1_PROPOSED_MARQUEE_VIEWYou’ve been waiting for it, whether you wanted it or not. It comes up in every stadium financing, refinancing, or renovation story throughout the history of time.

It’s the threat to move.

For a variety of issues unique to the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field, we haven’t seen it yet with respect to the proposed renovation of Wrigley, and the Cubs’ methods for financing those renovations. Indeed, we haven’t seen the threat even as the Cubs struggle to find reasonable support from the Mayor’s Office, the City of Chicago, the Alderman of their neighborhood, and their neighbors, themselves.

Dave Kaplan today reports – an exclusive – that Mayor Brad Stephens of Rosemont, a suburb northwest of the City (by O’Hare International Airport), has offered 25 acres of land to the Ricketts Family to build a new ballpark for the Chicago Cubs.

“The Chicago Cubs are being held hostage by the neighborhood as they look to run their business,” Stephens told Kaplan in a piece that is well worth reading. “We are willing to offer them a tremendous opportunity if they are interested. Bring the bricks and the ivy and we can get a deal done.”

“Rosemont is very pro-development and we have a long history of experience dealing with big business,” Stephens added. “From my position, you have a wealthy family willing to pay all of the costs of a major renovation project, which will bring a tremendous number of jobs to the community. However, they are not getting cooperation from the neighborhood. Even if the Cubs get a deal done now what will happen when they need something else a year or two years down the road? This will not be the last time the community or the Alderman will be difficult to deal with. The Cubs will never have those kinds of problems if they move to Rosemont.”

It sounds to me like Stephens is a Cubs fan who just wants to see a deal done, but, hey, if you can get one of the preeminent sports franchises to drive economic activity to your doorstep, you take your shot. Good for him. If only Chicago felt the same way.

What’s today’s report really about? Maybe it’s just a matter of Kap getting a scoop (it happens with laudable regularity). But the timing of the story, the nature of the quotes, and the convenience that it affords the Cubs is too great a confluence to ignore. If Rosemont was really making a play for the Cubs, I’m not sure an interview with Dave Kaplan was going to be the way to launch a serious bid.

Tom Ricketts is a smart man. He’s known since day one that, when it comes to the Chicago Cubs, Wrigley Field is the golden goose. He’s also know that pulling out the old “threaten to move”? early in the process would never fly with the extremely, rabidly traditionalistic Cubs fan base.

But now that the City and the neighborhood have proved to be surprisingly intractable, wouldn’t it be convenient to be able to bust out the “threaten to move” card? Doing so yourself in a public statement would be transparent and probably useless – and might alienate a large portion of an already discontented fan base. Tom Ricketts knows this. But would the Cubs, through back-channels, work together with a member of the media and the mayor of a suburb to create the credible pretense of a move?

It certainly is convenient for the Cubs. They now get the “threaten to move” card out in the public sphere without having to anger anyone by actually making the threat. I’m not saying Kap is a mere pawn here (he’s reporting legitimate news) – or the Mayor of Rosemont for that matter. I’m simply saying that these conversations all happen among friends and acquaintances, and ideas are pitched. Guy A talks to Guy B, and an idea for a story with quotes from the Mayor starts to take shape. The Cubs provide some background information when requested, and it all evolves from there. Did the Cubs generate the story? No. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t, on some subterranean level, involved.

Do I think a move for the Cubs out of Wrigley Field is plausible or palatable? I really don’t. The cost savings associated with a move to the suburbs – even if that community foots the entire bill for the stadium (which they have not offered) – could easily be eaten up by the lost value in the old ballpark (Wrigley becomes largely worthless, instead of becoming a billion dollar asset), and reduced attendance. I’m not in a position to speak about the plausibility of regular attendance out in the ‘burbs, but it sure seems like it would take a hit.

Let’s face it: Wrigley Field is special. It’s valuable. It’s important. And a big part of the reason is because of the history and the location. I think the Ricketts Family knows and accepts this reality, even if it puts them in the unenviable position of negotiating without any leverage.

Maybe Kap’s report and Rosemont’s Mayor’s offer helps. I hope it does. But actually moving the Cubs? I don’t think that’s the route to be taken, because I’m not sure it actually helps the Cubs long-term.

I remain open to convincing, though, should this story prove to be more than a modestly clever, but hollow, “threat to move.”

