to cost them at least $1B to build a new stadium. Then it will cost them several hundred million to build a fake Wrigleyville complex surrounding the ballpark to distract people from realizing they are in Rosemont.

 

 

They aren't going to do it. Thankfully.

 

Or it very easily might cost them half that. Or nothing. Or some other amount we that we have no idea about.

 

In what dream world?

 

In the world where a few suburbs are fighting to get the Cubs cash cow to come to their location and leave Wrigley Field?

[jersey cubs fan]

 

It is already going to cost them at least $1B to build a new stadium. Then it will cost them several hundred million to build a fake Wrigleyville complex surrounding the ballpark to distract people from realizing they are in Rosemont.

 

 

They aren't going to do it. Thankfully.

 

Or it very easily might cost them half that. Or nothing. Or some other amount we that we have no idea about.

 

In what dream world?

 

In the world where a few suburbs are fighting to get the Cubs cash cow to come to their location and leave Wrigley Field?

 

They aren't really fighting. And they aren't going to foot the bill for half a billion. They will already have to count on government assistance building new access roads to handle the overflow that a stadium would create. They aren't also going to get a ton of cash to build the stadium itself.

[Guest]

 

It is already going to cost them at least $1B to build a new stadium. Then it will cost them several hundred million to build a fake Wrigleyville complex surrounding the ballpark to distract people from realizing they are in Rosemont.

 

 

They aren't going to do it. Thankfully.

 

Or it very easily might cost them half that. Or nothing. Or some other amount we that we have no idea about.

 

In what dream world?

 

In the world where a few suburbs are fighting to get the Cubs cash cow to come to their location and leave Wrigley Field?

 

They aren't really fighting. And they aren't going to foot the bill for half a billion. They will already have to count on government assistance building new access roads to handle the overflow that a stadium would create. They aren't also going to get a ton of cash to build the stadium itself.

 

If the Cubs moving out of Wrigley becomes a serious possibility and the Cubs get into real negotiations, you don't think there will be a few other suburbs entering the fray?

[SouthSideRyan]

What suburb has a billion dollars to drop on the Cubs?

[Guest]

What suburb has a billion dollars to drop on the Cubs?

 

I'm not going to pretend to have a [expletive] clue as to how that would all work or how much money a town like Schaumburg or something could put up, but I doubt there would be no public assistance of any sort (beyond the free land) offered.

 

I mean, they got like $100M out of Mesa for just a spring training complex, right?

[mul21]

What suburb has a billion dollars to drop on the Cubs?

 

Up front? Probably very few. But that's what bonds are for right?

 

And like David said, they just got $100 million from Mesa for a complex occupied by major leaguers 1 month out of the year.

[Guest]

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/03/25/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-is-the-ricketts-family-just-trying-to-put-the-rooftops-out-of-business/

[Cubswin11]

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/03/25/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-is-the-ricketts-family-just-trying-to-put-the-rooftops-out-of-business/

But, however unsavory it might seem, we have to at least discuss the possibility that the Cubs are considering a plan that would (1) erect signs that block the rooftop views, (2) involve a lengthy legal dispute, (3) drive the rooftops out of business in the meantime, (4) allow the Ricketts Family to purchase the rooftop buildings at a reduced rate, and (5) allow the Ricketts Family to repurpose those buildings to drive additional personal revenue or additional Cubs revenue.

 

Well, that's just good [expletive] business. When you own a product and have parasites trying to latch on for free and/or getting in the way of increasing revenue that's rightfully yours, you cut off their lifeblood.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, why is that "unsavory" at all? Oh no, a bunch of LLC's have to sell off their parasitic businesses to the organization they're leeching off of...HOW UNSEEMLY.