Quantcast

1_PROPOSED_MARQUEE_VIEWTom Tunney’s “tear down the scoreboard” plan (since explained as “move the scoreboard”), and the Mayor’s Office’s “laugh at the threat to move” plan each got top billing in the last two days, but there’s a whole lot more to discuss on the Wrigley renovation front. The story is finally gaining enormous traction after months of being largely ignored, despite its obvious importance …

  • I don’t agree with everything Jon Greenberg writes, but I’ve always thought he was an excellent writer amid a morass of not-so-much. So, when he writes something with which I do agree (albeit in Greenberg’s typically flair-ful language, and I wouldn’t be so hard on Dave Kaplan), I’ve got to quote from it liberally. To wit, Greenberg offered his take on the Wrigley renovation saga as viewed through the lens of the Rosemont offer to take the Cubs, and neatly packaged and articulated many of my own thoughts on the subject:

If the Cubs went to Rosemont, or any suburb, they’d only lose the 20-somethings who are there to get drunk, the downtown businessmen and lawyers who buy season tickets, tourists and casual fans. You know, everyone. Would locals replace some of that revenue? Maybe, but there won’t be a five-digit waiting list anymore ….

No, the Cubs aren’t going to move because one obstructionist alderman is a fearless negotiator when it comes to his fiefdom. No one would abandon a gold mine because the light bulbs are broken ….

But while everyone is sick of the public negotiating, there is a middle ground here, one Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his people have tried to find. Tunney needs to get realistic about his demands (though asking for more parking is a good one), and find a compromise with the rooftop owners and the Cubs.

Don’t listen to anyone who says otherwise. Wrigleyville is perfect. Why waste a good thing?

  • The whole thing is worth a read. Very worth a read. I love the Cubs, I want the Wrigley renovation to happen largely as the Ricketts Family has presented. To that end, I wish the possibility of moving was more plausible than it is. Because, ironically, that’s what would help get a deal done with Chicago.
  • David Axelrod, a political consultant based in Chicago who has worked with Mayor Rahm Emanuel from time to time over the years (the two are close, by most accounts), entered the Wrigley renovation fray with a couple tweets on Monday and Tuesday about the Rosemont offer and the troubled reno talks:

  • What makes Axelrod’s tweets particularly interesting, aside from his connection to Emanuel, is that the “ward pols” to which he refers is Alderman Tunney, a noted Democrat. It’s believed that one of the reasons Tunney holds so much sway in the renovation talks is because of his political importance Chicago-wide – which is to say, some question whether Emanuel has any interest in crossing Tunney, even at the expense of his Ricketts-paid-for golden goose at Clark and Addison. If Axelrod is openly blasting Tunney, could some of that local political support be crumbling?
  • The Chicago Tribune (whose parent company still owns 5% of the Cubs) published an editorial doing its damnedest to make the “threat to move” sound credible. The details of, and support for, its argument are a bit thin, but I applaud the effort. There also is a pretty good line at the close: “It’s foolish to assume the Cubs couldn’t survive outside Wrigleyville. Could Wrigleyville survive without the Cubs?”
  • If there’s a rush to solicit offers from suburban locations for a Cubs move, DuPage County wants to make sure it gets a seat at the table. Greg Hinz reports that DuPage County Board President Dan Cronin reached out to the Cubs earlier this week to see if they would seriously consider a move. For now, Ricketts Family spokesman Dennis Culloton had this response for Cronin, per Hinz: “If we don’t have a deal [with Chicago] by April 1, I don’t know what the situation will be. The team’s focus is on reaching an agreement to rebuild Wrigley Field. But I don’t know what will happen after April.” Once again, we see the suggestion that this entire conversation changes if a deal isn’t in place by Opening Day. Tom Ricketts has said it for weeks now, and they’re standing by it. Maybe it’s an artificial deadline, but maybe that doesn’t matter.
  • Hinz’s report adds that Ricketts actually met with a DuPage County representative last year about the possibility of a Cubs move, though it was more in the vein of Ricketts being willing to listen to a pitch, rather than any kind of open solicitation.
  • Al at BCB takes a look at all of the MLB ballparks built in the latest wave (the last 20ish years), and comes to one pretty clear conclusion: teams are moving toward downtown areas, not away from them. And places like Wrigley Field serve as examples for those teams.
  • Dave Wischnowsky also questions the long-term financial wisdom of moving to suburbia, using DePaul basketball’s move to Rosemont in the 1980s as a cautionary tale.
  • CSN Chicago has a piece on what gameday would look like if the Cubs moved to Rosemont. It’s both fair and informative, and a pretty useful read for those supporting a move plan.
  • phil festoso

    Not on subject. But how about Chone Figgins to cover 3rd, it’s a gamble, but switch hitter who could lead off?

    • King Jeff

      Look at Chone Figgins stats and then consider that he’s not good enough for the Mariners or the Marlins offense. Yet you want him leading off? It would be outstanding having a leadoff man with a .220 obp

    • TWC

      Anyone who says “Chone Figgins” and it’s *not* either a punchline or as a response to the trivia question “who has been the worst major league hitter over the last three years” probably hasn’t looked at Chone Figgins’s stats in the last six years.

      • DarthHater

        Actually, it’s a great name for anagrams. For example, “chosen fig gin” and “nice fish gong.” :-P

        • TWC

          Well, okay then, there are *three* reasons to say “Chone Figgins”.

        • Danny Ballgame

          Wait, how nice is this fish gong you speak of?

          • DarthHater

            Nicest damn fish gong I ever saw.

            • Cyranojoe

              It just doesn’t get on base too often.

    • Rcleven

      If the suburbs were allowed to compete for the Cub location it would take over a year just to negotiate all the offers they would get.
      Almost of hoping a deal can’t be done by April 1.
      Love to see the next move by the Cubs.
      Quite a chess match.

      • Wilbur

        I agree, very interesting.

        Cubs have now gained a small amount of traction in the negotiations, what will they do with it?

        As for economic viability of a move to suburbia, without a lick of data I would offer that both the fan and revenue loss would be minimal, if not a net gain. For all the losses mentioned you now have a full evening schedule like a normal team and every fan lost is recovered by fans who wouldn’t/couldn’t take off for weekday day games, TV revenue is maximized, and if the Cubs control the parking they add a long term revenue stream.

        All that said, the Cubs don’t want to move, so they won’t. A deal get’s done, some people make more money, some make less, all depends on the time it takes to get the deal completed.