  • King Jeff

    Is the argument here really that the Cubs can’t move because the fans will stop coming? Don’t all of the other successful, big market clubs sell out their games? Is it preferable to stay in Wrigley? Sure. Is it necessary to stay in Wrigleyville? I don’t think it is, and I think it’s always going to be a large obstacle to putting the best product possible on the field. A winning Cubs team is going to draw fans, and sell out stadiums, and make tons of money for the surrounding community, no matter where it goes, except Miami.

    • Matty

      You’ve nailed it. I have been hoping for a move out of Wrigley for 40 years. The advantages are many.
      First, you would have the opportunity to tailor your team to your park. Wrigley is much too dependent on the weather. You have to have a slugging team and a small ball team, sometimes in the same game.
      Second, you could build a stadium where you get to keep significant revenue, instead of a money sinkhole.
      Third, parking lots would not only generate significant revenue, but also allow for tailgating and a more baseball oriented game day experience.
      Finally, it would allow the d-bag fans who go to Wrigley to drink, be seen and pick up chicks to be weeded out. As a former season ticket holder, it would be so refreshing to be surrounded by people who are at the game to WATCH the game. The percentage of fans entering Wrigley every game who can’t name more than two players on the team is disgusting.

  • BluBlud

    I thinks the Cubs should move because of the freedom it would give them to run their business and because it would stick it to everybody in Chicago. The mayor, alderman, neighborhood, rooftops and such. Wrigley is a hell hole. The Cubs are the Cubs. When I went to NY, the Yankees got some of my money. Why? Because they had a NEW ballpark I wanted to see. Never went to old yankee stadium. But I’ve been to NEW Yankee stadium. If the Cubs build a new stadium, they’ll still come. I think there are a few thousand folks a year who come because of Wrigley and if they move, they’ll be a few thousand folks who come because of the new stadium. But for the most part, it’ll be Cubs fans going to Cubs games. Wrigley honestly does not have all that much effect.

  • Mike

    Wrigley isn’t a billion dollar asset.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      I was making a point, but after a $500 million investment into Wrigley and the semi-affiliated hotel? $1 billion is easily in the convo. How much is new Yankee Stadium worth?

      • Dale’s Ear
      • aCubsFan

        The cost to build the new Yankee Stadium was $1.5 billion. But, if you are going to move to Rosemont you don’t have to invest $200 million in a hotel.

      • Dale’s Ear

        but it cost $1.1 billion sooo yeah

        • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

          You beat me to my retort. And it was $1.5 billion. :)

          • Dale’s Ear

            lol forbes lists the cost at $1.1 billion and wikipedia has it listed at $1.5 billion, either way thats a butt load of cash

          • Dougy D

            How much money will the Cubs pay in extortion, excuse me, amusement taxes to the city of Chicago over the next 20 years? I have no clue myself, but I am sure that the Ricketts would love to give the middle finger to the corrupt politicians of Chicago. Unfortunately, they would still have to deal with all of the other corrupt Illinois politicians.

            • Dale’s Ear

              Saying “corrupt politicians” might be a tad redundant wouldn’t you say? 😉

              • Dougy D


          • sdcoddi

            according to that forbes report, the yankees bring in $300M in gates receipts, while the cubs bring in about $175M…the extra $125M would pay off a $1.5B stadium in 10-15 years…very doable.

      • Mike

        Well sure, it will be worth more after they renovate it. I guess I misunderstood your post. It seems like you were talking about how much they’d lose if they abandoned it now.

        And as to the cost of building New Yankee Stadium – as any business owner can tell you, unfortunately the market value of an asset is rarely it’s book acquisition cost. :)

        This brings up an interesting side discussion though – the problem here is circular. One of the very reasons Wrigley isn’t worth as much as it should be is that it generates below-market value advertising revenue. And when you consider the restrictions on night games, the Cubs franchise is generating below marketing value ticket revenue and TV rights fees.

        • praying the cubs get ready to win

          Mike, I agree with you, IF the Cubs move the advertising revenue, parking revenue, the Cubs deciding if they want to own all the outside eateries, bars, concessions and the feel they want all adds up to a lot of money. rose mount is a great location, there could be a tax the mayor could assess on hotels and other businesses to help ease the financing of a new stadium, one built with real concessions inside, the list can go on. Advertising and suites could pay a major part as well.

