Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

MLB: Wrigley Field in "Brutal Shape?"

Didn't the Bears play in Champagne when they renovated Soldier Field? I'm sure the Cubs could get something worked out where they played at a college or other stadium while they built the new one. How many people does Northwestern's football stadium seat? Couldn't that be converted to a baseball diamond for a single season?
 
I thought the owners had already lobbied the city and state to give them a bunch of money for a major upgrade to Wrigley, and that was proceeding. What's happened with that?
 
cyatheart said:
I am a Cubs fan, a disgusted one, but nevertheless a Cubs fan. It needs to be torn down, the place is a dump. Seeing Miller Park changed my mind on this issue, it's so nice, and the experience was so much better. Tired of crawling over people to get to my seat.
Click to expand...

Going to Wrigley is an experience every baseball fan should have at least once. Now that I've been there over a dozen times, I really do prefer to go to games at Miller Park, especially now that we have small children. Escalators >>> ramps.

Plus an extremely high percentage of seats at Wrigley have an obstructed view of some sort. We always sit in the cheap seats in the upper deck, and you are virtually guaranteed to have a post blocking at last part of your view of the field. Sit near the back of the lower deck and the overhang means you can't see a single ball hit in the air. I'm not sure there's a bad seat in Miller Park.
 
Last edited:
Senolcyc said:
Can you imagine them playing home games on the south side? 1000 yuppies would be roughed up by thugs every night!
Click to expand...

Actually, the crime rate is much higher in the area surrounding Wrigley than the area surrounding Sox Park. You go just south or west of Sox Park, and the home there put most of Wrigleyville to shame.
 
dtclones said:
What's your theory there?
Click to expand...

The three biggest things are how the conditions seem to change at Wrigley just about every few hours. Its hard to build a team around the "home field advantages" of Wrigley Field. It can go from a hitters park to a pitchers park from one inning to the next. Another would be the player facilities at Wrigley are completely outdated, and way behind just about every other ball park out there. Lastly, the City of Chicago limiting the # of nights games they can have because of Wrigley being in a residential area. Its hard to get used playing baseball at many different times during the day throughout the season.
 
RayShimley said:
Didn't the Bears play in Champagne when they renovated Soldier Field? I'm sure the Cubs could get something worked out where they played at a college or other stadium while they built the new one. How many people does Northwestern's football stadium seat? Couldn't that be converted to a baseball diamond for a single season?
Click to expand...

I doubt it unless their bleachers are retractable.
 
RayShimley said:
Didn't the Bears play in Champagne when they renovated Soldier Field? I'm sure the Cubs could get something worked out where they played at a college or other stadium while they built the new one. How many people does Northwestern's football stadium seat? Couldn't that be converted to a baseball diamond for a single season?
Click to expand...

Why do that when you have two MLB stadiums within reasonable distance? Both Milwaukee and the Cell are right there.
 
I have only been around Wrigley, not in it but they would definitely lose something at elast initially if it was not on the same site. I will also say that the redo of Fenway is awesome, but certainly there are still some old stadium things that could be better if fixed. I hadn't been there prior to renovation so cant speak to how it worked before and have no nostalgia either but they did a great job with it IMO.
 
CYKOFAN said:
I thought the owners had already lobbied the city and state to give them a bunch of money for a major upgrade to Wrigley, and that was proceeding. What's happened with that?
Click to expand...

They got shot down and laughed at when the asked the city and state.

I have a strong feeling the Ricketts ownership will be a disaster. Daddy will only let the kids play with his money for so long, especially since many of the reasons they gave daddy to pony up the money have not come true.
 
IcSyU said:
Why do that when you have two MLB stadiums within reasonable distance? Both Milwaukee and the Cell are right there.
Click to expand...

