Quantcast

As has been suggested elsewhere, the condition of Wrigley Field seems only to become a huge issue vis a vis the Chicago Cubs’ performance when the team is really struggling. Take from that what you will, but, hey, the Cubs are really struggling this year, so folks are talkin’.

For his part, Cubs’ GM Jim Hendry doesn’t think the situation at Wrigley is as dire as others have suggested.

Responding to Peter Gammons’ comments about Wrigley, including calling it a “dump,” Hendry said, “I think where Peter was going with that is when ownership changed in Boston, they knew they had a lot of work to do [at Fenway Park]. Probably even more than needs to be done [at Wrigley] now. I think a lot of it from where we come from is we know [Cubs’ owner] Tom Ricketts is going to take care of that.”

Hendry also says that, whatever is done, it won’t harm the essence of Wrigley.

“We love Wrigley Field. Nobody wants the field to be any different, the ambience,” Hendry said. “It’s a great atmosphere here. But I don’t think it’s any secret of the plans Tom and his family have to enlighten the facilities and make it better for fans but also make it better . . . and more productive for the players. I think that’s going to be taken care of in the next few years.”

On the flipside, Rick Morrissey reiterates his belief that Wrigley Field is a dump – something he’s been saying for seven years. And, he says, fans are finally starting to agree.

Public opinion seems to be shifting. More people appear to be coming around to the idea that Wrigley is a crumbling mausoleum where baseball dreams go to die. Go online to some of the message boards about the Cubs, and you’ll see a healthy discussion about the 97-year-old ballpark. There’s as much talk about uncomfortable seats and tight quarters as there is about fond memories.

Season after season of disappointment have opened fans’ eyes to the emperor’s buck nakedness. No one can be sure exactly when the epiphany arrived, but it might have started in 2003, when the Cubs were five outs away from going to the World Series and — stop me if you’ve heard this — fell apart.

Anger began replacing cheery acceptance. Fans started slathering themselves in high expectations rather than suntan lotion. And what had been considered a graceful building began to be viewed more soberly, despite the heavy intake of booze.

The best thing about Wrigley is the ivy on the outfield walls and the hand-operated scoreboard towering over center field. You can have the rest of it. It’s a great park when you’re looking at the field from your seat. It’s not so great on the way to and from your seat.

Morrissey is certainly right that most Cubs fans would be all too happy to have most of Wrigley Field torn down and reconstructed (save the outfield wall, the scoreboard, and the marquee). I suspect that he’s also right that the primary reason is a decade of actual hope and expectation met only with more failure and misery.

Steve Rosenbloom amplifies the point that Wrigley Field’s dumpdom is simply obscuring the troubled nature of the organization.

Stop me if I’m wrong, but Wrigley Field isn’t a dump when the team has a smart owner.

Wrigley Field isn’t a dump when the general manager knows talent and acquires it.

Wrigley Field isn’t a dump when the manager clearly is in charge of all the field personnel.

Wrigley Field isn’t a dump when the players perform like major leaguers.

Stop me if I’m wrong, but you know when Wrigley Field is a dump? When the team being foisted on the public is something like this execrable mess that spent most of the season with the worst defense and highest ERA in the bigs.

Though I agree with the principle that Wrigley Field’s condition – and problems – become a little more visible in down years, I do think it’s worth pointing out that the Ricketts’ acknowledged Wrigley was going to need serious work back when they bought it.

  • RY34

    I think Rosenbloom said it best!

  • Brian

    I do think Rosenbloom offers the most accurate insight. I’m not all against a rebuild with preserving the classic icons of the stadium.

    In my opinion the only time that Wrigley gets dumpy is when it gets infested with Cardinal and Sox fans.

  • Andy

    Wrigley is a dump. Morrissey said it far better than I could, “The best thing about Wrigley is the ivy on the outfield walls and the hand-operated scoreboard towering over center field. You can have the rest of it. It’s a great park when you’re looking at the field from your seat. It’s not so great on the way to and from your seat.”

    On the other hand, it probably has very little to do with the play on the field. Though I’d love to see a renovated Wrigley in the next 10 years.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Ace

      Having a “modernized” Wrigley Field with those key classic features is pretty much the dream solution in my book.

      • pfk

        Amen!

  • CubsFanatic

    How about just build a new stadium just like Wrigley Field? (Near replica with all the fixes they want added in.) Its our turn to get a new stadium and preserve Wrigley Field for its greatness. Don’t get me wrong. I LOVE Wrigley, but to jut keep putting band-aids on it only temporarily fixes thing, while a new stadium lasts and pays off.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Ace

      I don’t know if that’s practical, space-wise or landmark-wise, but even if it were, I could only get on board of certain historic parts of Wrigley could be ported over.

    • Greg

      Only ever been to Wrigley for a 3 game set last year. I still have goosebumps.
      “How do the folks in the Bronx feel about the new “Stadium”? Still have the charm, ambiance and ghosts of the past?
      When Toronto Maple Laffs built the new Air Canada Ctr and moved from Maple Leaf Gardens, it lost something. I’m no longer in awe of the surroundings.
      Let’s go Cubbies!

  • GoCubs

    As long as it looks nothing like the monstrosity that is now Soldier Field I would not be opposed.

  • http://calebshreves.blogspot.com Caleb

    Is it just me, or is there a vague feeling that changing Wrigley (dramatically) would be accepting defeat in terms of “The Cubs winning the world series.” It would be like a new stadium makes a new Cubs, so any subsequent world series wins would be for the new Cubs, not the old Cubs, which would admit failure and defeat that the “old” Cubs could never pull it off. The curse was real, the goat was real, the black cat was real, etc. It only serves to increase the desperation to win with things as they are before things literally fall apart on us.

    Just a thought. I also agree with the principle of keeping the Wrigley-ist stuff that’s there and renovating the rest. Glad I’m not the engineer in charge of that project.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Ace

      Eh. It’s not really about the curse – it’s about the crumbling concrete, the crappy innards, and the pathetic baseball facilities more than anything else.

  • Serio

    Why not tear it down flag pole to flag pole leave the bleachers, scoreboard, and then just put back the red marquee when your done.

  • http://www.bleachernation.com Ace

    Sounds like the game still might go on time tonight, despite the rain.

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+