      • http://ivychat.blogspot.com Chuck

        Yankee Stadium is worth a multiple of the cash flows it generates from its tenant. The Yankees generate a lot of cash flows. Wrigley Field, if abandoned by the Cubs for the suburbs, is worth either close to nothing as a museum / place for high school baseball championships, or whatever the highest / best use of the land is net of demolition costs.

        Figure you could put up, what? 40 to 45 three flats? So, say 135 condos at $400,000 generates $54 million in sales before demolition.

        Wrigley is worth a lot with the Cubs and not much without it.

        • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

          That’s a very good way of putting it.

        • praying the cubs get ready to win

          I couldn’t have said it better myself.

  • Vince

    Let,s do it, the sooner the better.

  • CityCub

    I wonder what kind of counter The mayors off ice and Tom Tunny will come up with. I’m glad this article came out. But they need to make it stick and not just leave it as a threat. It’s been said in the comments multiple times now. If the Yankees can build a new stadium(given their franchise history) the Cubs would have no issues doing he same.

  • cubsin

    I was living in St. Louis when the Cardinals moved from their beloved (by some fans) Sportsman’s Park (aka Busch Stadium I) to a new circular park (Busch Stadium II) designed primarily for football (thus delaying Bill Bidwell’s move to Arizona for a few years). The fans still came out, and the Cardinals thrived. Now they’ve moved on to a baseball-only park (Busch Stadium III) and are still going strong. All this in half the time the Cubs have been in Wrigley.

    There will be some current fans who attend fewer games if they go at all, and there will be new fans who seldom if ever went to Wrigley Field. The new park would have more night games, more amenities for the fans and players, more advertising revenue, lower taxes and far less political interference. That means more revenue for the team, better players and more fans, not fewer fans. I think moving would be a win-win.

  • cubzforlife

    II live a few miles east of Rosemont in Chicago and can’t figure out where Mr. Stevens has 25 acres for a new Wrigley Field. Did you know Rosemont has the largest inflatable roof in North America? It houses the field for a womens semi pro team. The Stevens family are a cool bunch. The dad created Rosemont from swamps and prairies in the 1950’s. the old Chicago mob had a few hotels that came down as O’hare grew and Rosemont became respectable. The father was one of only a handfull of people to ever be found not guilty in Federal Court. I would love to see a new field built. I’m a season ticket holder, in my fifties and am ready for change. I believe all the buses parked on Irving Park hauling fans from Iowa and downstate would still make the trip to Rosemont to see a winner. I agree that hope is what has brought fans since 2003 and this year might be the last without progress on the field. Cool move by Brad Stevens and the village of Rosemont.

    • aCubsFan

      The CSN article has been updated to include a mock up map (Balmoral Avenue Exit on I-294) and video of the empty land. There’s the Rosemont Metra stop and very close to Mannheim Rd.

  • ruby2626

    Didn’t I read where Apple is sitting on like $137B of cash? How about a partnership with them, I can see it now, Apple Stadium with advertising every 20 feet.

    Actually only half kidding with the Apple idea. I love the idea of a new state of the art stadium, would love something like Milwaukee has with all that tailgating and space. Enough about the history of Wrigley Field, yeah a history of the longest championship less streak in any sport. Advertising would be off the charts in a new stadium. Not sure about Rosemont but there are many other burbs which would be great. Highland Park, Evanston. How about that huge stretch of land along Buffalo Grove Road. Buy Arlington Park. Any of these places where you’re allowed to run your team the way you want would be great. Brett how about a poll on this site about best location and would you still attend?

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      I would LOVE an Apple Park.

    • Dale’s Ear

      I think I like the idea of an iStadium, the only problem is the Ricketts probably wont be able to afford buying the new model every 3 months

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett


  • Mike

    I am a die hard cubs fan. Key word Cubs – not Wrigley. I can’t understand the big deal of Wrigley. It’s a Dump!! Look at 90 on game day, majority of the fans are coming in from the west. I know in reality they will never leave the city, but I can dream. Knock down the dump and build some more condos 6 inches apart,let the city collect property taxes. I’m sure in the upper deck you will still be able to see downtown from Rosemont.

