Chipper: Blow up Wrigley

[ltb]

well there goes any respect i had for this scumbag.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

The cookie cutter stadiums sucked. To St. Louis' credit, they tried to give theirs a little atmosphere, and make it a comfortable place to watch a game, but I won't miss it.

 

Most of the new stadiums are terrific. I think that the new idea is to build a stadium with the old-time baseball feel, but the modern-day comforts.

 

Wrigley is a landmark. Nobody can deny that. But Chipper's remarks are pretty accurate. It's not a comfortable place to watch a game, and I can see where it would be an uncomfortable place to play, also (for the reasons that Chipper mentioned).

 

I'm pretty sure it was last year that Wrigley was voted favorite stadium to play in amongst the players. So a few bad apples who don't like it are definitely in the majority.

 

And I've found that Wrigley is more comfortable than every other stadium I've been to. And there's really not a bad seat in the house except for the very few that are behind the pole.

[K-Town]

The cookie cutter stadiums sucked. To St. Louis' credit, they tried to give theirs a little atmosphere, and make it a comfortable place to watch a game, but I won't miss it.

 

Most of the new stadiums are terrific. I think that the new idea is to build a stadium with the old-time baseball feel, but the modern-day comforts.

 

Wrigley is a landmark. Nobody can deny that. But Chipper's remarks are pretty accurate. It's not a comfortable place to watch a game, and I can see where it would be an uncomfortable place to play, also (for the reasons that Chipper mentioned).

 

I'm pretty sure it was last year that Wrigley was voted favorite stadium to play in amongst the players. So a few bad apples who don't like it are definitely in the majority.

 

And I've found that Wrigley is more comfortable than every other stadium I've been to. And there's really not a bad seat in the house except for the very few that are behind the pole.

 

 

I'm not sure if it was voted the favorite stadium or not. I thnk that Chicago was voted the favorite town to play in. Here's a quote from Jeff Bagwell:

 

"Wrigley (Chicago) is nice because you get to play a lot of day games and that way we get to go out and find a place to eat a normal dinner."

 

Wrigley is unique. I'm sure that players appreciate the history, and all that. But as far as being a nice place to play a baseball game, I'm not sure. As far as being "comfortable", the other stadiums (besides Wrigley) have cupholders all over the place, roomier seats, tidy and roomy concession and restroom facilities, visible scoreboards and big-screen monitors, viewable from almost anywhere in the park, etc. Call me spoiled, but those are things that I enjoy. As far as "not being a bad seat in the house", that's literally true of the newer stadiums.

 

Again, that's no knock on Wrigley. As far as being historic and having a great atmosphere, it's a great place..... probably the best in baseball. But I wouldn't say it's a "nice" stadium, by today's standards.

[rocket]

I've read a few articles where baseball players said that the Wrigley clubhouse is just horrible.

[Mark Priors Calves]

I've read a few articles where baseball players said that the Wrigley clubhouse is just horrible.

 

I don't have much to compare it too but having been in the visitor's clubhouse on a Wrigley Tour, I can say that yes it is tiny and has zero amenities. Having only seen the clubhouses of some teams on tv, I can say that I wouldn't want to visit Wrigley as a player either especially compared to what they get elsewhere.

[K-Town]

Sports Illustrated asked players what their "favorite ballpark" is. Wrigley Field came in third (behind Safeco and Pac Bell).

 

Wrigley also made the "least favorite" list, at 10th.

 

Wrigley was voted as having the "worst quality playing field", and was 2nd for "worst locker room" (behind Fenway).

 

Chicago was easily the favorite city for players to visit, though.

 

I'm pretty amazed at how well St. Louis fared in the "best fans" category. 46% of the players said St. Louis. Next closest was Boston, with 13%.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/07/01/survey/

Edited August 23, 2005 by K-Town

[cubbyvirus00]

The cookie cutter stadiums sucked. To St. Louis' credit, they tried to give theirs a little atmosphere, and make it a comfortable place to watch a game, but I won't miss it.

 

Most of the new stadiums are terrific. I think that the new idea is to build a stadium with the old-time baseball feel, but the modern-day comforts.

 

Wrigley is a landmark. Nobody can deny that. But Chipper's remarks are pretty accurate. It's not a comfortable place to watch a game, and I can see where it would be an uncomfortable place to play, also (for the reasons that Chipper mentioned).

 

I'm pretty sure it was last year that Wrigley was voted favorite stadium to play in amongst the players. So a few bad apples who don't like it are definitely in the majority.

 

And I've found that Wrigley is more comfortable than every other stadium I've been to. And there's really not a bad seat in the house except for the very few that are behind the pole.

 

I was amoung the very few, this year.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

I'm not sure if it was voted the favorite stadium or not. I thnk that Chicago was voted the favorite town to play in. Here's a quote from Jeff Bagwell:

 

"Wrigley (Chicago) is nice because you get to play a lot of day games and that way we get to go out and find a place to eat a normal dinner."

 

Wrigley is unique. I'm sure that players appreciate the history, and all that. But as far as being a nice place to play a baseball game, I'm not sure. As far as being "comfortable", the other stadiums (besides Wrigley) have cupholders all over the place, roomier seats, tidy and roomy concession and restroom facilities, visible scoreboards and big-screen monitors, viewable from almost anywhere in the park, etc. Call me spoiled, but those are things that I enjoy. As far as "not being a bad seat in the house", that's literally true of the newer stadiums.

 

Again, that's no knock on Wrigley. As far as being historic and having a great atmosphere, it's a great place..... probably the best in baseball. But I wouldn't say it's a "nice" stadium, by today's standards.