      • TNN2

        Even if it took a year to field offers, building a new park out in the burbs would mean an earlier completion date than the renovation plans. The renovation is scheduled to take place over 5 offseasons and be completed in 2018.

        The timeline for something new would look something like this

        2013 – field bids, preliminary drawings
        2014 finalize drawings, start construction
        2015 construction
        2016 construction
        2017 opening day in Wrigley West

        I don’t think it will happen (and it will never happen in Rosemont), but every time Tunney opens his mouth it seems like the chances increase.

        • Tom A.

          Interesting timeline, but I think you likely are off a year and it will be ready for opening day 2016. That guess would be true if using Cubs money and not city money.

          I suspect that Mr. Tunney is getting great accolades from the greedy bar and rooftop owners that supposedly donate to him great amounts of funds. He has a political chip (in zoning) to use and maybe he is getting paid well to use it. I hope that is not true, as usually in life, a bought-person such as that eventually sees a day where such comes back on them.

          I really am sick and tired of hearing and reading about the bar and rooftop owners greed. They lost my support when I saw that video interview of the owner of the bar outside Wrigley’s center-field. And, read some of the comments how the rooftops make the Wrigley experience.

          I personally hope that the Cubs are able to get creative with needed advertising so that I can see past the stadium from my viewpoint in my seats — not to see some silly and ugly looking rooftops, but to see the sky, clouds, buildings and all the things that make Chicago great on a summer day or evening. Do you see any other buildings in Chicago with silly and ugly looking seating on the roof ? How can that possibly be in the best interests of the neighborhood Mr. Tunney ?

          I am very happy to read that the Cubs have an opening day discussion / deal deadline. And, I hope they live by that stated date. Enough is enough already.

          Mr. Mayor, if you ever read a posting like this. I appreciate that you are simply letting the negotiations work things out. However, when they don’t progress, maybe you should use your authority to put Mr. Tunney back into his place. And, try to save the day. Moving the Cubs form Wrigley Field and Chicago would be terrible.

    • davidalanu

      figgins isnt a switch hitter, he hits three ways. lefthanded, righthanded, and seldom.

  • Patrick W.

    I’ve watched Chone Figgins a lot over the last few years here in Seattle. I’d take Valbuena over Figgins any day. Whatever Figgins had with the Angels has disappeared.

  • phil festoso

    Bring Figgins for the last two weeks, what do you have to lose?

    • TWC

      Your integrity as a baseball organization?

    • King Jeff

      What do you have to gain besides giving this guy another shot when he’s failed miserably at his last two? He’s not returning to form, this is the player that he is. Bringing him in now costs a roster spot and someone else some playing time to get ready for the season.

  • http://www.justinjabs.com/blog/ justinjabs

    The fact that the fourth bullet (the one after the two tweets) exists is maddening. I hate that political stuff like that is relevant to this discussion.

  • phil festoso

    Give me a break, integrity? And this is not a roster spot issue. It could be a stop gap move.

    • King Jeff

      Yeah, stop gap move to a guy who can’t even hit .200. What exactly does that stop?

      • Cub Style

        Winning

    • TWC

      It 100% IS a roster move. Who gets cut from the 40-man to accommodate that horrid baseball player Chone Figgins?

  • Mark

    Why not ask the city to help pay for a parking lot below Wrigley Field similar to the one’s built below the museums and Soldier Field. This would give more parking to season ticket holders and can be used by the neighborhood bars etc throughout the year.

    • Jono

      Ground water. When bleacher nation did articles about the renovation ideas, brett explained that they wouldn’t put the clubhouse completely under the field bc of high ground water. And obviously Wrigley is a pretty good distance away from the museums

  • phil festoso

    Yet you are going to pay a guy who hit .201 and can’t run over $2,000,000?

    • TWC

      Chone Figgins is so bad that Seattle cut him and paid him $8 million to *not* play for their team any more.

    • cubchymyst

      You are looking at a 7 year difference in age (a 28 year old Stewart vs a 35 year old Figgins). Figgins is likely to decline from his already bad average where with Stewart you have a guy coming off of an injury who could improve.

  • Todd McCombs

    The Ricketts family is a class act – the threat to move has not come from them ever – Lots of people really want this deal to happen – I do not believe the cubs will ever leave Wrigley (it is the golden goose). The story is growing by the day – The heat on politicians is growing by the day –

    I don’t understand the groups that are for and against the renovation (popping up by the day)- Rooftop coalition(seems to have Tunny in their pocket) – along with multiple other groups(both for and against) – How do they become a group – What makes any of them relevant- Yet all are seeming to get press.

  • phil festoso

    We are paying Soriano $18 million and he is 37 years old. He can still hit and you can’t give him away. Think about how much he was worth after 2011? There is no down size risk for the next two weeks. Take a look.

    • http://www.justinjabs.com/blog/ justinjabs

      Phil – I think the biggest down side risk is just what TWC said, you need to displace someone on the 40 man (and by that account, the 25 man) to try it out. As a NRI for Spring Training, I might’ve shared your similar “sure, why not” stance. But DFA-ing someone and potentially losing them forever from the organization, and then displacing a batter on the squad which already looks pretty set (and that is not taking into account players who may or may not have options) adds a significant amount of risk for a two week look.

  • DONNIE621

    Smoke usually is generated by fire… is there a fire burning somewhere in Wrigley? Hmmm….

    Rosemont, absolutely should be considered… the mayor of Rosemont is right. The more you invest in Chicago the more they will bind you up knowing that you will not walk away, ever. Do the Cubs really want to give some political hack that kind of power? No… now is the time… if ever there was a time time to act it’s now!

  • RicketsLoser1#

    Ricket Crickets the only sound he hears in bleacher the last three seasons and the sound he will hear continue hear for many seasons to come forward.

    Lets not pretend for one moment that this is about the Cubs , its about cashing in on Wrigley Fields location.If Rickets trully wants to make the Cubs a better Club he could do so. This is about controling the zoning ordinance that his team must obey and it obtruction to gain pofitable dollars ,Unfortunatly his kingdom is smack in the middle of a residential area, and Ricketts fee that e is above such zoning Ordinance . it is the reason he feels the need to appeal to baseball fans that might visit the park maybe once a year while the residents pay the price in the long run.

    I say leave – let the City fend for itself without the Cubs at Clark and Addison. Let Tunney find some ohter source of income to replace Wrigley Field (Which cannot be done)But if the Cubs leave then i hope the City and State begin the Hardball process with this Republican scum that he is.

    Water rates that any new staduim would be paid at higher cost costs. Union jobs will be places at a very high level – and delays happens. Cook county taxes would raise and tax shelters gone. State taxes would raise and again tax shelter would simply dissappear,

    Go ahead Rickets make it personal – take your sorry team of the Cubs out of Chicago

    • BT

      You make some really bad points.

      • DarthHater

        heh

      • Edwin

        Between RicketsLoser#1, Donnie621, and Todd McCombs, I can’t tell which writing style is worse.

        • DarthHater

          The important thing is that we’re all a little bit dumber for having read all three.

          • Dale’s Ear

            [img]See more on Know Your Meme[/img]

            Not sure if I did that right but yeah

            • Dale’s Ear

              fail

    • Carl rizzo

      What would happen if the Cubs left Chicago and basically went to The Burbs? Can the City and State increase lost dollar revenue by eliminating certain tax shelters the Cubs already take for granted. Could the City increase the price of water to service the new staduim
      and surrounding communities? Would the City of Chicago place DUI check points along the routes to the new stadium to better safegaurd the children and property in its town as well as the towns to the North .West And South of such locations.

      How much overbudget would the Staduim run into becasue certain special organize groups would have to be bribed. Compared to Tunney the fish in this smaller pond might be piranahs.

    • cubsnivy56

      RicketsLoser1#

      Let me apologize up front because I have had a few adult beverages tonight. Okay, so i binged on Captain and cokes at dart league , whatever. It’s interesting you have LOSER#1 in your name because dude…………you suck! Anybody that says the Ricketts are in it to make a buck as there only motivation is a F***ing idiot. And a LOSER, like I said, very appropriate name. Troll on Troll Beeeeaaacch!!!

      • Crazyhorse2

        Sounds from a dudette that knows how to feel like beeachhh , well said sand hoe!

  • Rebuilding

    Great linked article, Brett. The fact of the matter is that the Cubs situation as to location is what every franchise wishes they had. A stadium within a ten minute train ride from thousands of businessmen looking to take clients out nestled amongst thousands of 20 something’s with their parent’s disposable income. Unfortunately there is a very small minority of people who have a vested interest in squeezing what they can from the Cubs and it will take some political will to do the right thing (here’s looking at you Rahm). The people on here that scream about moving remind me of the people on any Illini board (sorry, don’t hold that against me) who have a visceral reaction against anything to do with the City of Chicago. The threat to move isn’t credible because it isn’t credible – the Cubs have the best location possible if they are allowed to do what they want to do

  • Coal

    I have said many times over that the rooftop owners had a great run. Then they (and Tunney) got greedy with the expansion.

    When it was subtle, it was charming, even if it was, still then, blatant free-riding.

    When the zoning “magically” shifted to allow for purpose-built vertical mini stadiums housing few residents, and with the ability to handle hundreds of patrons EACH, the conversations about “the best interest of the neighborhood” became pure lip service.

    It’s not cute anymore. It’s stealing. And while it may seem that stealing from a billionaire is ok, the rooftop owners and Tunney are far from “commoners” and they’re really stealing from Cubs fans.

    • Rebuilding

      This is a good point. When it was people hanging out of windows and a few drunk guys on the roof with a fishing net the rooftops were charming. Now that its a multi-million dollar business with full on bleachers it’s kind of creepy voyeurism

  • Silly Rabbit
    • DarthHater

      Steve Rosenboob? Seriously???

      • Sillyrabbit

        Drathnputy? really?

        • DarthHater

          Silly rabbit

          [img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8106/8576282140_4d36d44a17_z.jpg[/img]

          • Internet Random

            [img]http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k230/XMLCTkd76eTb/81d37e8ab8f59a5080872fbb5d31aa90.jpg[/img]

          • Jono

            You win. That is awesome

  • DONNIE621

    RicketsLoser1#… after reading your post… I can see you are a product of the union school system that graduates less than 50% of it’s students. In addition, I am thinking you are a White Sox fan. A team that happily lives in “Public Housing”. I don’t remember the Sox getting the grief the Cubs are getting… Maybe it’s because “The Chairman” is not one of the richest men in the country… oh wait… he is!

    • Silly Rabbit

      Ricketts is a terrible owner. Ricketts is a dysfuntional patsy. Now if Joe could have control and maybe this whole fiasco is Joe fault. But in the end where the Cubs play and the residents and the cub fans are two different people.

      The Cubs dont play in an area that is all commercial and I doubt they want too. The Rickets Family should just win one battle at a time then risking the whole war. Soon the Cubs will be off WGN and more than likely lose it national appeal over the long run.

      Ricketts is a bad owner- sell the team kid or let your dad run it.

  • Die hard

    Wonder if a half dome would solve problem by excluding Rooftoppers from further consideration and give Cubs all control over scoreboard ads future work etc?

    • DarthHater

      Sure. In a world without any requirements for building permits, zoning variances, etc.

      • Die hard

        A Fenway Park wall in left and right may work

        • DarthHater

          Sure. In a world without any requirements for building permits, zoning variances, etc. Shall we go on?

          • TWC

            Oh, yes please. I’ll make popcorn.

            • DarthHater

              Sure. In a world without corn popping regulations… :-P

  • Daniel

    Perfect solution…cubs, city and rooftop people work together to buy/demolish the rooftop buildings. Build parking in its place. Split the money accordingly. Profit.

    • Internet Random

      Perfect solution: We all just get along.

  • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

    So Greenberg argues that if the Cubs left Wrigley, no one would come to games anymore. I flatly don’t buy it. It is ludicrous to assume that entirety of the Cubs fan demographic care nothing for baseball and only show up to stare at a stadium. If that were the case, why would anyone care where the team moves? Apparently Greenberg is convinced the casual fan, the lawyers, the season ticket holders, and the 20 somethings would buy tickets to sit in Wrigley regardless, even if the team on the field was Kane County.

    Without the sort of study we don’t have access to, I don’t think we can say for sure what percentage of Cub fans will shun the team like the plague if they ever move into a building with modern bathrooms. I think the best example we can see is to look at how well the Cubs draw on the road in Milwaukee, and that leads me to suspect the Cubs can pull 3 million fans no matter where in the Chicago area they plant the team.

    But this overstated idea that:
    “they’d only lose the 20-somethings who are there to get drunk, the downtown businessmen and lawyers who buy season tickets, tourists and casual fans. You know, everyone.”
    … is quite frankly just stupid.

    Secondly, I’m not sure how useful it is to look at the trend of new ballparks moving closer to downtown. Those are, almost without exception, publicly financed stadiums that are being used as centerpieces of neighborhood revitalization projects. The team gets a stadium, and the city gets a huge investment in part of the city… often downtown… that needs a big investment. That situation does not apply to the Cubs. Presumably, based on the resources the Ricketts have committed to Wrigley, any stadium the Cubs build would not be publicly financed. The city would have little say which neighborhood it was placed in, so one large aspect of the argument completely falls apart. If the Cubs did move, their move could be based on absolutely nothing more than the findings of an extensive cost/benefit study.

    And I think that actually makes a potential Cubs move almost unique in modern baseball history. I can’t think of too many teams who built their own stadium where they wanted, how they wanted, and did not have to compromise to make a city, state, or local government happy due to receiving funding.

    • Noah

      As I said in a prior post, there is a severe risk that losing Wrigley Field makes the Cubs no more of a draw than the White Sox. And the White Sox, in a season where they spent most of the year in first place and even had their GM make public statements that they couldn’t make significant roster additions BECAUSE of the low attendance (whether those statements are true or not) averaged more than 10,000 less fans a game than the second worst team in baseball.

      Would everyone leave? Of course that’s a bit of hyperbole, and clearly intended as such. But in bad seasons you could have a team that draws 20,000 fans a game. And you do risk that, even in a good year, Cub fans don’t even come when the team is pretty good.

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

        The White Sox point is a good one, but for me it only calls into focus the need for a much better study than we have access to. Do the White Sox struggle to draw fans because they don’t have Wrigley? Or because they are the second team in their own city? I’m not sure, but I’d hesitate to decide it is definitely one or the other.

        I really wish someone would leak whatever studies on this topic the Cubs have made to the press. I strongly suspect there is a certain revenue per year number that the Cubs need Wrigley to produce, and that right now it is not producing that number. If the politicians continue to block any deal that would allow the Cubs to bring revenues (via advertising and the other things) up to that number, then someone is going to have to make a decision.

      • gutshot5820

        Agree with EVERYTHING Luke says. I believe the Cubs will be a big draw no matter where they play. Also, there is an ongoing assumption that the Cubs will continue to draw in Wrigley regardless, even if their losing ways continues. I am in the opinion that attendance will drop severely in Wrigley or in the suburbs of Chicago if they do not start winning. The luster and appeal of Wrigley traditions has been way overblown and it is not the same today as in years past. Times change and younger generations, who will be the fans of tomorrow, care less about the scoreboard and more about winning.

        Winning, not Wrigley, gives the Cubs the best chance of long-term success and high attendance figures. A stadium that maximizes the Cubs ability to increase payroll and operations is the Cubs best chance of high attendance numbers and continued prosperity. Without any changes to current Wrigley, the rest of baseball will pass the Cubs by, and then lets see how many fans will come to see Wrigley if we continue to lose over the next decade. Sorry, not buying any theories that conclude that Wrigley is the key to high attendance and continued success for the Cubs.

        Of course the best option is for Tunney and the rooftop owners to get out of the way and let the Cubs do their thing with Wrigley. In other words, “get that piece of shit off our lawn.”

      • Rcleven

        The location of the Cell has got to be considered in the White Sox attendance.
        Public parking for the Cell is a one mile walk.
        Left and center field blind spots from raised batters eye.

    • Sillyrabbit

      Then move .let the Cubs draw a bigger and better market. Let the Cubs leave Wrigley Field it seems to be in its best solution to the Cubs and its fans. Why make a war out of it? The Cubs want to control it business without consideration to its neighbors and build a fantasy adventure land and control all the Ordinance to stomp on the neighborhood. in future projects.

      Let THE CUBS MOVE- Believe in Ricketts – somehow that would be the teams worst nightmare. but every owners has the right to belittle its own image.

      • Sillyrabbit

        Or every owner has the right to degrade and devalue its own image- just ask a any majority of Marlin fans.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Greenberg was exaggerating for effect. You’re dismissing the entirety of his point because you don’t like his hyperbole.

      And the Cubs were drawing exceptionally well in Milwaukee when they were good. Now they merely draw better than most road teams. I am quite convinced that the only location where attendance will be quality-insensitive is right where they are now.

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

        Then how many fans would the Cubs lose? No one in the major press is willing to speculate a number on that. We’re supposed to take it on blind faith that leaving Wrigley would devastate the fan base; I don’t see the basis for that severe of a conclusion. Yes, the Cubs would take a hit in attendance. But if Greenberg’s projection is not to be taken seriously (and I’m not sure sure he thinks he’s exaggerating), then what is the attendance loss figure that he has in mind that is leading him to argue the Cubs flatly cannot consider moving?

        The Cubs would take an attendance hit from moving. And they would also see a net increase in total advertising revenue versus what they have now.

        The only question that matters from a team financial standpoint is whether the net gain in advertising is greater than the loss in attendance. Given how hamstrung the Cubs are on the advertising front now, I think it is perfectly fair to suggest that the revenue equation, even factoring in the loss in attendance, might just favor a move.

        Unless the media types are willing to write/talk seriously about actual figures, though, it is nearly impossible to evaluate their arguments. All I can apparently say is that Greenberg believes there is an attendance threshold past which it does not make sense for the Cubs to move. I agree. So, I suspect, does everyone aware of the discussion.

        So what’s that threshold? If Greenberg was exaggerating when he said the Cubs would lose their entire fan base (and again, I’m not so sure he thinks that’s an exaggeration… the rest of the article was not all that hyperbolic, after all), then on what basis is he making the argument that the Cubs can’t even think about moving?

        I’m not so sure it is that outlandishly unthinkable.

        • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

          No one has been able to give me a good answer: if moving to the suburbs is obviously the better financial play, why on earth are the Ricketts Family not moving the Cubs? Why are they buying up properties around Wrigley? Why are they fighting so hard to stay at Wrigley Field in Chicago? Why haven’t they started the moving discussion in their three years of ownership?

          • DarthHater

            I don’t think moving to the suburbs is OBVIOUSLY the better financial play. But I think it might be under some circumstances. If the Cubs continue to get hamstrung with idiotic city-and-neighborhood-imposed restrictions, there comes a point where it could be better to move, if a suitably attractive alternative location could be found. Conversely, if a reasonable deal can be struck to ease the restrictions, then by all means stay at Wrigley. But in order to get a reasonable deal, the Cubs may need some of the leverage that can only come from at least some possibility of a move.

          • http://thecubcontrarian.blogspot.com Kyle

            I’m assuming that everybody’s just playing along to try to give the Cubs leverage.

            • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

              I wish I could play my part.

            • Silly Rabbit

              The City will not budge they dont have any reason to budge. Tunney I believe has the backing of the Mayor and will be the goat if it ever gets to that point,

              I just think Ricketts is playing the game wrong. Build a winner – Build the inside of the park up to modern day Sports arena and complex staduim minus the megatron. Have a good working relationship with the rooftops and when the contract are up, do not renew the contracts

              Let Rickets build a winner and he needs to stop being a whinner. iI he can IF he feels he needs to relocate- then He should leave wrigley field and see what happens in his new paradise, will be up to him. Maybe Mr Ricketts can provide a better entertainment venture without actually owning a whole nieborhood or dictating to residentail zone what they can and can not do. The residents have thier voice in Tunney but if the Cubs want to take this to a level by losing to degrees of losing . Then the Cubs have a bad owner that do not understand the complex nature of having a Wonderful location that his losing team att/

            • scorecardpaul

              Kyle, are you really trying to say that you can’t see why different city leaders would want the Cubs to move to their town? I think it should be very obvious why evry city would want the Chicago Cubs to build a stadium in their city. If you don’t think they would want that then please tell me why.

              • http://thecubcontrarian.blogspot.com Kyle

                Not at all. I’m saying I don’t think anyone who is seriously thinking about it believes for the briefest of moments that it’s a viable option.

                The Cubs aren’t leaving Wrigley Field. We all know it. The Cubs know it. The Mayor’s office knows it. The neighorhood jerks know it. There’s no leverage in the threat to move, because it’s not happening.

                But it feels like fans think if they pretend it’s a real option, they can fool the city or something.

          • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

            Wrigley Field, if they can be allowed to renovate it and modernize it according to their plans, is without a doubt the most profitable option.

            It is also the option that, so far anyway, appears to be going absolutely nowhere with the Chicago political establishment.

            That a renovated Wrigley is the best and highest revenue option alone is more than sufficient reason to explain the Cubs long efforts to invest in and stay in the ballpark. That does not seem unusual at all. But it is also inarguable that so far a deal has not been struck despite the Cubs making the absolute dream offer for every city/state in America (except Chicago, apparently). The Cubs are offering to foot the entire bill themselves. In any other city in the US or Canada this deal would have been done months ago.

            In Chicago, so far anyway, it is not happening. The deadline is twelve days away, and isn’t the Mayor on vacation?

            This isn’t a debate between renovating Wrigley and moving. Renovating Wrigley wins that every time, and it is likely such an attractive proposition that it justifies a tremendous amount of effort.

            This is a debate between staying in Wrigley as it is should no deal be reached and moving. Neither are palatable. The conventional wisdom, as in the Greenberg article, is that the very act of leaving Wrigley is so unthinkable that the Cubs can’t even consider it.

            I’m not convinced. There is a minimum revenue line that ballpark needs to produce, attendance included, and if Wrigley were producing that revenue then the Cubs would not be offering to invest half a billion dollars into the stadium and the surrounding area in part to increase revenue streams.

            If they continue to not be allowed and cannot therefore raise the revenue from Wrigley as it is to that minimum threshold, then they have to choose between cutting costs to a level that is sustainable by the revenue the park can produce, or moving.

            I’m not confident that Chicago politics will allow this deal to be struck, and I’m not convinced that moving would be such a disaster it cannot be considered. Renovating Wrigley is definitely my first choice. But I’m not exactly confident that it will happen.

            • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

              I think we mostly agree, then. I just have more confidence that a deal is going to get done.

              If the choices were stay at Wrigley with no renovations/revenue upgrades ever possible or allowed, or move out of Wrigley, then, yeah, this becomes a different discussion.

              • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

                I’m honestly afraid we’re a week and a half from that discussion. If this thing runs true to form, the City won’t agree to a deal by April 1 simply because that is the deadline set by the Cubs. No baseball team is going to tell the City of Chicago how to operate!

                • Hansman1982

                  Excellent analysis of the situation.

                  From what I’ve studied of the Cuban Missile Crisis your explanation fits with that scenario. Currently, Kennedy (Ricketts) thinks that Khruschev (Rahm) and Castro (Tunney) will blink. Right now the Soviet freighters are steaming towards the blockade.

                  I think it will take Kennedy dropping a few a-bombs down Castro’s throat (serious discussions with a suburb or two) to get some blinking.

      • Sillyrabbit

        The Cubs have no leverage to get the stuff they want and they know this to be true. The Cubs have started a publicity war and actually have started to polarize fans on different fronts, stadium renovation and team operations. Soon TV rights with WGN will end and the Cubs will lose it appeal on a national front in the long run and soon lose its fan base over the entire country but that is to be expect over better TV revenue. (again no one faults time change) The Cubs should just play out the rooftop contract play hardball then . Expand slowly as their rebuild process and future may look bright for all.

        • Rich H

          For one thing have you not read any of the commentary on this or any other blog spot let alone the newspapers? The PR campaign was lost by the Rooftop owners the day the Ricketts said we will pay for it and their pet alderman started making noise.
          For another thing the Ricketts have stayed above the fray in any relocation talks by not saying anything. It was a mayor of one town and a county chairman of another that brought up relocation to the suburbs not the Cubs.
          You know of course the Rosenblog you are talking about is from 2010? Looks at how he has changed his tune lately. But of course you knew that and did not care.

      • DarthHater

        “I am quite convinced that the only location where attendance will be quality-insensitive is right where they are now.”

        Right there’s the best argument for moving. Give ‘em some incentive to improve the product on the field.

        • Jono

          you are on a roll today. What can I do to be more like you?

          • DarthHater

            You must embrace the dark side of the Force and apprentice yourself to a Sith Lord!

            • Jono

              Done and done

  • Bren

    Im not from Chicago, so please excuse my geographic ignorance, is there any land within the city proper available/demolishable for an urban stadium?

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Yes, but you’d still have (almost) all of the same headaches (plus it’s the “devil that you don’t know”), with potentially less upside. Wrigleyville is a pretty uniquely special place.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

      The problem, even at Wrigley, isn’t the location or the land. It’s the politics.

      And there is no escaping that anywhere in Chicago.

  • Eric S

    As a SEASON TICKET HOLDER and not a 20 something (more like a 30 something) I would see the Cubs ANYWHERE. Parking lot, sandlot, penthouse or outhouse. Real fans will show up wherever the Cubs play.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

      Write to Greenberg. He apparently doesn’t think you exist.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      “Real fans will show up wherever the Cubs play.”

      This is absolutely correct.