  • kankakeekid

    Im,in why not do a poll yes or no .let tom see the number,s

  • leo l

    I have to say I am surprised how many people wouldn’t mind a move including me. it is a threat that was overdue. I still think it is just a threat but if they moved to Rosemont and built a dandy of a stadium I would be in support. I think the city knows it is a threat but if a few neighbors that want Wrigley to stay there (bar owners for example) start to get a little nervous and pressure the alderman to make a deal …well that cant hurt. The nice thing about this threat is that it was a threat without really making one.

  • Shooter

    I tried to read all the comments on this story and don’t think I saw anything about the attendance numbers the Cubs would get at Wrigley if the fan base knew it was closing down. If it takes 2-3 years to build a new stadium, I could see sellouts for every home game remaining. People who want to see Wrigley one last time, people who have never seen it, or those that want to take their kids so they can say later in life they saw a game at Wrigley Field

    • Die hard

      Good point and moreover the State can make it happen by carving out 25 acres of the forest preserve north of the City just to make The Rahman look bad

  • True(ly) Blue

    I believe that most of the out of town tourists that visit Wrigley Field are Cub/Wrigley Field fans because of Channel 9 TV. Channel 9 broadcast about 90 day games a year all over the country for many years. A lot of folks became Cub fans because of that and want to come to Chicago to see Wrigley Field first and the Cubs second. That dynamic is changing as Channel 9 is reducing it’s TV coverage and the Cubs are getting more night games.
    I saw my first Cub game in 1935. I don’t remember it as I was not yet 1 year old. (My Mom and Dad told me that I loved it as I waved my hands and laughed in all the right places.) I dearly love my Cubs and Wrigley Field but it’s time to get a new ballpark. Rosemont seems to be a great location given it’s transportation network and proximity to Chicago, the airport and the hotels. Build a Clark Street clone outside the park and have a great time inside and outside. Goodbye Chicago and all the politics. Go Cubs!!!!!!

  • Geech

    I think Tunney’s political calculus goes like this: He believes the Cubs won’t or can’t move no matter what. Because they’re basically a permanent feature of his district, I think Tunney believes he can treat them like garbage to curry favor, and contributions, from other major businesses in the area, including the rooftop owners.

    While I do think that Rahm likes the Cubs “pay for everything” plan, I think he’s unwilling to exert any kind of political pressure to get the deal completed. It’s possible that he basically agrees with Tunney’s assessment of the Cubs situation, and as a result simply doesn’t see the need to rock the boat.

    The result, then, is that the Cubs situation is largely untenable. Every change they want to make will be a tremendous struggle, and the neighborhood will always be limited their revenue streams compared to other teams. The Cubs, quite literally, cannot work with these people because they are being taken completely for granted. At this point, I think the Cubs need to begin a serious economic study into the costs and benefits of moving, if they haven’t already.

  • Karen P

    I have mixed feelings about this (shocking). Rosemont doesn’t have great train access, and is near both the 290/90 and 294/90 interchanges, which are already infamous for how clogged they get during peak hours.

    I *LOVE* Wrigley Field. Like, absolutely, with all my heart, love it. The feeling of excitement and joy I get while there is only replicated when I’m at Lambeau Field cheering on the Packers; it’s totally unique to the combination of a special venue and a team I love.

    That being said. I understand the practicalities of moving. I don’t think that the Cubs could afford to do it unless there is a winning product on the field (uproar of leaving Wrigley + bad team = black outs, red ledgers, etc in my mind), but at the rate that the Chicagoland area continues to expand, it wouldn’t shock me if it happens, should the City of Chicago continue to be uncooperative.

    I always felt resistance at the idea of the Cubs moving, but Kap’s article made a valid, fair and balanced argument that is difficult to ignore.

    Finally, I do wonder how all those people in Wrigleyville that CHOSE to live there (and pay extra money for it) and now argue they don’t want more night games because of the “inconvenience” to their lives would feel if all of a sudden their neighborhood’s value drastically dropped and was no longer special *because* of a Cubs move…

    • Karen P

      **I forgot about the blue line. But I stand by the highway comment. As a Michigan resident originally from Rockford, I go out of the way on 88 just to totally avoid that section of 90. It’s a disaster.

    • another JP

      As another avid Cub/Packer fan I can relate to the charm of going to a “neighborhood stadium”. Major differences in their situations of course- Chicago, being a much larger city, has other attractions while the Pack is the only game in Green Bay. Thus, they receive much better support from the fans than the Cubs receive in Wrigleyville.

