Now before I get any further, I am one of those nostalgic baseball fans who hates changes to pretty much anything. Keeping Wrigley (and Fenway for that matter) around is very important to me. So keep that in mind. But I'm going to offer a counter point to Chapan's column, FJM style. Here it goes.
That sounds horrible! Tear it down!Wrigley Field: It's one of the most iconic stadiums in America, with a distinctive urban location, nearly a century of history and an old-fashioned ambience. It's the best thing about the Chicago Cubs since Ernie Banks.
But, as was once the case with Ernie Banks, maybe it's time to admit that Wrigley can't go on forever.
Overheard in the 1957 Cubs clubhouse: "You know, I think someday Ernie Banks is going to stop playing." "No. You're wrong. Get out of here."
Wrigley is attractive and charming in many ways, but it's like driving a vintage car: After a while, the novelty is not enough to justify the antiquated design. The ivy-covered walls and manually operated scoreboard have to be balanced against the cramped concourses, primitive restrooms, modest kitchen facilities and obstructed views.
I'm going to ignore the fact that people love vintage cars and that they always get attention because that's just a terrible cheesy analogy. But what I can't stand is the absolutely inane argument that the reason they should tear down Wrigley is because of the concourses, bathrooms, kitchen facilities (?) and obstructed views. let's tackle those once at a time.
Crowded concourses - So leaving Wrigley is a mess. Sometimes, it takes up to ten minutes to leave the ballpark. It's probably worth tearing down the place over that right? Because when I go to ballparks, I don't care about the seats or any of that jazz, it's how wide the concourses are.
"Did you see that great catch Ramirez made?"
"Hell no. I was walking around the concourses. They were amazing."
Watch the game people. If this is your argument, you hate baseball. Seriously. And try going to a new park. Sure, the concourses are significantly bigger than at Wrigley, but you know what they do with them? Cram them full of stuff. No one goes to a game (or doesn't go to a game) because the concourses are crowded.
Bathrooms - Sure, Wrigley's are old and kinda gross. But here's an idea. Stop drinking so much and watch the game. Once again, you hate baseball if this is your argument. Could they remodel the bathrooms? I don't see why not. Gut them and make them nicer for all the non-fans. Not worth knocking the building over for. And again, the bathrooms are not the main attraction at baseball games.
Kitchen facilities - I don't even know what this means. Sure, there's not a Hard Rock Cafe in Wrigley like at the new Yankee Stadium, but I don't think anyone is particularly looking for that. Wrigley has great ballpark food. You know, for eating at a ballpark. At a baseball game.
Obstructed views - Alright, finally something that actually matters. Yes, Wrigley has a number of obstructed view seats. But Wrigley also has the best seats in all of baseball. These two are directly related. The seats are Wrigley are so close to the field because the decks are stacked right on top of each other, brining you closer to the action and improving your view. There are some truly obstructed view seats that I'd be unhappy to get. But it's a trade off I'd make. Really only the back of the 200 level and the 500 level are obstructed. If you are so worried about sitting behind a pole, buy better seats. Man up.
Back to the column.
To even think of replacing the nostalgia-drenched ballpark is heresy to diehard Cubs fans. But Yankee Stadium was even richer in history and tradition -- winning tradition, by the way -- when the Yankees abandoned it in 2008.
Yankee Stadium was never a great place to watch a game. It was all about the nostalgia. I've been to numerous games at both parks. Yankee Stadium had a feel to it, a sort of electricity. The new one? Cold, sterile, big, lacking of character. People will still go because they are the Yankees and maybe the most famous team in all of sports in the world. And they win. A lot. People like winners (see: Blackhawks, Chicago). But go ask a Yankee fan if they'd rather have the old park still. They would say yes. Especially because they charge ridiculous ticket prices for the park. Ever notice how most of the seats by the field are empty there? Ticket prices always go up at new parks. The Cubs have the highest ticket prices already. Sounds like a move the fans would love.