      It is also correct, however, that there are far fewer of you than there are people who go to Wrigley Field to watch Cubs games. Not everyone at games is a hardcore, true fan. In fact, depending on where your seats are, I’d think you’d suspect – as I do – that the majority of folks at games are not hardcore fans who would follow the team to the moon like we would.

      • http://www.shadowsofwrigley.com TC

        I’m a “real” fan by pretty much any measure, and while I would see the team play anywhere, I would significantly prefer to go see games at Wrigley. It’s the stadium where I fell in love with the game, where I saw Mark Prior mow down the Braves in the ’03 NLDS, where I’ve spent countless summer days and nights watching baseball with my dad. My father spent his summers there. My grandparents spent a ton of time there in their youth. The stadium means a ton to my family and to me, and it is a beautiful place to watch baseball. I’d go see them in a massive new stadium, sure, but it wouldn’t be the same.

        • cubsnivy56

          Wellsaid, I feel the same way.

    • scorecardpaul

      I would prefer to go to Cub games in a new stadium. I would also think that if the Chicago Cubs were to play a world series game they would sell out any stadium they played in, and the tickets would still be sold outside the stadium for thousands of dollars

  • http://thecubcontrarian.blogspot.com Kyle

    I miss those brief years where “everything but the actual team” wasn’t the most talked-about, most interesting part of the Cubs.

    • TWC

      Cheers to that.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      You have no idea how much I piiiiiine to finally write about a competitive Cubs team.

      • TWC

        Heh. That was kinda the hope, starting up back in fall ’08, eh?

        • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

          What a foolish little scamp …

          • MichiganGoat

            Such a loser

      • http://thecubcontrarian.blogspot.com Kyle

        If you’re experience is like the rest of media, I imagine it makes a significant difference in your bottom line.

  • gutshot5820

    The main reason the Cubs are such a national draw is because we are worst/losing-est team in sports history. Everybody wants to be a part of history when the Cubs actually do win it all. I think people become attached to Wrigley because it symbolizes what it means to be a Cubs fan. All those years of nostalgia and tears of losing in that ballpark and they can’t let go. When the Cubs do finally win it all, they want it to be in Wrigley.

    People are making a lot of assumptions on here that the cubs won’t draw outside of Wrigley or that the Cubs will continue to draw at Wrigley even if they continue losing over the next decade. Good luck with that. There is no data that supports any of those claims and is at most posturing to favor one’s own position. The only sure thing that will guarantee attendance and continued relevance of the Cubs, is winning and having enough revenue to support a high payroll and development. With all the changes that MLB is making, higher payroll will be the only advantage for the Cubs over other teams in the near future,

    • http://thecubcontrarian.blogspot.com Kyle

      The Superstation has much more to do with the Cubs’ national appeal than anything you listed.

      • http://401klogic.net Westbound Willie

        The superstation has everything to do with the cubs drawing on the road. As soon as wgn went national they suddenly showed up on everyone’s tv and people in r
        Places that didn’t have a team became cubs fans. Before wgn went national the only baseball that was on was the Saturday game of the week.

        Imagine you’re a grimy little 12 year old kid from Iowa and all of a sudden the cubs are on one day. You’re a cub fan for life.

        There are tons of bus loads of people coming from Iowa every home game. I honestly think that if you polled chicago fans that the cubs/sox ratio would be about 50/50 it the out of town cub fans is what pushes the national fandom to the cubs. Wgn built a monster ( which is now going away) and probably didn’t even know it. Harry came at the exact right time as well. The perfect storm. With games becoming almost non existent on wgn moving forwards this national cub fan craziness is starting to go away and soon the cubs will draw fans on the road just like every other teams does.

        • MichiganGoat

          Yup I wager a small bushel of oats that most of us are here today because of WGN, the creator, master, and one-man-band that created this site is here because of WGN. And yes it is sad that WGN will no longer have Cubs games on the TV. I still associate Van Halen’s “Jump” with WGN because it was the bump music.

          Speaking of nostalgic WGN memories check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDDx5GJUbL8

          • http://401klogic.net Westbound Willie

            That was good stuff. Lots of great memories from the 84 team. I forgot about the celebration on the street afterwards. I still can’t believe they didn’t close the padres out.

    • Pat

      No, it’s mostly that they were the most interesting thing on in the afternoons to a bunch of kids getting home from school and shut-ins. The Braves had the same national reach, but had to compete with prime time programming largely. Now there definitely is a root for the underdog factor that is also present. In fact, I’ve always believed that finally winning a world series would have a long term negative effect on attendance.

      • http://401klogic.net Westbound Willie

        I agree with all of your post as well. The cubs are like a ten car accident. You know you aren’t supposed to look but you look at the fiery crash anyway.

  • Al Spangler

    Move to the suburbs where they will kiss your butt as opposed to pick your pocket.

    • MichiganGoat

      Um your confusing the Cell with Wrigley ;)

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Better than kissing your pocket and picking your butt.

      • Jimmy James

        I respectfully disagree…

        • http://www.shadowsofwrigley.com TC

          Im in this boat too

  • Barroof

    Coal is a retard. Check the facts. The rooftop owners have a CONTRACT with the Cubs. On a side note if the Cubs moved to Rosemont the city of Chicago would set up DUI check points heading into the city limits for all those fans coming home from their new mall stadium.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      We don’t use the R word here.

    • TheDynastyStartsIn2016

      Sorry Barroof, but contract or not, the Rooftop owners are thieves. Not many would question that.

      • Edwin

        I don’t know if I buy the “thieves” arguement. They have a rooftop view into the stadium. Why shouldn’t they have every right to sell that view, if people are willing to pay for it?

        I don’t think the rooftop owner’s should have any say in how the business of the Cubs is ran. If the Cubs can get more revenue by putting up signs, and those signs block the rooftop views, then I think it’s tough luck. But I don’t blame the owner’s for looking out for themselves.

        I just don’t understand what it is these rooftop owner’s are actually “stealing”.

        • King Jeff

          Before the contract they were selling viewings of MLB games that they had no rights to. That’s stealing.

          We had a drive-in theater in my hometown, there was a house behind it that used to let the neighbors come over and park in their back yard to watch movies for free. The drive in was fine with it, until they started selling concessions. Then not only did the drive in step in, apparently there are licensing issues that come along with movie, sports, and concert viewing in an outdoor or stadium setting. The house was forced to stop it’s business, an the theater put up a large fence to protect it’s product. It’s a kind of similar story to Wrigley, and I’m wondering if eventually Bud Selig and MLB come calling about people getting to watch their product and MLB not getting it’s fair share of the dealings, or if they have the rights to step in.