      Nothing lasts forever and I think this is a great development for those of us who’d love to see the Cubs win a championship. I’ve thought the whole Wrigley situation has given this franchise an excuse to put a substandard product on the field for too many years. There’s many great memories I have from games I’ve attended- I’m probably one of only a handful of people who was present at both the “Ryno Game” in 1984 (where Sandberg hit two homers off Bruce Sutter on national TV to beat the Cards) and the fated NLCS game 6 against the Marlins in 2003. Tearing down the stadium after that series might have been a better idea.

  • MTM82

    Why do the Cubs need to get approval from the Wrigleyville community for anything? If they want to renovate their stadium or have more night games, they should be able to do so…without getting an alderman’s ok.

    Every homeowner in that area bought their property knowing what Wrigleyville is like. The value of their home is inflated, because the ballpark in nearby. If the Cubs really threaten to leave the northside, I hope nearby residents realize their home values will certainly drop.

    • Pat

      Because they want variances. The homeowners bought knowing the current restrictions. As far as dropping property values, compare Wrigleyville with east Lakeview and tell me how much they are going to get hurt. Especially since a drop in property values (theoretically) corresponds with a drop in property taxes.

      • scotti

        Wrong. The current home owners have never had assurances that they “knew” what the future held. In fact, virtually all of the “restrictions” on Wrigley have changed over the passed few years (some tighter and some more relaxed). Night games, concerts, ads, etc. it has all changed. If anyone bought onto the neighborhood thinking that they “knew” what the future holds… Well, that’s their problem.

      • praying the cubs get ready to win

        The homeowners, the businesses and especially the roof top owners will lose a fortune. I provide accounting and tax services and consulting for some businesses in the area. A Cub home game increases one of my clients businesses 10 fold from his normal business. The Cubs mean everything to him. He wishes the Cubs played every day and night a Cub Game. Without the Cubs, he would close his doors, I would be advising him of this for sure.

        • aCubsFan

          So if your clients know they are feasting on the Cubs — only in business because of them — why then are the neighborhood businesses and residents being so uncooperative?

  • http://bleachernation.com lou brock

    Have Ricketts family buy the Iowa Cubs & move them into the old Wrigley. They can play when the Rosemont Cubs are out of town & still generate money for the family. Charge minor league ticket prices & cheaper beer & watch how many people show up to see their “future” Cubs.

  • Die hard

    It’s all about beer sales…. No beer and no controversy ….. Nobody cares about baseball caps- just beer caps… What if they had a game and no beer sold?… Attendance would be half—- if it wasn’t beer sales then why not BYOB…. And don’t tell me it’s to protect the players from thrown bottles or full cans… Ok bar BYOB in the outfield and first 5 rows… If anybody can still throw far enough to hit a player then he or she belongs on the field not in the stands…. No difference from the bootleggers during my youth.. But now it’s legal…. Makes me want to puke

  • Jono

    Build it and they will come

  • Jono

    Build it and they will come. Duh.

  • dan

    please move I will kick in a few bucks to pay for gas !!!!!!!!!!!

  • Bill

    I would never go to games in the burbs, it would never ever feel like it has for all these years. Who wants to watch sports in a sterile environment? Sounds like a bunch of suburbanites talking out their butts.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

      Why would a stadium in the suburbs have to be sterile?

      • scotti

        Because at Wrigley you get pissed on when you are standing at the trough and at the new park you won’t get pissed on because there will be individual urinals. Seems logical except, IIRC, urine is sterile…

        • mudge

          I was pissed on once (accidentally) by a drunk in a sweat lodge. Didn’t bother me, but another guy there said he would have punched him. And there is a lesson in that, I think, for all of us. I’m just not sure what it is. The Cubs either want to move, or they don’t. I suspect that they do, and if so they will play off the reasons on the villainous Chicago pols to grand effect.

  • cubmig

    My feeling: The Cubs are not going to be moved. Ricketts, I hope, accepts all that is going on, as part of what business is all about. If “the” threat written about is seen as necessary to punish people into accepting one side’s accommodation, then it must be a principle that was/is embedded in the mindset of the Ricketts team—if not himself. If it was/is, then Ricketts should follow-through with action.