This year, the Dallas Cowboys managed to suppress sentiment long enough to demolish Texas Stadium, probably the most recognizable facility in the National Football League and just 39 years old. Ricketts envisions playing in Wrigley for another 50 years. In what universe does that make sense?
This is possibly the single worst argument I've ever heard about tearing down a stadium. In what universe do people care about football stadiums? They are all the same. There's nothing special about them. No character, nothing to make them unique. There's a football field, some seats, and beer stands. Can you tell me anything about the inside of Texas Stadium? It had that God's Eye thing, but that's all I know. Can you name anything special about the inside of any football field?
You know why people turn out to Wrigley Field? Because it's Wrigley Field. The White Sox have that exact same market and aren't exactly boom at the box office. You take away that special factor of every baseball fan in America wanting to visit Wrigley Field and it just becomes another stadium.But it's not as though the Cubs would be absent. Blessed with one of the biggest markets in America, and fans who turn out win or lose, they are not about to pick up and move to Nashville.
I'm going to throw a couple fun facts at you right now. The Cubs had the highest payroll in the NL last year. They suck. They suck not because of their stadium being famous and a classic or because the players aren't pampered. They suck because the people running the team aren't very good at it.So they should be thinking of how to make the best of their location. A new park would rid the Cubs of their maintenance headaches, while providing them better ways to relieve fans of cash -- lots of luxury boxes, better dining, new shops and diversions.It would allow the team to hire better players and pamper them in style.
Agreed. The idea that the Ricketts JUST BOUGHT THIS PLACE and now don't have money to deal with it is just stupid. Example: "Hey, I just bought this car but I don't want to pay for it, you should give me money for it."I am not immune to the appeal of Wrigley, though I was wearing a Cardinals cap the last time I went. But I am immune to the appeal of using tax dollars to enrich a private business. If you own a building that is falling apart, you should either sell it, spend the money to fix it up or admit it's not worth saving -- not ask your neighbors to pick up the tab.
As long as the Cubs have Wrigley, people will want to go to their games. I'm sure we could build a bigger, cooler looking Statue of Liberty too. But it's part of our history. There is no other Wrigley Field and only Fenway has anywhere near the same feel as it. It should be cherished. People who hate baseball and don't actually want to watch the game are not the concern here. Wrigley is an amazing place to watch a game. The thing I never understand about people clamoring for a new park is that every new park is less fan friendly than before. They stick in a level (or two) of luxury boxes and push the fans higher up and further back. The seats at Wrigley are so close to the field and down the lines are inches away from being in fair territory. That'll never happen again. People need to stop complaining about little problems like how annoying it is they have to walk through a crowd in the concourse and enjoy arguably the most incredible baseball experience in the world.
I never get tired of going there. And in 50 years, I don't see how that would change. I hope it's still around.
You can follow Scott Bolohan on Twitter or be his fan on Facebook.
4 Comments
PulSe said:
So - Let's watch the Rickett family go bankrupt. Not our problem. That's just the market in action Rickett people. But YOU WONT be allowed to tear down the old park. That's not gonna' happen and WE ALL know that. Suck it up and dig into those deep pockets Ricketts - It's not OUR purpose in life to pay for your deep pocket life styles - we could care less if you end up penniless.
Scott Bolohan said:
Frankly, I agree. I don't see how it's our problem they bought the Cubs. Rich people begging for charity doesn't really strike me as endearing.
robi said:
Move the cubs to the burbs since people like pulse dont care. good luck returning the jobs to the city.way to be a d bag
Scott Bolohan said:
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. You want Chicago to bail out the Ricketts? I mean, I don't want the Cubs to go anywhere, and moving to the suburbs would pretty much kill the franchise. No one from out of town would go then, which I think makes up a sizable portion of fans. I think if you own something and don't want to pay for it, you should probably get rid of it. Which is what the Ricketts should do. THEY JUST BOUGHT THIS THING. It shouldn't be a huge surprise here.
Leave a Comment?
What your comment will look like:
said: