I can't disagree.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304192704577404424241146562.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

_________________
Proud to be UNVERIFIED.

That is quite possibly one of the dumbest damn articles I've ever read. That article literally discredits the WSJ. Wow.

_________________
Team Cutler.

I'm all for tearing it down, but that article was terrible. Meat-ballery run rampant.

_________________

Agree. I feel like it was sort of tongue-in-cheek but not really? If so, not sure what the point of the article was.


But I do agree, knock it down.

Tear it down because its old and decrepit, not because the team has been bad there.

_________________

That stupid Bronko Nagurski story is apocryphal. Come on. What a stupid article.

_________________

Mr. Emmanuel, Tear down this Ball(park)

But where will the White Sox play then?

_________________

The reason why it won't be destroyed is because it's a protected historical site and the Cubs and the city know it is a cash cow. If the Cubs were my team I would move the team to Arlington Heights. The White Sox should have moved to Addison if they were smarter.

_________________
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Except a non-centralized location with little/no public transit is far from ideal for a 41-game slate and downright disastrous for an 81-game slate. You can't build a baseball stadium away from the population center.

_________________

That article is by a former New Trier classmate of our own bigfan. He also wrote Tough Jews and Lake Effect which is about growing up in Glencoe.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

Yeah, looking again, there are exactly two out of thirty ballparks in edge cities rather than city centers: Anaheim rather than Los Angeles, and Arlington rather than Dallas. There are no ballparks in respective cities' typical old-line suburbs like Arlington Heights. This is for good reason.

Football is different. Football has a huge footprint and is only used 10 to 12 times a year, with eight guaranteed games that count, two that don't, and maybe a couple bonuses if you're lucky. For that reason, plus the tailgating atmosphere that goes along with football, it's only sensible to move those facilities and their huge parking lots away from the city, where they just sit there wasting space and looking ugly most of the year (oh hi Soldier Field). Ballparks, which are used 81+ times in the warmer months when people are outside and likely to mill about, and arenas, which between sports and other events can be used hundreds of times a year, need to be centrally located with access to public transit. A ballpark in the suburbs, especially of an old city like Chicago, is patently stupid.

_________________

I wouldn't call either ballpark in New York in city centers. The Mets are basically surrounded by tennis courts, an airport, and some water. The Yankees are in the Bronx, which basically means that most fans stay quick enough to walk from the train to the stadium and then back to the train. That means that the three other cities most comparable to Chicago have been able to do it.

Obviously, public transportation would need to be significantly improved, but it probably should be anyways.

It's pretty sad if any Cubs fan thinks that the Cubs would cease to be popular by moving them 15 miles away. That's pretty insulting to the fan base. If a White Sox fan says "The Cubs only sell out because of the stadium" Cubs fans get mad. When a Cubs fan says "There is no way the Cubs could do well in the suburbs" Cubs fans don't get mad.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Who said they wouldn't still be popular? They would just be stupid to move from one of the best ballparks in the best areas to an average park in a shitty area

_________________
Git on back there.

The thought by the "You can't leave Wrigley" crowd is they would no longer sell out by moving. If that is true, then they are losing a lot of popularity.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

They haven't been selling out most games at Wrigley the last couple years while they are shitty, although most are close. If the team is good they'd sell out pretty much anywere. Most people want to stay at Wrigley because with renovations it could be the best park in baseball.

_________________
Git on back there.

How much do you think attendance would drop if they moved to the suburbs?

As for the best park in baseball comment, I doubt that is true. There are certain structural issues in these old ballparks that are impossible to overcome without a rebuild. The best the Cubs can hope for is Fenway Park, which is good, but not because of the actual facility.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

After the initial bump is over I would say that if the team continues to suck attendance would drop lower than it would be at Wrigley by a couple thousand maybe. If they start to get good they'd still sell out every game. (I assume capacity would go up from 41,000 at Wrigley to 45,000 at the new park)

It's going to be a rebuild basically.

_________________
Git on back there.

If that is true they should start building it tomorrow. If done right, they'd be the Yankees in terms of revenue generation if they are putting that many people in the park with control of a lot of the stuff around it too.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Where's the money to build a billion-dollar sports-themed strip mall/theme park in the middle of nowhere? They're to poor to do it wrong, let alone right. I don't think the state should be in the business of building strip malls for private owners to make money on (Bacardi at the Park).



They're still in New York City and not North Jersey or Long Island, which counts for a lot. (I also think referring to Flushing Meadow as "tennis courts" is somehow disingenuous.) The population density and public transit access of the outer boroughs is still considerable enough for them to successfully be where they are.

_________________

My guess is the whole thing could be funded by partners who get a piece of some of the stuff. Hotels, restaurants, and shops would pay a ton to the Cubs for the chance to be there.
Obviously, there would be some extra public transportation options created(similar to what they built for the Meadowlands that gets you out there in 25 minutes from Manhattan).

I'll ask you. How much do you think attendance would drop if they moved to the suburbs?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Attendance would become much more closely tied to the fortunes of the team: fine enough for a winning team but Marlinesque for a losing team. As much as we all hate Chad and Trixie, having the park be what it is where it is prevents attendance from completely bottoming out, which it would for a bad team in a bad location.

_________________

I like that there are very old stadiums in a sport that goes back as far as baseball. There are only two left now. It would be a shame if one of those two were replaced. It's not even a Cubs thing at this point. Not every stadium has to be about amenities and RAWK music.

Amazing (to me) fact: 11 of the 12 Big Ten football stadiums (all except TCF) are older than every baseball stadium but Fenway and Wrigley.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

I think they'd sell out for a couple years, but then they'd be subject to the quality of their teams for attendance. I think a lot of people underestimate the nostalgia and tourist factor of Wrigley Field, not to mention how many young people with lots of disposable income live a short walk from the park. Plus they'd be abandoning the city to the White Sox.

I think the Cubs/Wrigley are lucky enough to have a whole bunch of elements that grew organically. I really doubt that's something Wally Hayward and Tom Ricketts can recreate at will.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

I agree. When every team had an old park, those were the two shittiest ones. Oddly, they are the two that survived. But they have value that may not be recognized by a lot of people until after they're gone. I do find it strange that so many Cub fans- and baseball fans in general- talk about the Wrigley experience and how great it is, and yet seem very eager to destroy it.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

And he doesn't?

_________________
“Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.”- JD Vance
“My god, what an !diot.”- JD Vance tweet on Trump
“I’m a ‘Never Trump’ guy”- JD Vance

What would the cost difference be between rehabbing and demolishing and rebuilding? I would think they could make a killing auctioning off every possible thing. Then rebuild on the same spot.

Crazy talk.

_________________

I don't know the author's reasoning behind writing the article - I took it to be rather tongue-in-cheek - but I don't necessarily think a new stadium for the Cubs is the worst idea in the world.

Shit, it couldn't hurt.