          • http://thecubcontrarian.blogspot.com Kyle

            It depends on the laws of your specific state, but unless otherwise excepted, you always have the right to your view from your property. Illinois had no such exception.

            • King Jeff

              You have the right to view, but not the right to charge admission and sell concessions. At least as far as my understanding.

              • hansman1982

                I think it’s basically like watching on TV. You and a million friends can just hang out and watch it, but it’s the profit that upsets them.

                It’s similar to the issue an Illinois farmer is having with some Roundup Ready soybeans. Monsanto doesn’t care what you do with the product, just so long as you don’t make more copies of it.

                • King Jeff

                  I guess PPV tv is illegal to share as well. I wasn’t aware of this, when I was in high school we use to have UFC and wrestling ppv parties all the time, but I guess they frown on that and want you to purchase a viewing license from them, like the bars do(or are supposed to do).

          • Edwin

            Good points. I didn’t think of it in terms like that.

    • Jimmy James

      A contract that expires….if they aren’t willing to be reasonable do you think “they” (you) will get a new one?

    • Coal

      I get that the rooftops have a contract. It’s just a bad one for the Cubs. Like he’s doing in shopping Soriano, Ricketts has the right to see if he can make something better out of the hand he was dealt.

      My point was simply that when you approve zoning and construction projects that make a mockery of the original charm of the rooftops, and through those efforts expand the effective fan capacity in/outside of Wrigley by thousands of people, it gets much harder to credibly claim that you have concern for the “neighborhood” with regard to density, noise, safety and parking.

      • Crazyhorse

        Absolutely. Ricketts can run the team the way he see fits , The only power I have is to spend my money is on its entertainment value. For me personally it is much nicer to entertain friends and invites guest to the roof tops for an enjoyable day out too see the Cubs. On the few occasions that I have been on the roof tops the games was actually secondary to the purpose to watch games and if truth be told when the Cubs stink the rooftops provide a cheap experience in a group setting. -When the Cubs have a winning product on the field the stadium is full , ticket prices on the secondary market can be expensive but the entertainment values is well worth to watch the game inside the stadium.
        Being in the military prior, I have been to many stadiums to watch the Cubs play and other teams. I can honestly say that Wrigley Field in and out the ball park is the best place to enjoy a day and evening out with children, a girlfriend ,family and a Spouce (when I got married.)
        The activities prior and after the game is the appeal and each outing can be different according to taste and style.
        With the kids its walking the park , battling the batting cages maybe dipping into a bar for quick piano cocktail grabbing some pizza.
        With friends it might be bar hopping , Eyeing the eye candy , playing a game of darts enjoying conversations with baseball fans and Cub fans
        With family it might be window shopping . enjoying different foods maybe a quick detour to micro pubs with adults

        You can name a number of stadium experiences but none compares with the overall experience with Wrigley Field and the LOCATION that it is,
        Sure their are better in park experiences and those parks can be fun and give a better view of game play but it is something that get old after a while.

        This is what Wrigley loses in the transaction to move and duplicating this type of atmosphere. can not be duplicated on a commercial lot. This neighborhood developed slowly with its beauty and charm that caters to all types of people.

        because of this, the Cubs at this time have no leverage. In time maybe the Cubs can buyout the Rooftops contracts or simply not renew the contract once they expire

        The Cubs would be foolish to move The City do not have to do a damn thing to please the Cubs . The voters in that ward hold the power. The Cubs can move but it should be empty threat – Profits can be made at Clark and Addison .Its a shame when the Cubs Move and it would be a PR disaster for Rickets and a loss of revenue that can not be replace as the value of the team might decrease as well. .

        He may even build a great Stadium but if the product is not a championship quality team then fan will leave or not show up.

        And if he ever sells Wrigley any pro team that want to take a chance on Wrigley including the Sox may be fan favorites and the Cubs looking from the outside in.

        .

  • BubblesHargrave

    I haven’t read all the posts, but I did read the article and quote’s above and would like to share my thoughts. I love the Cubs, but I really do believe they’re cursed, and I believe it has something to do with Wrigley. Call me superstitious, but evil spirits have a way of hanging around certain places and locations. I believe that something evil or unknown has hung around Wrigley that has caused all of the fluke things that have happened over the years to interfere with winning. On top of this, I believe the lack of Night games and having to deal with the winds off of the Lake has had an effect on wins and losses. That being said, I feel like the invitation by suburbia to re-locate is awesome and should be seriously considered. I feel like this attachment to a place where there has been such little play in in October is idiotic. It’s only pride that get’s in the way of people realizing that the Cubs may never win at Wrigley. To think that no World Series titles in over 100 years has nothing to do with the location you play at is ignorant. Rid yourself of the last century and start anew in a new place.

  • Another Idea

    I would be for Rosemont but only if its a retractable roof stadium because way to many games are scrapped because Chicago has Sh&tty Weather

  • Crazyhorse

    Cubs have no leverage , To get out of the contract with the rooftops the Cubs need Tunney. Without Tunney the Cubs next option is to go to court and they would lose. The Cubs are stuck with a bad contract with the rooftops. The cry for public support will not help. People will go to the rooftops and enjoy a game at reasonable prices with a all inclusive atmosphere of food and drink. and the baseball game being the backdrop.
    yes real fan may go to the park but that really dont matter. The real fun is being on the roof tops interacting with people and the ball game is secondary when that is gone so will those fans for the most part.

    In this instance the little guy prevails ( rooftop ) until those contracts are up and then Ricketts can go through this gauntlet again without those small business owners stealing the bad product the cubs serves on daily basis ,

    The Rickets family is real bad in PR. Yes I understand they want to foot the whole cost . And They should no matter what happens – To many times Corprate bullshitters want to steal from the public to finance thier own adventures but it still do not give them the right to dictate to a community on what thay want.

    If the Ricket family want that type of freedom ,then they need to purchase land , develop a commercial area to sell their product.

    The family can do that type of investment , and depending the quality of the team they will succeed .

    People go to Wrigley Field and the roof tops for many reasons , it add appeal to the area it makes a bad team enjoyable, so does all the tavern and shops . The neighborhood during lean years have provided many of paid patrons for a lazy afternoon of games of fun and dismal outcomes.

    I could actually care less where the Cubs play if its close enough i will continue to go to games when i feel the product is good enough, but I doubt tourist will go see a commercial lot to witness a substandard team the Cubs have become after the First season.

