Wrigley Field values (Chicago, Addison, Polo: 2009, house, luxury)

[edsg25]

The Cubs are in New York tonight, helping to open the new Yankee Stadium in an exhibition game. So the time seems right to ask this question:

Quick now. If you had a chance to drop either Yankee Stadium or the Mets' new Citi Field in place on the corner of Clark or Addison before opening day or keep Wrigley Field where it is now, what would you choose?

To me that's a no brainer: keep WRIGLEY FIELD!!! No, this isn't about New York vs. Chicago. But it is a battle, to me, between eras and their values. And the Wrigley era beats what is happening in New York this spring.

There's an irony in the opening of Citi Field and even more so in Yankee Stadium that these two temples of greed, power, prestige and crass consumerism, virtually the last of the new ballpark building era, come on line after the collapse of the economy neither Yankees nor Mets could have foreseen when construction started in the Bronx and Queens. On Broadway, a sense of timing is essential; apparently the rule doesn't work in the outer boroughs. These stadiums make even the Cell seem quaint, inviting, and rational....and even responsible.

Between the oooooooohs and the aaaaaaaaaaahs tonight in the House That George Built will come some discomfort and angst, some shame, some awareness of the whole inappropriate nature of this stadium (it surely is no ballpark) where the seats behind home plate go for $2000 (that's per game...not season). And all this is a setting that is pure Disney and has little in real relationship to the authentic stadium (one that was even far more authentic before they "renovated" it in the 1970s) across the street that soon awaits the wrecking ball.

It's 2009. The economy tanked. Our very consumerism, waste, and lack of community is there for all the see. And it is clear to any thinking person that this coming era, for better and very little for worst despite all its problems, will be more about cooperation, balance, reality, and environmentally friendly.

So, under those circumstances, which is truly the ballpark that stands for these new times: the hulking monuments to the greed-is-good philosophy and the money the privileged spend there that will "trickle down" to the average fan in the Big Apple, or the Windy City's gem that is Wrigley Field?

Hey! Hey! and Holy Cow and a ton of creeping ivy and let's play two, that question is a no brainer!

[fusillirob1983]

I am assuming you are a Cubs fan right?

So the fact that:
-the Cubs market the Wrigley Field experience more than marketing the team, even the last year or two when they've had a good team
-they've sold out almost every game the last decade or so
-have been extremely profitable
-have possibly crossed the line of journalistic integrity to promote their product like crazy
-yet somehow still having no World Series to show for it since Tribune purchased the Cubs 20 something years ago

doesn't bother you? That seems pretty greedy to me.

I'm not arguing about their marketing techniques being faulty. I think what they've done is incredibly smart, but I think there's definitely been a line crossed regarding the media outlets maintaining independence. I also think given how well attendance has been since 1990 or so (they were probably averaging around 30k a game back then) and were probably more consistent attendance-wise than most other NL teams, that they should have rarely, if ever, come in last place since then. They've definitely done it more than once. I would probably be bothered by this if I were a Cubs fan.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by fusillirob1983

-yet somehow still having no World Series to show for it since Tribune purchased the Cubs 20 something years ago

doesn't bother you? That seems pretty greedy to me.

Oh, come on. It's not like they haven't tried to win. They've spent on some big-name free agents, and pay the players pretty well. They've brought in some highly-regarded coaches. If they just sat on the haunches and didn't try to improve the team, your argument would hold more weight.

[fusillirob1983]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Oh, come on. It's not like they haven't tried to win. They've spent on some big-name free agents, and pay the players pretty well. They've brought in some highly-regarded coaches. If they just sat on the haunches and didn't try to improve the team, your argument would hold more weight.

If they really wanted to, they probably could have afforded to have legit pitchers to step in and pitch for Wood and Prior during the middle part of this decade when their arms were consistently falling off. They had $10 million a year invested in Wood so they probably thought they'd chance it.

Why was Neifi Perez a starting shortstop/2B anywhere in baseball this decade, let alone the Cubs?

Corey Patterson and Felix Pie were both overhyped.

Other than re-signing Sosa to a huge contract, who were some of the really big names the Cubs went out and signed prior to the beginning of the 2004 season?

I'm not discussing their efforts the last couple seasons where they went out and got Fukudome, re-signed Aramis, signed Soriano as a free agent, re-signed Zambrano, signed DeRosa prior to 2007, Howry and Eyre a couple years ago, etc.