 

No, the article was based on a survey given to players. They said Wrigley was the best stadium to PLAY IN. They also said Jim Thome was the best teammate, Barry Bonds was the best player, and 75% of the guys in the league wouldn't mind having a gay teammate on their team. It was an article out of one of the Tribune's papers.

 

It didn't mention how bad the clubhouses are though. Because we all know that Wrigley and Fenway are horrible for this.

 

Also, every seat at Wrigley has its own cupholder. I've found that the seats at Wrigley offer the same amount of room as most other parks. And if you can't see the scoreboard from where you sit, then you're blind. I'll give you the restrooms, because those are horrible there. And the lack of a jumbotron is what makes Wrigley what it is. The scoreboard is literally a landmark. It achieved that status a few years ago. Even if they tear the stadium down, the scoreboard has to stay.

 

Putting a jumbotron in Wrigley would make it look like Soldier Field. A classic looking stadium that they tried to make look futuristic. Now it looks like a spaceship crashed into Soldier Field.

 

And call me crazy, but I don't go to Wrigley for the ammentities. I go to watch a baseball game. If I wanted to visit a "rain room", or see how hard I could throw using one of those carnival style games, I'd go to the south side.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Does anyone know where the Tribune article I'm referring to is located? I'm at work and don't have time to dig it up right now.

 

It's not the sports illustrated one you posted, although that is rather interesting.

[K-Town]

No, the article was based on a survey given to players. They said Wrigley was the best stadium to PLAY IN. They also said Jim Thome was the best teammate, Barry Bonds was the best player, and 75% of the guys in the league wouldn't mind having a gay teammate on their team. It was an article out of one of the Tribune's papers.

 

It didn't mention how bad the clubhouses are though. Because we all know that Wrigley and Fenway are horrible for this.

 

Also, every seat at Wrigley has its own cupholder. I've found that the seats at Wrigley offer the same amount of room as most other parks. And if you can't see the scoreboard from where you sit, then you're blind. I'll give you the restrooms, because those are horrible there. And the lack of a jumbotron is what makes Wrigley what it is. The scoreboard is literally a landmark. It achieved that status a few years ago. Even if they tear the stadium down, the scoreboard has to stay.

 

Putting a jumbotron in Wrigley would make it look like Soldier Field. A classic looking stadium that they tried to make look futuristic. Now it looks like a spaceship crashed into Soldier Field.

 

OK. I couldn't find that article, but I'm sure it's out there somewhere. If they said it's the best stadium to play in, they were probably referring to the fact that it's unique, and has alot of day games (as Jeff Bagwell pointed out), rather than the fact that they think the field and facilities are horrible (which is what they said to Sports Illustrated).

 

There's no doubt that it's a landmark. No, it wouldn't be Wrigley with a jumbotron. Wrigley is what it is, but that doesn't make it comfortable. Not to me, anyway.

[EricG]

Sports Illustrated asked players what their "favorite ballpark" is. Wrigley Field came in third (behind Safeco and Pac Bell).

 

Wrigley also made the "least favorite" list, at 10th.

 

Wrigley was voted as having the "worst quality playing field", and was 2nd for "worst locker room" (behind Fenway).

 

Chicago was easily the favorite city for players to visit, though.

 

I'm pretty amazed at how well St. Louis fared in the "best fans" category. 46% of the players said St. Louis. Next closest was Boston, with 13%.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/07/01/survey/

 

18. Who's the best manager?

Dusty Baker, Cubs 23.6%

Joe Torre, Yankees 18.7%

Bobby Cox, Braves 13.1%

Mike Scioscia, Angels 6.2%

Tony La Russa, Cardinals 5.8%

Lou Piniella, Devil Rays 5.6%

Inside the Numbers

• Baker earned 35.8% of his best-manager votes from the NL Central; he was also No. 2 in the AL voting (18.0%).• Cox finished second in the best-manager voting among players with 10 years' experience (20.2%).

:shock: ](*,) :-k

[K-Town]

Clearly, the players love Dusty.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Found somewhere that references the article.

 

http://sportsdesigner.blogs.com/1/2004/week29/ (you have to scroll down. it's a blog)

 

* Favorite ballpark is Wrigley Field, followed by Safeco Field (yeah!)

• Best teammate is Jim Thome; best player is Barry Bonds

• 74 percent say a gay teammate wouldn't bother them (yeah again!)

• 51 percent say steroids are not a problem in baseball (11 percent had no comment; one percent said "go to hell" to Rick Reilly's face)

• And 80 percent detest the Questec computer that analyzes umpires.

[J.R.]

Too bad the lack of amenities is killing Wrigley. Maybe, one of these days, we'll have a full house on hand to cheer the Cubbies!

[CubbieGirl22]

Too bad the lack of amenities is killing Wrigley. Maybe, one of these days, we'll have a full house on hand to cheer the Cubbies!

 

Who cares about the cupholders???

[UK1679666180]

The qualities opposing ballplayers like in a ballpark Wrigley doesn't have, locker room, playing conditions, etc.

 

Nothing wrong with that.

 

If Chipper was more interested in historical ballpark and sightlines, he'd be more like a fan.

 

I've never been opposed to blowing up Wrigley, you're just not going to find anywhere to put a better park in a better location.

[Yeti]

Too bad the lack of amenities is killing Wrigley. Maybe, one of these days, we'll have a full house on hand to cheer the Cubbies!

 

Who cares about the cupholders???

agreed...if i need to put my beer down i do have a lap