    Rickets is a bad owner with mediocre font office,

  • http://facebook.com/anotherspacesong Bret Epic

    I’m not a season ticket holder, but I’ve been to several stadiums to see the Cubs, including Wrigley of course. Between the players and the spirit of the fans, it’s more than enough for me to continue to come to games, no matter where they play. Rickets seems to want to run his business and team his way. Other teams don’t have the problems he has, nor does he deserve to have them. The Cubs haven’t won a World Series in Wrigley and the stadium is falling apart. I love the stadium, but if we can’t fix it and the city won’t budge, a move seems to be the best choice. I think Wrigley is great because of the fans and the interaction more than the stadium and some people forget what that means. I’m not sure I’ve seen people mention that other than losing the businessmen and the rest are probably the fans that are too busy chatting with their peers or texting to watch the game. The solution to come is between renovating Wrigley or leaving and honestly, neither would surprise me at this point.

  • Lou

    Kinda curious that Brett only cites the great Greenberg article from ESPN (I think quite foolish BTW) and doesn’t reference the better of the two ESPN articles on this topic from Rick Reilly.

    • TWC
      • Lou

        Thanks for being a troll TWC. Always an important role for ya!

        • King Jeff

          He’s a troll for calling you foolish because you mistakenly called Brett foolish? Wouldn’t that make you a troll as well, just a troll that got trolled and is now complaining about it?

          • DarthHater

            Hey, quit being a troll-trolling-troll-trolling troll, Jeff! ;-)

          • Lou

            No, he’s a troll because he’s complaining about something that should have been done. IF you’re going to survey opinions about the Cubs and you have two opposed viewpoints from one media source (ESPN.com), don’t you think it wise to reference both together? And yes, I think the Reilly article is better. So what! Brett thinks highly of the Greenberg article.

            TWC JUST NEEDS something to fulfill his time, namely something to complain about. :(

            • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

              This is one of my favorite criticisms of all time: failing to write about a Rick Reilly opinion piece three times, as opposed to a mere two, in a one week span.

              I’ll keep trying to get better, Lou.

              • MichiganGoat

                Step yo game up buddy, you have to post everything at least three times. Geez you slipping up in your old age.

              • Lou

                It has absolutely nothing to do with that. It’s a response to TWC’s: look up the Reilly article and you find it, dumbass.

                When you present an argument for why something is written well (ie the Greenberg piece), you need to fairly represent the other side of the argument in the same bullet point. Why? because they come off the same media site. If you’ve covered in a past article, you could have just cut and pasted some of your earlier thoughts on Reilly’s article and attached it to what you’ve covered with Greenberg’s article. That way, the reader understands that ESPN.com takes both sides of the coin in their discussion about the Cubs future plans.

                It’s kind of like if you’re citing an editorial in a newspaper, and there happens to be another editorial of a divergent viewpoint. You would discuss one viewpoint. You discuss both. You know, together. I got the impression the first time seeing this that ESPN.com appears to be one-sided, when in fact that’s not the case.

                But, ok, you’ve talked about already ad naseum, and it’s MY FAULT, for not looking it up.

                • TWC

                  “But, ok, you’ve talked about already ad naseum, and it’s MY FAULT, for not looking it up.”

                  I accept your apology.

                  • hansman1982

                    Hold on…we need to wait at least 6 months to see if he posts anything else that might be him praising Brett for writing about, literally, everything that comes across the wire remotely related to the Cubs. THEN you need to ensure that he also comes back in time to when he posted this so that he can post it along side his praising of Brett so that we have 2 sides of the story.

                    THEN you can accept his apology, if, he fails to do all of that.

                • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                  “When you present an argument for why something is written well (ie the Greenberg piece), you need to fairly represent the other side of the argument in the same bullet point. Why? because they come off the same media site.”

                  Do you know how many posts would have 50 articles linked in them under this theory?

                  Even if I set aside the implausibility of what you’re asking me to do (and ignore how impossibly annoying it would be to 95% of the readership), I don’t agree with you. When I find an article I like, and with which I agree, I’m going to share it – and only it. I’ll probably discuss it some, and I might even point out the smaller parts with which I don’t agree. But to suggest that I have to find an oppositional article – if one exists – each time is unthinkable.

                  Should I have found a CSN or NBC article that says Theo Epstein is a dope this morning when I wanted to highlight Joe Posnanski’s piece applauding Epstein? That’s not how this site works. It’s not how any site like this works. In fact, I’m not sure that it’s how ANY site works on a regular basis.

                  I’m fair. I’m always fair. In fact, I *very* frequently link back to articles about the same topic when addressing them again. But I have opinions, and this site is a platform for me to express them. Whenever you disagree, you are encouraged to turn to the comments to express your disagreement. That’s your platform – you can even link Rick Reilly articles if you’d like. I’m not trying to stop you.

                  • hansman1982

                    “Whenever you disagree, you are encouraged to turn to the comments to express your disagreement.”

                    We’d just prefer you NOT be an ass when someone points out to you when Brett did exactly what you want him to do.

                  • http://thecubcontrarian.blogspot.com Kyle

                    “Should I have found a CSN or NBC article that says Theo Epstein is a dope this morning when I wanted to highlight Joe Posnanski’s piece applauding Epstein? ”

                    I just assumed you knew that I was coming and wanted to leave the counterpoint to the experts.

        • DarthHater

          Right because pointing out that you made an unfounded criticism of Brett based on an entirely erroneous factual assertion is the dictionary definition of being a troll.

          As opposed to making bogus criticisms based on false facts and then defending oneself by calling someone else a troll, which isn’t trollish behavior at all, of course.

          • Lou

            Unfounded for pointing out that he could have aided the reader who doesn’t come very often by citing two opposing viewpoints from the same source (ESPN.com and the Greenberg/Reilly articles)? You know, not because Brett’s giving us a survey of perspectives on the Cubs renovation plans or ANYTHING. I didn’t bother reading the next paragraph. The first one gave me enough of a headache.

            • hansman1982

              Or maybe you just need to stay on ESPN.

              Or maybe you just need to not comment here about something that you might not possibly know happened.

              Or maybe you shouldn’t comment on another commentors posting habits as if it were fact when you are incapable of knowing what the author/owner of this website posts.

              The community would like to have you here. Just you need to like to be here.

    • FFP

      Rick Reilly says no winning for Cubs as long as they stay in their “vine-covered crypt”
      http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=9047502&city=chicago

  • http://bleachernation vinniethefixer

    One thing in the news everone is missing is DePaul U. is looking for land for a Arena to play for b-ball !!! They could be a bidder for the land!!!

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+