Edit: Yes they did get Alou earlier this decade too, I will give you that.

My thought is that if they were doing this well, they weren't exactly pouring as large of a % of their attendance revenue back into the team as some other teams were.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by fusillirob1983

I'm not discussing their efforts the last couple seasons where they went out and got Fukudome, re-signed Aramis, signed Soriano as a free agent, re-signed Zambrano, signed DeRosa prior to 2007, Howry and Eyre a couple years ago, etc.

Well, a big part of being a Cubs fan is conveniently forgetting the past...

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by fusillirob1983

I am assuming you are a Cubs fan right?

So the fact that:
-the Cubs market the Wrigley Field experience more than marketing the team, even the last year or two when they've had a good team
-they've sold out almost every game the last decade or so
-have been extremely profitable
-have possibly crossed the line of journalistic integrity to promote their product like crazy
-yet somehow still having no World Series to show for it since Tribune purchased the Cubs 20 something years ago

doesn't bother you? That seems pretty greedy to me.



I'm not arguing about their marketing techniques being faulty. I think what they've done is incredibly smart, but I think there's definitely been a line crossed regarding the media outlets maintaining independence. I also think given how well attendance has been since 1990 or so (they were probably averaging around 30k a game back then) and were probably more consistent attendance-wise than most other NL teams, that they should have rarely, if ever, come in last place since then. They've definitely done it more than once. I would probably be bothered by this if I were a Cubs fan.

Well, actually I am a Cub and Sox fan. And I know the Cubs can be pigs, too. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I'm not talking about organizations. I'm talking about ballparks. New ballparks, and the statements they made. So would Cub ownership be happy if a Yankee Stadium clone (with an ivied freize around the roof line) rose on Clark and Addison, thanks to the citizens of Illinois? Sure.

But, what, tell me, does that have to do with my observations about the current ballpark which had its elements in places (short light standards) more than a half century back?

Geez, fusil, you completely disregarded what I wrote which had nothing to do with Cub values, but the values of two eras of ballpark construction. You opened this up to some sort of Cub-Sox nonsense that was not the least bit related to what I was writing about. And you put words into my mouth that made me sound like some sort of Cub apologist that in no way did I imply or in no way could be legitimately inferred from my words, none of which heaped any praise on the Cubs what-so-ever, only to a ballpark which the Trib did little to other than put up lights. You called me greedy when I didn't show any greed what-so-ever.

If you got the gist of what I was saying, you would realize that the values I was talking about are not just part of Wrigley Field, but part of Fenway Park and torn down Comiskey Park as well; and none of them have anything to do with any ownership in the last 30 or 40 years. I'm talking about things that were well in place ages ago and to me are far greater than what we have seen in over-the-top baseball balances these past 20 years.

I'd take Wrigley Field and Comiskey Park in Chicago and the Polo Grounds, Ebbets Field, and the original Yankee Stadium in New York over all the retroparks filled with luxury suites, stadium clubs, and class lines of distinction.

If we are going to talk Cubs vs. Sox or other issues that don't deal with the irresponsible era that just ended and the temples of baseball built to the gods of greed that built them (with public money), I'd just prefer that this thread come to quick end right now.

[fusillirob1983]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Well, actually I am a Cub and Sox fan. And I know the Cubs can be pigs, too. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I'm not talking about organizations. I'm talking about ballparks. New ballparks, and the statements they made. So would Cub ownership be happy if a Yankee Stadium clone (with an ivied freize around the roof line) rose on Clark and Addison, thanks to the citizens of Illinois? Sure.

But, what, tell me, does that have to do with my observations about the current ballpark which had its elements in places (short light standards) more than a half century back?

Geez, fusil, you completely disregarded what I wrote which had nothing to do with Cub values, but the values of two eras of ballpark construction. You opened this up to some sort of Cub-Sox nonsense that was not the least bit related to what I was writing about. And you put words into my mouth that made me sound like some sort of Cub apologist that in no way did I imply or in no way could be legitimately inferred from my words, none of which heaped any praise on the Cubs what-so-ever, only to a ballpark which the Trib did little to other than put up lights. You called me greedy when I didn't show any greed what-so-ever.

If you got the gist of what I was saying, you would realize that the values I was talking about are not just part of Wrigley Field, but part of Fenway Park and torn down Comiskey Park as well; and none of them have anything to do with any ownership in the last 30 or 40 years. I'm talking about things that were well in place ages ago and to me are far greater than what we have seen in over-the-top baseball balances these past 20 years.

I'd take Wrigley Field and Comiskey Park in Chicago and the Polo Grounds, Ebbets Field, and the original Yankee Stadium in New York over all the retroparks filled with luxury suites, stadium clubs, and class lines of distinction.

If we are going to talk Cubs vs. Sox or other issues that don't deal with the irresponsible era that just ended and the temples of baseball built to the gods of greed that built them (with public money), I'd just prefer that this thread come to quick end right now.

I never brought up the Sox in either of my posts.

True, you mentioned the eras. I don't think Jack Brickhouse, Harry, Caray, and the ivy planted by Bill Veeck in the 40s has anything to do with 1914 though. Yes, 1914 was in fact a much simpler time.

My point was that regardless of when Wrigley was built, the purpose of the ballpark today, in 2009, is the same as that of the Yankees and Mets stadiums, this so called greed of the Cubs/Tribune Co. At this point I guess it's more to pay off the Trib's debt, but that is beside the point.

I called the Cubs/Tribune Co. greedy, definitely did not make any personal attack by calling you greedy.

Edit: Just wanted to add, I don't think the Mets and Yankees just decided to get new stadiums purely for more expensive seats and skyboxes, although I will agreed that as long as they were getting new stadiums, they may as well get those features. Yankee Stadium was the 3rd oldest stadium in use and was kind of crap and Shea was arguably the worst stadium in the majors and was 40 something years old. They were probably both due for new stadiums anyway.

[ChicagoJack]

Originally Posted by edsg25

The Cubs are in New York tonight, helping to open the new Yankee Stadium in an exhibition game. So the time seems right to ask this question:

Quick now. If you had a chance to drop either Yankee Stadium or the Mets' new Citi Field in place on the corner of Clark or Addison before opening day or keep Wrigley Field where it is now, what would you choose?

To me that's a no brainer: keep WRIGLEY FIELD!!! No, this isn't about New York vs. Chicago. But it is a battle, to me, between eras and their values. And the Wrigley era beats what is happening in New York this spring.

There's an irony in the opening of Citi Field and even more so in Yankee Stadium that these two temples of greed, power, prestige and crass consumerism, virtually the last of the new ballpark building era, come on line after the collapse of the economy neither Yankees nor Mets could have foreseen when construction started in the Bronx and Queens. On Broadway, a sense of timing is essential; apparently the rule doesn't work in the outer boroughs. These stadiums make even the Cell seem quaint, inviting, and rational....and even responsible.

Between the oooooooohs and the aaaaaaaaaaahs tonight in the House That George Built will come some discomfort and angst, some shame, some awareness of the whole inappropriate nature of this stadium (it surely is no ballpark) where the seats behind home plate go for $2000 (that's per game...not season). And all this is a setting that is pure Disney and has little in real relationship to the authentic stadium (one that was even far more authentic before they "renovated" it in the 1970s) across the street that soon awaits the wrecking ball.

It's 2009. The economy tanked. Our very consumerism, waste, and lack of community is there for all the see. And it is clear to any thinking person that this coming era, for better and very little for worst despite all its problems, will be more about cooperation, balance, reality, and environmentally friendly.

So, under those circumstances, which is truly the ballpark that stands for these new times: the hulking monuments to the greed-is-good philosophy and the money the privileged spend there that will "trickle down" to the average fan in the Big Apple, or the Windy City's gem that is Wrigley Field?

Hey! Hey! and Holy Cow and a ton of creeping ivy and let's play two, that question is a no brainer!

Wrigley is a great ballpark and it should stay forever. Of course I said the same thing about Comiskey too.

[ChicagoJack]

If it came down to keep the Cubs and losing Wrigley, I would want to keep the Cubs in Chicago as opposed to keep Wrigley Field. But I hope it never comes to that. I think that the city should have bought the Cubs long ago and did a community trust thing like the Packers have in Green Bay.

[Avengerfire]

You know what-I would rather have Wrigley than the Cubs.

Without Wrigley the Cubs are nothing. How else has that franchise survived in Chicago without winning a World Series in 100 years?

I hope the Cubs move to Las Vegas. They can rename the team "the one armed bandits that rake in money with two hands!"

We can get a new Cubs Franchise in here that does not play around.

As long as Wrigley survives I do not care.


Signed,
A life-long Cubs fan