Have any two MLB teams ever shared a stadium for a season before? I imagine that would be a scheduling nightmare, especially when you start having to re-schedule for weather (of which there surely will be every year in Chicago). I could see the White Sox agreeing as they are in different leagues, but do you really think the Brewers would open up their stadium to a Division rival? Honest question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: isukendall
RayShimley said:
Have any two MLB teams ever shared a stadium for a season before? I imagine that would be a scheduling nightmare, especially when you start having to re-schedule for weather (of which there surely will be every year in Chicago). I could see the White Sox agreeing as they are in different leagues, but do you really think the Brewers would open up their stadium to a Division rival? Honest question.
Click to expand...
Browns, Cardinals, Sportsman Park, STL
 
CycloneChris said:
They got shot down and laughed at when the asked the city and state.

I have a strong feeling the Ricketts ownership will be a disaster. Daddy will only let the kids play with his money for so long, especially since many of the reasons they gave daddy to pony up the money have not come true.
Click to expand...

It's becoming easier to see that the issues stem all the way back to the Ricketts. Ever since they bought the team, things have gone to hell in a hand basket as if there weren't already issues. It almost feels like the kids bought the team as something fun to do as a family. Not to actually run a business.
 
CYKOFAN said:
I thought the owners had already lobbied the city and state to give them a bunch of money for a major upgrade to Wrigley, and that was proceeding. What's happened with that?
Click to expand...


I believe the city denied it. The Cubs will build a new ballpark, but it will not be in Wrigleyville. There's too much hassle with trying to renovate and/or rebuild in the same location. Ricketts tried to get the city to go along with a renovation plan and they said no, so the next step will be looking for another site for a ballpark. Ricketts can say he tried, it won't make people like it any more but at least he can say he did something to save Wrigley.

I am a huge Cubs fan and have been to Wrigley numerous times and would love nothing better than to see it be the Cubs' home for the rest of eternity. At some point fans like me have to detach the romantic, nostalgic part of their brain from the logical side. Whether they rebuild Wrigley where it is or somewhere else it still won't be the same. The costs and complexity of trying to rebuild/renovate Wrigley would be sky high, and even with a remodel the Cubs would lose a lot of revenue potential vs another site not stuck right in the middle of a neighborhood.

I hope that the city would keep Wrigley there and not tear it down completely if the Cubs moved. Time marches on - Yankee stadium is gone, Tiger stadium is gone...things don't last forever.
 
Cyballz said:
I hope that the city would keep Wrigley there and not tear it down completely if the Cubs moved.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bet on it. If it just sits empty, who is paying the bills on it? I doubt taxpayers would be very pleased with that.
 
IcSyU said:
I wouldn't bet on it. If it just sits empty, who is paying the bills on it? I doubt taxpayers would be very pleased with that.
Click to expand...

If Wrigley became an official National Historic Landmark then it would get the funding it needed. I don't think that's out of the question if they ever decided to build a new stadium.
 
Cyballz said:
I believe the city denied it. The Cubs will build a new ballpark, but it will not be in Wrigleyville. There's too much hassle with trying to renovate and/or rebuild in the same location. Ricketts tried to get the city to go along with a renovation plan and they said no, so the next step will be looking for another site for a ballpark. Ricketts can say he tried, it won't make people like it any more but at least he can say he did something to save Wrigley.

I am a huge Cubs fan and have been to Wrigley numerous times and would love nothing better than to see it be the Cubs' home for the rest of eternity. At some point fans like me have to detach the romantic, nostalgic part of their brain from the logical side. Whether they rebuild Wrigley where it is or somewhere else it still won't be the same. The costs and complexity of trying to rebuild/renovate Wrigley would be sky high, and even with a remodel the Cubs would lose a lot of revenue potential vs another site not stuck right in the middle of a neighborhood.

I hope that the city would keep Wrigley there and not tear it down completely if the Cubs moved. Time marches on - Yankee stadium is gone, Tiger stadium is gone...things don't last forever.
Click to expand...

Fenway is still there.
 
gocubs2118 said:
Wrigley already is a National Landmark, it's not going anywhere.
Click to expand...

According to the National Parks Service, it's not currently on the National Registry but "was determined eligible for designation." I thought it was too until I looked that up.

I think the Cubs actually shot it down because it could have possibly hindered certain additions to the park or something like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back