    I personally don’t believe Ricketts will put the shovel to the Wrigley history he’s lived. He’s known the Cubs because of all that history has defined them at Wrigley. Moreover, I tend to believe that Ricketts wants to win with his signature team at Wrigley and nowhere else. Think about it. What do you think would mean more to him: living with the failure Wrigley will leave him by abandoning a battle (and a life’s dream?), or overcoming it with a tenaciousness and commitment to succeed in the face of all that the current situation reflects? I see the whole situation as the politics of business playing itself out. If Ricketts is the tried and true businessman he appears to be, then he’ll stay in until he’s in a corner with no out.

    Just my opinion.

  • GoCubsGo

    Seems like a really viable location. The Cubs should do it. It’s about time for a fresh start.

  • 5412


    CSN article says the neighborhood rules cost the team over $100 million a year. Add that to the picture and a move is credible.


    • praying the cubs get ready to win

      That one hundred million makes the purchase of a stadium really seem plausible, even if the stadium costs 1.5 billion.

  • Crazyhorse 2

    Since Ricketts has bought the team They’re,no denying his mere presence has annoyed and polarize the fan base. This owner has the distinction in supplying Cub fans with the worst record the cubs have had in the last 40 years. Supplying Cub fans with a dysfunctional front office that focuses of medical roulette to sign ballplayers.

    To be A cub fan during this era is an embarrassment.

    • @cubsfantroy

      I’m not embarrassed to be a Cubs fan, and I never will embarrassed.

      • @cubsfantroy

        *never will be embarrassed.

        I am, however, embarrassed by my grammar.

    • baldtaxguy

      I would suggest that Emanuel and Tunny have done more in annoying and polarizing the fan base then Ricketts has. Actually, its difficult not to side with ownership on this Wrigley bs. Take the scoreboard, foul poles, wall and ivy to the suburbs.

    • King Jeff

      Only when they lump all of us Cubs fans in with someone like you.

  • NCMoss

    Why not take parts of Wrigley with them if they move? If it’s that special? I have no idea if this could actually work but I know houses can be moved and I didn’t think they could be.

  • Sandberg

    I am happier every day that Ricketts bought this team. He’s a savvy businessperson.

    • 1060Ivy

      Jeff Loria of the Marlins fame is also a savvy businessperson. Even with the World Series victories, I wouldn’t want the jerk anywhere near Cubs ownership.

  • Jason

    For everyone who hasn’t been to Pittsburgh, do yourself a favor and catch a Cubs road game there, then tell me you wouldn’t love to watch the Cubs at a place like that every game…It’s easy to talk my wife into going to three consecutive games in Pittsburgh, but to go to one game at Wrigley does not appeal that much to her.

    My grandpa had to pee in the sink once at Wrigley for crying out loud. Quite a memorable game though, as my grandpa, my dad, my brother, and my son were all there at the same time. Four generations rooting for the best team in the world. As I approach my 40th year of existence, I’ve learned that memories and experiences are all you leave this Earth with. My grandpa is gone now, but those few games will remain at the top of my memory list for the rest of my life. Remember the great times at Wrigley, and make some new ones at a nice, clean, urinals-for-everybody-stadium.

    Make it happen in 2-3 years, giving those that haven’t been to Wrigley a chance to experience an undeniably classic ballpark, and then give them the chance to come back and experience a brand new ballpark. Let people talk about the differences and what they remember about the old park and what they like about the new one.

    On a related note, if you haven’t been on the Wrigley Field tour, it’s $25 well spent, you get to see a lot of cool things. For example, my son was sitting in the very seat that Michael Jordan sat in for a game. He still remembers that and tells people about it. He didn’t know how cool that was at the time, but he’s figuring it out. I got to see where Ron Santo used to sit. What a view. You get to see that sub-par locker rooms, and the tight behind the scenes quarters they have to deal with. I got to touch the ivy, even though I really wasn’t supposed to, I wasn’t letting that opportunity pass me by.

    So pack up the ivy, the scoreboard, the nachos, and the Beer Ninja, and head out.

    Of course, if all that happens, imagine if the Cubs could manage to win the World Series in game 7 at home in Wrigley’s last game ever…That would be weird. That would be awesome.

  • Pingback: Obsessive Wrigley Renovation Watch: Mayor’s Aide Laughs Off the Rosemont Incursion | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary()