Obsessive Wrigley Renovation Watch: Mayor Says Cubs and Rooftops Are Talking, Plus the First Lawsuit

respect wrigleyIf you’d told me a couple weeks ago that I’d soon be writing a headline including the words “Wrigley Renovation,” “Rooftops,” and “Lawsuit,” I would have groaned audibly and feared the worst.

In this instance, we’re not at “the worst,” because the referenced lawsuit actually has nothing to do with the rooftops. Of course, lawsuits are rarely a good thing.

The owner of some apartments on the west side of the ballpark, west of where the proposed hotel will be built, has filed suit against the City of Chicago and the entities that are behind the development (not the Cubs ballclub, itself, but the various LLCs that are involved in the renovation/development project – for all practical purposes, and as far as I know, we’re talking about the owners of the Cubs).

The suit, which you can read here (via Crain’s), alleges that the City did not have authority to pass the ordinance permitting the hotel construction both on constitutional grounds and because the original planned development for that site had expired at the time of the ordinance. The plaintiff, Thomas Romano, seeks an injunction stopping construction of the hotel (construction hasn’t yet started), and damages in excess of $6 million (that appears to be a perfunctory ask, given that nothing has actually happened yet).

*OBLIGATORY I AM NOT A LAWYER COMMENT* While I am no longer a practicing attorney, my uneducated look at the complaint suggests that what we have here is a pretty simple case of a business that fears it will be harmed by something coming down the pipeline, and, having not succeeded in stopping said thing, is now turning to the last refuge of the courts. That is not a comment on the merits of the complaint (the constitutional claim seems thin, but I can’t speak to the planned development expiration claim), or a direct suggestion that the lawsuit is a mere attempt to get the Cubs/City to throw the plaintiff a little money to get him to go away. In the end, however, if the best argument is that the Ricketts Family/the City didn’t follow the proper procedure in getting this particular development approved, the solution will be … following the proper procedure. In other words, with plenty of time to get the hotel construction going, I have a hard time seeing this particular suit causing any significant problems (though it will undoubtedly be a pain in the ass, as most litigation is). The Ricketts Family owns the property, and the City has said they can do with it what they want.

A Cubs spokesman said the organization is reviewing the lawsuit, but has no comment at this time.

The news on the rooftops side of things might be slightly more positive. Speaking with Crain’s Greg Hinz, Mayor Rahm Emanuel said he still believes the Cubs and the rooftops will figure out something that works, since it is in everyone’s self-interest to get a deal done. Recall, the Cubs refuse to begin the renovation process in earnest until they know that the grim specter of a lawsuit from the rooftops is not hanging over their heads. On that item, the Mayor said encouragingly that, despite the appearance that the two sides have dug in and are not currently speaking, there actually are talks ongoing between the Cubs and the rooftops.

Talks, alone, are encouraging at this point, but it’s even more encouraging that the Mayor – who recently helped push positive resolutions for the Cubs on smaller outstanding issues – seems to be looped into the talks. He’s got as much interest as anyone in getting the (privately-funded) renovation underway, and I’d think his efforts to push, should he be inclined to do so, would help things along.

Brett Taylor is the editor and lead writer at Bleacher Nation, and can also be found as Bleacher Nation on Twitter and on Facebook.

220 responses to “Obsessive Wrigley Renovation Watch: Mayor Says Cubs and Rooftops Are Talking, Plus the First Lawsuit”

  1. jtizzle

    I don’t understand what the problem is here. Once the Ricketts come to terms that they signed a contract with the rooftops and either pay them money for their lost revenue from blocking their views or change their plans. They really don’t have much of an argument in my opinion. I want there to be a reno, but I would be pissed if someone was trying to breach my contract as well.

    1. ETS

      Are you sure the contract was breached?

      1. jtizzle

        If it wouldn’t be with the current plans the Cubs would be moving forward and there would be no threat of suing. The Cubs lawyers are probably better than the rooftops, and probably telling them the threat of a lawsuit is real and hard to defend when they are taking out contractually supported views.

        1. 1060Ivy

          Number of reports have stated that the contract allows alterations of rooftop views. While you can probably find just as many if not more which state that change in view would constitute a breach in agreement.

          Glad that you were able to read the rooftop agreement and decide that the Cubs are in breach. Case closed. Cubs can’t renovate Wrigley.

          Just as likely, the Cubs probably can’t move from Wrigley or move into a suburban or other location without lawsuits popping up.

          1. D.G.Lang

            The Cubs contract with the rooftops only allows the rooftops to exist as long as they pay the Cubs a certain percentage. The contract specifically allows for whatever the city allows them to do concerning “the view”.

            The contract does not force the Cubs to remain at Wrigley or pay anything is they move out. Some other group may file a claim for abandonment of Wrigley or “neglect” or some other dreamed up scheme but thay would have no legal bases to prevent the Cubs from moving elsewhere or closing up Wrigley due to loss of income.

            The local businesses have the most to lose and only Rickets desire to improve and expand Wrigley itself keeps them there. No one other than the owner of the Cubs can stop them from playing wherever they want.

            A simple proof of this is for the Cubs to schedule one of their games for somewhere else and see who if anyone sues. If someone sues to try to prevent that move, then the Cubs can win that in court and use that as a settled legal ruling that no one can sue them for playing elsewhere.

            That will quite possibly prevent any future lawsuits from happening at all and give the Cubs free rights to move at will. If the rooftops can’t claim that the Cubs are depriving them from their “rights” to see the game they can’t sue because of blocked views which are specifically allowed for in the contract.

            1. MichiganGoat

              I was wondering if this would add some pressure to the rooftops Emperor Tunney. Start the construction now (mainly the clubhouse and other internal remodels) but because of the delay tell MLB, the city, and businesses that you have to play the first month elsewhere in order to complete things correctly. Make the plan and watch what happens when the rooftops lose a month of revenue and especially that home opener revenue, maybe the don’t balk maybe they rush to the table to agree to terms. We’re going to have to find a way to apply pressure and planning home games somewhere else and thereby taking revenue away from the rooftops is the best leverage the Cubs have. The Cubs have been too nice for too long, mainly because they know ultimately they are going to win so why get nasty, but now is the time to apply some pressure. Each year, month, day the renovations are stalled is a loss of revenue and thereby a loss of potential wins.

              1. Die hard

                Not so fast Sherlock… Rooftops were here before Ricketts and he hasn’t shown them any respect

                1. MichiganGoat

                  That might be the dumbest argument you’ve ever had… and that is a massive collection of stupid to top. Respect? He allows them to watch his product for a crazy discount and then they profit off that product… yeah that is so disrespectful.

                  The rooftops are like this. My neighbor has full cable/dish and offers me to pay him 17% of his bill so that I can “steal” (of course this was after years of me stealing his service for years) his cable. I then convert by house to a theater and charge tickets for people to watch the movies, sports events, and pay per view at my house. I make a ton of money then one day he decides he’s not going to carry a couple of channels and I FREAK OUT. I stage a protest, I find a oily politician (I know, I know they are ALL oily) to publicly complain about everything, I cry tradition and how my house has been around longer, and I make vague threats that I’m going to sue if this happens. And now I find a clueless online poster to say that I’m not being respected as I sleep on a mattress with a pillow top of 100 dollar bills.

                  Respect does not equal giving everybody everything.

                  1. Jono

                    Sometimes I really think that some of these commenters were told by the rooftops or tunney to come onto cubs blogs and support them

    2. Chicago4life

      There is a contract in place that the views can’t be altered that I think the Tribune signed before Ricketts. It freezes everything for years. This is a back and forth argument and obviously everyone roots for Ricketts to win as it lifts the excuses he has for not spending money. However, I understand why the rooftop owners are fighting. I personally know one of them and he paid $20 million for 3 of them 6 years ago. He said he did it with the understanding that he would have the view for the term of a contract that was already signed. Him and Ricketts are friends, they have vacationed together. He told me when Ricketts bought the team he told him in the Bahamas or wherever they were that he would own all of the rooftops one day. He basically told his buddy the rooftop owner that he was going to fight them to the end and push them out. This is just the beginning and all of the rooftop businesses are going to fight for every dollar they can.

      1. Cubbie Blues

        It has also been said that there is a clause in the contract that says views cannot be altered without approval from the historical committee. However, without knowing the exact language in the contract all we can do as outsiders is speculate.

      2. CubFan Paul

        “There is a contract in place that the views can’t be altered *(unless there’s construction)*…”

  2. The Dude Abides

    Brett – do the Cubs have any lobbyist on this? They seem to be continually treated as an outsider and anything goes. I’m surprised they have discovered this is an old Indian burial ground.

    1. Bob from Salem

      Well said “Dude”….!

  3. Rich

    Take the Scoreboard and move it to left field..
    it is smaller than a jumbotron..and problem solved..
    use centerfield for the jumbotron…problem solved..

    put a jumbtron in Center with a VIRTUAL WRIGLEY SCOREBOARD
    and take the original one and put in on the back facing WAVELAND and SHEFFIELD
    so all the historical people can still see that darn thing..



    your welcome!

    1. Eternal pessemist

      Too many good ideas in one post…overload!

    2. Funn Dave

      I’ve read through all the comments on this page, and your first two ideas are the only suggestions here that merit any consideration whatsoever. It seems like the longer we wait for renovations to go through, the more absurd and over-the-top people’s ideas get. Remember, people: Tom Ricketts isn’t going through here looking for ideas; and even if he were, he wouldn’t be looking for nonsensical ones like playing at U.S. Cellular (that one had to be a joke, right?); or incredibly expensive ones, like turning Wrigley into a museum, buying up the properties around it & making them part of the attraction, and building an entirely new Wrigleyville elsewhere. Sorry for the bitterness, but let’s be realistic here.

      1. Brains

        according to michigangoat we should only drink st. louis beer at busch stadium while we root for the detroit tigers, from michigan

      2. Eternal Pessimist

        Wouldn’t be the first time a team (or company) didn’t get satisfactory terms from their base city (let alone be targeted for special taxation) and decided to move.

  4. JB88

    From just a cursory review of the complaint (read: I haven’t read the allegations yet), I note a few things:

    (1) Currently the case has been assigned to Jean Prendergast Rooney. She’s relatively new to the bench, but she’s probably a good draw for the Cubs. She has a defense background and experience in complex commercial litigation matters. In other words, her affiliation won’t automatically sway to a plaintiff. She was also elected to a six-year position in 2012, so she can make this decision knowing that she won’t be spitting on a chief judge who would need to reappoint her and her election is far enough out (2018) that even if her decision ruffled a few feathers, there would be time for the voters to forget.

    (2) The Plaintiff’s attorney hired isn’t a name attorney and he isn’t from a name firm in the city. That doesn’t mean he isn’t a good attorney, but he won’t hold automatic sway with the court because of his name.

    (3) Even looking at the headlines of this complaint, I’m not overly impressed. “Prospective nuisance” is not a cognizable claim in Illinois (I’m not aware of this being a valid claim in any state for that matter) and “Injunction” is not a proper claim either (that is part of the prayer for relief). That’s two strikes against this guy. Finally, even the ordinance/zoning-related claims strike me as a bit thin, as this neighborhood and city have hundreds of mixed use buildings, commercial zoning on top of residential zoning, and the whatnot. Plus, given the vacinity of Romano’s building, he doesn’t have a good faith basis, really, to complain about his proximity to noise, development, etc.

    The real question I have, at this point, is whether the Plaintiff’s complaint can withstand a motion to dismiss, let alone stop the development.

    1. mak

      I think you’re going a little bit down the rabbit hole. Before the analysis of a trial strategy, let’s recognize this as a negotiation tactic. I’d be shocked if they even got to the MTD phase.

      1. Scotti

        If the cubs negotiated with this guy there would be a dozen other weak sisters popping up with papers drawn.

  5. JB88

    “Headlines” should read “counts.”

  6. ColoCubFan

    As much as I like Wrigley Field, I personally wouldn’t put up with all this endless crapola. Move out to the suburbs and build whatever you want with their blessing!!!

    1. Brains

      more cardinals fans posting at the blog. this is the one question not under debate.

  7. Bob from Salem

    I think it’s time to MOVE to Rosemont……at this rate, we’ll be talking about the latest lawsuit and the latest delay- ten years from now…..

    1. Brains

      have you ever been heckled before? boooo

  8. Brains

    once the cubs develop an “anti-wrigley-field” contingent, simply because owners want more money, you know we’re screwed.

    has a contingent like that ever existed?

    1. Scotti

      “once the cubs develop an “anti-wrigley-field” contingent, simply because owners want more money, you know we’re screwed.”

      “Simply” because owners want to make and keep more of their own money instead of “spreading the wealth around” to other business owners in the neighborhood (rooftops, Tunney’s “Ann Sathers” restaurant 0.6 miles away, the bars, etc.) who will never put a dime back into the Cubs operations* and who have done nothing to create that wealth (indeed, they stand in opposition to creating more wealth).

      We are already screwed. Tunney doesn’t want ANY work done because the Cubs will be building more restaurants inside of Wrigley (keeping their custom in the building with Tunney’s Ann Sathers joint, and others, losing custom). The bars don’t want ANY work done because the Cubs will be building clubs (bars) inside of Wrigley and they will directly compete with the bars outside of Wrigley. The rooftops don’t want ANY work done, not because one rooftop will potentially be partially blocked by a JumboTron but, rather, because the Cubs will be building dozens of high-end suites that will have perfect views and excellent access to all of the new Wrigley amenities and those suites will directly compete with the rooftops. NONE of the above want any bridges connecting the hotel or elevated directly to Wrigley. NONE of the above want the Cubs to have a “block parties” because that keeps Cub Fans in and around Wrigley and not in their bars, restaurants and rooftops.

      So none of the above, except the Cubs, care to get ANYTHING done because doing nothing benefits Tunney, the bars and the rooftops. The longer things get dragged out the better it is for them. ONLY the Cubs “trying to make more money” gets this work done.

      *The rooftops paying the Cubs 17% is simply returning a portion of the money that they TAKE from the Cubs operations. The rooftops, as it stands, is a net loss for the Cubs–they’re competition.

  9. MightyBear

    When is the next mayoral election in Chicago? That’s when Mayor Rahm will push this through.

    1. Hee Seop Chode

      I’d expect it to be completed a month before, so the good Mayor can pose for his job creating success. And really, he’d be justified.

  10. mak

    Somewhere between 0 and 0 % chance of that lawsuit going to trial. Sometimes the only way to get a phone call back is by filing a lawsuit.

  11. papad1945

    Mr. Ricketts’ grow some balls and move to the burbs.

  12. YourResidentJag

    Speaking of renovation, could the A’s move to Portland?: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/10/portland_duo_wants_the_city_an.html

  13. Blackhawks1963

    The Wrigley renovation has been hijacked by the rooftop owners. Then want the status quo…and they are “smart” enough to realize that Ricketts is never going to leave Wrigley. Translation? Ricketts is caught between a rock and a hard place. Or said more bluntly, he’s screwed.

    I wish the Cubs would move to Arlington Park. But like I said, this woebegone franchise will always be at Clark and Addison.

    So incredibly sick of this sh*t. A total clusterf*ck.

    1. ssckelley

      They should turn Wrigley into a museum, like Field of Dreams, and rebuild Wrigleyville somewhere else. Build a ballpark like Wrigley with office buildings (or apartments/suites) across the street with nice rooftops complete with nice hotel along with neighborhood bars, grills, and Cubbie stores full of Cubs merchandise. If Rickets developed all of Wrigleyville they could be making money hand over fist.

      1. Voice of Reason

        Guys, there is no way that the Cubs will move from Wrigley Field in our lifetime.

        While I’m pissed about the businesses around the park holding things up, they have a right to do so.

        The bottom line is, the Ricketts know the value of that ballpark. Otherwise they wouldn’t have insisted that Wrigley be part of the sale along with the Cubs.

        We can sit here and say it would be the same if they moved to Rosemont, Arlington Heights or wherever, but you know damn well that before they purchased the Cubs AND INSISTED that Wrigley be part of the deal that they had studies done that cost them lots and lots of money. And those studies showed that the ballclub will lose tremendous value and revenue if moved from Clark and Addison!

        1. ssckelley

          But when is enough enough? You own a business and you have to answer to people that profit off your product. I would have told them to KMA a long time ago.

          1. Voice of Reason

            Why I generally agree and I probably would have told them the same, the businesses around the park are doing what they are allowed to do under the law.

            Couple that with just dealing with the city and the Ricketts certainly have their hands full.

            They know the politics and legal bullshit is all part of doing business.

            And, they know the value of Wrigley Field! Otherwise they never would have insisted it be part of the sale AND they would have told the neighborhood to go f$ck themselves months ago and said they were leaving Wrigley!

            1. ssckelley

              Then they are over valuing an old broken down stadium. The team is where the value is and the Cubs are a popular draw no matter where they play. If they built it right a new stadium could still have the old Wrigley flavor to it with all the amenities of a nice shiny new stadium, heck bring the old wall and scoreboard if they had to, I am sure there would be a way to transplant some of that ivy.

              1. Funn Dave

                Wrigley is one of the most, if not THE most, beloved ballparks in all of baseball. It is not being overvalued. Beauty, atmosphere, nostalgia, and history are priceless.

                1. ssckelley

                  Great, then turn it into a museum. Allow kids to go out into the outfield to have a catch with their fathers, schedule old timers games.

                  1. Funn Dave

                    May I ask why you’re so intent on leaving Wrigley? I understand that you think it’s old and inhospitable, but that’s what the renovations are for. And Brett doesn’t seem to think the rooftop owners will be standing in the way for too terribly much longer. Why do we need to move so badly, when it would cost so much more, and take away the thrill of seeing the Cubs play at Wrigley? Especially when renovations are already in the works?

                  2. MichiganGoat

                    I doubt it could sustain as a museum. Wrigley is not exactly a quick and easy trip if a family is staying downtown, and only a small percentage of visitors would be Cub fans and be willing to spend money at the Wrigley. I just don’t think it would be a viable business. If the Cubs move to the Suburbs visitors are going to see games not drive to Wrigleyville. Now the first few years it would be sustainable but eventually it will no longer have meaning to the casual fan.

                    1. Funn Dave

                      Good point. Wrigley is a pretty damn big property; you really high quantities of people there each day to pay for it, and museum’s don’t draw a fraction of the attendance that a baseball game does.

                    2. Brains

                      glad to see that the goat loves wrigley, in spite of his gruffness he’s a fan of tradition

              2. Voice of Reason

                That’s what you say, but there are experts who do studies on these sort of things and the studies that the Ricketts paid big bucks for told them to purchase Wrigley Field!

                You can say it’s old and broken down. You can say they will draw no matter where they play.

                BUT, there are experts who did studies and the Ricketts paid big bucks for those studies from professionals and those professionals told them to renovate Wrigley Field!

                1. Brains

                  most beloved in north america, and possibly the world. except by mall rats who love parking lots and owners more than the team.

                2. Funn Dave

                  Hear, hear.

                3. ssckelley

                  I don’t disagree with renovating Wrigley is the most ideal option, but how long is this going to drag out before Rickets start looking at other options?

                  1. caryatid62

                    The idea that this is taking an abnormally long time is one that can only be held by someone who hasn’t had to deal with major renovations/zoning changes in a city of any size.

                    The only way this could have been fast tracked is if the Ricketts family had done more to secure the right connections prior to the process going public. They dropped the ball there, and now are being treated like any other business trying to expand/develop/rezone. And that process takes a lot of time.

        2. Funn Dave

          If only we could have this post broadcast on the front page or something, so everyone would stop screaming “Leave Wrigley!” every time Brett posts one of these articles. So obnoxious, unreasonable & uninformed.

          1. YourResidentJag

            Nah. They could do better moving to a new ballpark. The Ricketts are just wedding to the false nostalgia of a stadium that’s produced mythical championship after mythical championship.

            1. YourResidentJag


            2. Voice of Reason

              False nostalgia and mythical championships?

              That’s been selling tickets at Wrigley Field for years and years!

              If they moved from Wrigley Field they would have to win games. How is that better?

              1. YourResidentJag

                But we aren’t seeing a drop off in that? Really?

                1. caryatid62

                  The Cubs lost 90 games this year.

                  The ONLY thing propping up attendance (they were 12th in baseball) is the “Wrigley Field” factor.

                  If they were in Rosemont this year, they’d have drawn White Sox-like numbers.

            3. Funn Dave

              It’s not just the Ricketts; the whole country is wedded to Wrigley’s nostalgia. Which means that a lot of people would be irked if they moved. And, what, we’re just going to throw all the renovation plans we’ve worked so hard on out the window?

              1. Eternal Pessimist

                If the Country cares so much where the Cubs play the rest of the country can donate to the Cubs so they can stay there.

                If the cares about having the team there they shouldn’t look to increased the amusement tax further (which is simply a way to steal profitability away from a business…because they can.)

                There is a tipping point where they must consider leaving. I’m not saying they are there yet, and I really don’t know, but what else will the city force on the Cubs once they commit the money and start to dig? Maybe they will find some indian bones and the Rickett’s will just need to eat the investment loss.

                If Arlington Heights is viable and can produce a better money stream for producing a team, after 100+ years of failure, this is the time to consider it.

                1. Eternal Pessimist

                  “if the city cares…”

  14. Voice of Reason

    How about the Ricketts move to US Cellular next year and play games there as a way to “stick it” to the people around Wrigley? Just work out the schedule with baseball where they play at home when the Sox are out of town? Or, when they can’t work it out, they play at Wrigley. Say, that would be a dozen games next year?

    Maybe a year without all that nice revenue from the ballpark would have all the businesses around Wrigley Field whistling a different tune?

  15. BigSmokeJ

    I’m so sick of this c##p, just move already. While the field is great and it has history, so did a lot of stadiums that have been torn down. The structure of the place sucks and if you’re going to stay, it needs to be completely gutted, otherwise you’re just putting a rug over sh@t.
    Go to the burb’s and build a whole Wrigley environment out there. The state gave Reinsdorf a stadium he basically pays little for, the park district/city payed for soldier field yet the cubs can’t pay to fix there own stadium.
    And who caused landmark problem, oh yea, the former crook mayor daily.

  16. Brains

    The newest Cubs tradition: Cubs fans who hate the Cubs tradition.

    1. DarthHater

      The most venerable Cubs tradition: pissing and moaning about absolutely everything.

      1. Brains

        The newest Darth tradition, being too lazy to give me a meme.

        1. DarthHater

          Sorry. I had work to do and now it’s late and I need to go home and eat dinner. I’ll give you a meme at some point.

        2. Eternal Pessimist

          good one brains.

    2. YourResidentJag

      What tradition? The team hasn’t won anything.

      1. Funn Dave

        Let’s see….Ivy, the scoreboard, the 7th inning stretch, throwing balls back, the Cubs Convention, the statues around Wrigley, the neighborhood, rivalries….Need I continue?

        1. Pat

          Ivy – good, although the brick wall underneath it in the field of play is one of the dumbest things still existing in any stadium anywhere.

          Scoreboard – good, but I do like supplementing it with a modern one as well.

          7th inning stretch – Harry started this while with the White Sox, so it isn’t exactly a Cubs tradition, and the guest conductors was a decent idea for the first season after Harry’s passing. It should have been dropped after that.

          Throwing balls back – ugh, I hate this one. Lots of people bring in balls to switch out, so they aren’t even throwing back the home run, just pretending to.

          The statues aren’t really a Cubs tradition. They only added them recently after several other teams had already done the same.

          The thing with traditions in general is that oftentimes, some should be dropped along the way because they no longer make sense for any number of reasons (financial, societal, practical, etc.). Tradition should be considered when contemplating changes, but they shouldn’t be the determining factor.

          Cubs Convention – This was a brilliant marketing idea by John McD. Great idea, although I’d like to see them mix it up somehow from year to year.

        2. YourResidentJag

          Let’s see….recreated ivy, a neighborhood that doesn’t want the Cubs there, the 7th inning stretch (who cares just like Go Cubs Go), statues that can be rebuilt or moved to a newer facility….am I getting through to you….nope didn’t think so :(

          1. MichiganGoat

            It’s like discussing rationally with a brick wall isn’t it?

            1. YourResidentJag

              Well, yeah. I mean we all have our great memories of Wrigley but if it’s not feasible…it’s not feasible. We’ll see what 2014 brings.

          2. ssckelley

            Wait a minute, if the Cubs moved there would be no more 7th inning stretch?

            1. YourResidentJag

              Who knows? There’s a lot of ppl who want it gone or for just Harry to sing it.

    3. ssckelley

      The heck with tradition, evidently the old tradition has not won very much the past century. I don’t give a rats butt about traditions, start new ones for all I care, how about a competitive team and a World Series ring? I wouldn’t give a damn if they did it playing in the old Wrigley or a new one out in a suburb.

      1. Brains

        The tradition of seeing a game in the same place my grandpa saw a game, in the same neighborhood my family immigrated to, eating largely the same food that they ate. Everyone else cares about this stuff. You guys must have grown up in the suburbs in a mall parking lot.

        1. YourResidentJag

          Or seen how attractive a new stadium would be to the Cubs being at Miller Park or Coors Field when they first were built.

          1. Brains

            yeah none of us have ever been to another stadium. isn’t it because all of the other stadiums are so alike that we should maintain some degree of history and dignity?

            1. YourResidentJag

              No. If that’s the case, Old Tiger Stadium and Old Comiskey would still be around.

              1. ssckelley

                Yankees Field, Ebbets Field, The Polo Grounds……..I am sure there were plenty of people back then that objected to tearing down those old stadiums because “that is where I watched a game with my grandpa!”.

                1. YourResidentJag

                  Yep, and they still tore them down.

              2. Funn Dave

                And each time a team leaves one of those old stadiums, Wrigley’s history and nostalgia look that much more impressive, and are appreciated that much more.

                1. Blackhawks1963

                  What history and nostalgia? Pass the friggin vomit bag. I’ve been going to Wrigley since 1977 and could care less about the “history.” Do you mean the clusterfu*k of a history where we haven’t been to a World Series since 1945 ?!? Or the nostalgia of seeing the 1969 Cubs implode ?!? And so on and so on ?!?

                  Drippy sentimentality for the ballpark makes me sick. And it why so many other baseball fans across this country laugh at the Cubs. Aren’t you sick of being the Luvable Losers?!? How about making it about a winning friggin team instead of getting orgasms over a friggin archaic ballpark? I’d rather play in a dump of a ballpark in the ghetto for the alternative of winning even ONE World Series Championship.

                  1. Funn Dave

                    Please see below. Your neurons are misfiring if you think moving to a different ballpark would bring the Cubs a world series.

                    1. YourResidentJag

                      Nah, I agree with him.

        2. MichiganGoat

          I think you mean the tradition of baiting and trolling the internet.

          1. Brains


            1. Brains

              you guys are truly and utterly hopeless. which is why this is the best sports posting board anywhere.

              1. MichiganGoat


                1. Brains

                  this guy wants to move our sponsorship to st louis and our ballpark to michigan

        3. ssckelley

          Those childhood memories are great, you will always have them. But new memories with your kids, grandkids, ect ect can still be made in a new ball park. When the Cubs win a World Series and your loved ones are with you, they really going to care that it was in a shiny new stadium or in a broken down one? When you want to feel all nostalgic then go on over to Clark and Addison and visit the Wrigley Field Museum, perhaps an old timers game will be going on.

          1. Brains

            new parking lot suburban wasteland memories. we shouldn’t move the park, we should move the suburbs.

            1. ssckelley

              It would not have to be that way at all. Build the big parking ramps or parking lots miles away and have an old fashion train shuttle back and forth, the kids would love it. Think creative, outside the box.

              Besides, the minute plans started being put in place the roof top owners would be on their hands and knees begging the Cubs to stay. All of those Wrigleyville businesses would be ruined if the Cubs left.

              1. Funn Dave

                If seriously threatening to leave were actually a viable option, we already would have done it.

                1. Voice of Reason

                  The Ricketts know that all this bullshit is part of business.

                  They are not leaving that cash cow that is called Wrigley Field. In fact, they want to dump millions and millions into renovating it.

                  So, they will bite their tongues and not say anything until the time finally comes that they can renovate a piece of the Cubs puzzle that means a lot of money to them and the franchise.

                  Otherwise, they would have told everyone to get bent. And, they wouldn’t have insisted that the ballpark be included in the purchase of the Cubs.

                  They are not moving!

                  1. Brains

                    best post of the day.

                2. mjhurdle

                  merely threatening to leave is not really a viable option because very few people can stretch their brains around the idea of the Cubs not playing at Wrigley.

                  However, actually leaving is an option. And the longer/more difficult it becomes to start renovations, the more viable it becomes.

                  1. Funn Dave

                    Neither solution is truly an option, but I would say that if one were two happen, the former would be more likely than the latter.

                  2. ssckelley

                    I wouldn’t just threaten, I would have meeting set up with other neighborhoods and would be in the process of acquiring land.

                    1. mjhurdle

                      personally, i would throw in the towel now.
                      You can’t threaten, and then come back. I agree with Funn Dave there.
                      So don’t come back. Put out a statement that you are going to relocate, take bids from other neighborhoods, find the best location, and go gangbusters.
                      Because the issue is not THIS renovation. it is the fact that this same process will happen for every single renovation you want from here until eternity.
                      Pack up, move out, and find some way to mitigate the loss you take when Wrigley becomes a ghost town.

        4. BigSmokeJ

          I think we need to go back to the old tradition of watching the game on 5″ black and white tv’s, because that’s what I did with my grandma. Or maybe we should still be going to game on the old CTA buses that had the electric poles, because my brothers took me to the game in those.
          That argument of things can’t change because that is how they were 100 year ago is weak. And no I didn’t grow up in the suburbs, which doesn’t mean anything but does to some goofs, I grew up in the city.

          1. jt

            45 years ago I hiked a gorge in Up State NY. After a while y friend guiding me asked me to look back. A few moments later he stated: “It doesn’t look the same does it?”.
            Still, those were great time to be around.

          2. Funn Dave

            *None* of that means anything, or is the least bit relevant. We can spend all day naming things we didn’t like about the past. For the vast majority of Cub fans–and other fans around baseball–Wrigley Field is full of *good* memories, not bad ones. Memories of ivy, the scoreboard, good times with friends and family, throwing balls back…all the things I enumerated earlier. If the only bad memory of Wrigley is that we haven’t won a World Series since we’ve been there, then the solution is to win a world series there, not abandon the ballpark. If you got married and had trouble conceiving, but your wife was still fertile, would you divorce her? No, you’d keep trying until you had a kid.

            1. MichiganGoat

              We’re not saying there aren’t a ton if great, amazing, life changing memories. We are discussing memories, we are speaking if the idealization of the past that we call tradition. Two entirely different concepts.

              1. MichiganGoat

                That should read: “We AREN’T discussing memories”

            2. Patrick W.

              Throwing balls back is a tradition I rank as the stupidest tradition sport.

              I agree that leaving Wrigley because a World Series hasn’t been won there by the home team is ridiculous. But I also agree that staying there because of tradition is ridiculous. You make that decision based on where this team have the best possible chance of winning a World Series based on the resources you have available to you. That may be Wrigley Field (I sure hope it is) or it may end up being elsewhere (I find that highly unlikely – to the point that nobody would believe the Cubs if they said they were leaving) but using tradition as your argument for staying at Wrigley Field is like signing Josh Hamiltion to a 5 year contract heading into his age 32 season.

  17. BigSmokeJ

    What tradition am I hating? And why is ok for every team but Boston, (which they have been able to rebuild), to have a stadium built before 1962, but oh no the Cubs have to stay in the same piece of crap stadium, because it’s tradition.
    If they were able to rebuild it by gutting the inside and redoing it, fine stay. But they can’t because they need city approval or neighborhood approval or rooftop approval to do it.
    Just move it’s not worth the B.S.

    1. Brains

      just for the record i’m on board with most of the proposed gutting, especially new bathrooms. but not a jumbotron, not moving the walls, not burning the ivy, not razing the rooftops, and not getting rid of old style. and DEFINITELY not moving the park out to some crap suburb where the worst people in the world eat at panera bread all day. those people are horrible.

      1. Funn Dave

        Sounds like we’re on the same page.

      2. Rich

        Good one!

        The Cubs are never moving..
        White Sox have a better chance..

    2. Funn Dave

      Moving would be WAY more expensive and entail WAY more B.S. than the current approach.

      1. MichiganGoat

        Yeah I think people overestimate how easy that would be, would the neighborhood sue to keep them at Wrigley? I do however think make a serious threat and even starting the process might change everyone’s mind about preventing the rebuild.

        1. Funn Dave

          Personally, I think people would see through that threat for what it is, providing more ammunition for calling out Ricketts on his less savory qualities. When a player pretends to hear offers from a different team in order to drive us the offers from the team he actually wants to join or remain with, people usually call him out for what he’s doing and view him in more of a negative light. If it happened with Wrigley, the same result would occur, but on a much larger scale.

          1. MichiganGoat

            I think that is exactly why they haven’t tried this

        2. Pat

          On what possible grounds could anyone sue to keep them at Wrigley?

  18. MichiganGoat

    Time for everyone to remember

  19. Jono

    There are two types of cubs fans: Cubs fans and Wrigley fans. Both types of fans like both entities, but the difference is how they prioritize the two. I love Wrigley, but im a Cubs fan. I prioritize the team over the field. If moving is good for the team, then I want them to move. Again, that’s “IF”.

    The Wrigley fans are what gives cubs fans a bad name.

    1. mjhurdle

      well said

      1. Brains

        just say it dudes – you live in elmhurst or joliet or some wasteland and don’t like the traffic to the ballgames. and you want to go to the food court at woodfield mall when the game’s done. that at least makes sense to me. the rest of this sounds like absurd ramblings of people who have a beef with the very object that they claim to support.

    2. Brains

      false distinction improperly applied. then what do you love? our wavier-wire roster? our owner who lies to the fans about what he does with team revenues? our GM who bumbles trades? our president who makes grandiose statements and then keeps changing what those statements mean?

      the cubs are part of chicago, not your fantasty baseball line.

      1. ssckelley

        If you really feel this way about ownership and FO then why you rooting for the Cubs?

        1. Brains

          i root for the CUBS. the end. the rest of this will change soon enough, but the players, the ballpark, the neighborhood, and the history will remain. long after we’re all dead in like 15 years.

          1. ssckelley

            No it won’t, there is no time table set for this ownership.

    3. ssckelley

      Some people do not like change and fight it. I am sure some of these same people had a fit when they installed lights at Wrigley. Same type of people who objected to expansion, wild card, inter league games, division realignment, ect ect. OMG you are ruining tradition! If you want nostalgia you want history then go visit a museum.

      1. Brains

        another terrible analogy

    4. CubbiesOHCubbies

      Great post jono. Simply put, would you rather see the Cubs win a ring in a new stadium, or lose in Wrigley? And while I realize a new stadium doesn’t guarantee a ring, just as Wrigley doesn’t guarantee losing, the added revenue and flexability to operate your business under your terms has to to be an appealing thought for the Ricketts family.

      1. Funn Dave

        Added revenue? Do you have any idea how much it would cost to build a new stadium? Wrigley isn’t what’s keeping revenue down; the product on the field is. We have jumbotrons and increased signage coming. Not to mention, the number of Cub fans who would be outraged at leaving Wrigley and stop attending games would not exactly boost revenue.

        1. Jono

          We don’t know.where they’d get more revenue. It would be different. Less beer sales, but more ad space. Plus they would sell full naming rights and more night games. Less Wrigley fans, including tourists. Bottomline, we don’t know. That’s why I stress the word “if”

          1. Jono

            Night games also mean more tv viewers. Night games are significant

        2. Eternal Pessimist

          I would guess it would cost the same to renovate Wrigley as build a new stadium, but that is a fair question. I don’t think baseball stadiums are expensive as Football stadiums, though I didn’t do any research on the subject. If the renovation cost = new stadium cost I might prefer the new, well planned stadium (as long as they didn’t screw up like they did with the new comiskey.

          1. Jono

            It would probably cost more, but they’ll be able to sell full naming rights and get more ad space. Plus more night games which means more eyeballs, therefore more money for equivalent ads and more TV dollars in 2019

            1. caryatid62

              Naming rights are overrated. The average naming rights deal averages less than $10 million/year.

              As far as more night games, you’re only likely talking about 9-10 more night games per year, meaning that the ad revenue is not nearly as high as you might think it would be.

              1. Jono

                Full naming rights for the cubs should be around $15-$20 million a year. And 10 night games over the course of a TV deal would be significant. Plus the jumbotron itself is $30 a year. They could add another one of those along with the half one. The addition ad space would he huge.

                1. caryatid62

                  10 dates is not significant when compared to a day game, as most day games at this point are on weekdays anyway. The Cubs only had 14 non-weekend day games this season. Given the new deal with the city, ten of those would be moved to night games. Basically, we’re talking about the difference of 4 weekday daytime games. The financial difference is negligible.

                  As far as the naming rights go, $15-20 million is VERY high. Outside of New York, there is only one stadium with a deal over $12 million (Cowboys stadium). They’d likely fall in the $10-$12 range at best.

                  1. Jono

                    I disagree, but it’s kind of pointless, anyway. Simply being able to and an additional full size jumbotron should pay off most of the difference in building vs renovating in a decade

                    1. Caryatid62

                      It’s not happening, so you’re right, it’s not worth discussing further.

          2. caryatid62

            It would likely cost over a billion to build a new stadium. The most recent new stadium, Marlins park, cost roughly $630 million to build, while new Yankee stadium (the second most recent ballpark) cost $1.5 billion to build. Given Chicago’s cost of living, it would like fall in between those two numbers, which would put costs at a little over a billion.

            That’s more than double the renovation for Wrigley.

            1. Jono

              If they were able to sell or at least lease out Wrigley, that would put a dent into that cost.

              1. caryatid62

                There aren’t nearly enough people to make up over $500 million in cost differentials. They’d be lucky to break even, given upkeep and maintenance costs.

                1. Eternal Pessimist

                  Looks like we’re staying after all.

      2. Jono

        Exactly. Priorities. I love Wrigley, but I love the team even more.

  20. Blackhawks1963

    As a Cub fan of many years who has been to Wrigley countless times let me just say this.

    1. Wrigley Field is a shopping mall experience WAY MORE than a baseball experience. Lets be honest here….well over half the crowd is at the game because its the “in” thing to do or they are leveraging a corporate perk.

    2. Wrigley Field defines the Luvable Loser Syndrome that has plagued this franchise for generations….it’s a house of horrors with respect to the home team winning anything of consequence.

    3. I would trade Wrigley Field for a barebones and antiseptic new ballpark in the ghetto for even ONE World Series Championship.

    I have always HATED the drippy sentimentality people have for Wrigley. Please make it stop. Honestly speaking, I would be happy if a rogue bulldozer driver demolished the place in the dark of the night.

    1. ssckelley

      Well said, when the Cubs win a World Series I could careless if it was played on a sandlot.

      1. Brains

        well im with you on this one, but that sandlot should be wrigley. for the sake of our freakin great grandfathers who didnt get to see it. sorry guys, maybe i just care about history more than you do.

      2. Funn Dave

        Not having won at Wrigley in the past does not preclude the team from winning at Wrigley in the future. Honestly, of all the reasons to leave, this one has to be the most nonsensical.

        1. ssckelley

          For me it does not make a difference and it has nothing to do with all the years of losing. A new Wrigleyville could be neat if done correctly but I enjoy the existing, renovated, one as well. What I am tired of are these rooftop owners keeping progress from happening, if I was Ricketts I would be PO’d and would have told them to KMA a long time ago. I guess you are lucky I don’t own the Cubs. If the rooftop owners are unhappy then sell the place, I am sure Ricketts would love to purchase the properties across from Wrigley.

          1. Funn Dave

            That’s understandable. I just personally don’t think the rooftops are enough of a hassle to move over. IMHO.

            1. ssckelley

              Then why are they not moving forward with the renovations? I thought the fear of lawsuits is holding up everything?

              1. Funn Dave

                From this very article:
                “The news on the rooftops side of things might be slightly more positive. Speaking with Crain’s Greg Hinz, Mayor Rahm Emanuel said he still believes the Cubs and the rooftops will figure out something that works, since it is in everyone’s self-interest to get a deal done. Recall, the Cubs refuse to begin the renovation process in earnest until they know that the grim specter of a lawsuit from the rooftops is not hanging over their heads. On that item, the Mayor said encouragingly that, despite the appearance that the two sides have dug in and are not currently speaking, there actually are talks ongoing between the Cubs and the rooftops.”

                Yes, the fear of lawsuits is what’s holding everything up. But that issue will be resolved in the near future. Finding a new location, getting permission from its municipality, getting funds together, planning construction, fabricating materials, and building a stadium would take way, way longer–not to mention the inevitable snares we’d hit with that approach, too.

    2. Funn Dave

      1. This is true of every ballpark. In fact, I’d say that it’s less true of Wrigley than it is of most large-market ballclubs.

      2. Moving wouldn’t erase the team’s history at Wrigley. Conflating Wrigley with losing is completely nonsensical.

      3. See #2. As long as practice facilities are sufficient, there is not an intimite connection between ballparks and winningness. It definitely wouldn’t mean we magically win a World Series. You are attempting to create a false dichotomy.

      I’m sorry you’re incapable of understanding or feeling sentimentality or nostalgia. Judging by the rest of your posts, maybe you’re thoughts are too clouded by anger and bitterness to have room for much else. I mean, my posts can be negative sometimes, but it seems like yours are invariably so. Cheer up, buddy!

  21. MichiganGoat

    Here’s my issue with the tradition argument- it’s complete revisionist history. If you are a minority I doubt Wrigley in the 50′s was a great experience. We ignore the marginalized populations when we talk about tradition we only focus on those who had positive experiences and forget the horrors and ugliness of the past. I look forward to future tradition, regardless of where it’s at, that embrace more equality than the past allowed.

    1. Funn Dave

      Joke post? Are you familiar with revisionist history? A revisionist history of Wrigley Field would mean approaching it from the viewpoint of the hegemonically repressed people. What you said about “if you are a minority I doubt Wrigley in the 50′s was a great experience”–THAT is revisionist history. And revisionist history is a good thing. I think you’ve got it backwards.

      Not to mention, how do you know the people here aren’t members of those marginalized populations?

      1. MichiganGoat

        Yeah revisionist is the wrong term and yes I using a revisionist lens, but my point is the idealization of the past while ignoring the disgust that was prevalent at the times is spray painting a turd gold and calling it worthy and beautiful. I want traditions that don’t marginalize populations and comes closer to the dream we should all strive for. The “golden years” were only golden for those who received some gold and ignores those who bled so others could shine. We hide the horrors of the past behind words like tradition- if we are going to talk about the traditions of the past we shouldn’t ignore the hatred of that history.

        1. Funn Dave

          But Wrigley was far from the pinnacle of repression; repression and prejudice were all over America at the time. Eliminating the reminders of those aspects of our history would have the detrimental effect of removing reminders to study and learn from that history, and keep it from happening again.

          I still have to believe that this is a troll thread.

          1. MichiganGoat

            I’m not saying erase the history, simply saying stop idealizing history while ignore the horror of the time by using words like tradition. Wanting keep Wrigley the way it was during our grandfather & great grandfathers time is ludicrous because we can’t say things were better back then without embracing the horrors of the previous eras. Yes we can have great memories of the past but to try to return to the past is a horrible idea.

            1. Patrick W.

              Especially when considering for the first 70 years of it’s existence Wrigley Field never drew more than 1.75M for a season, never drew more than 21K on average, and never drew more fans per game than the average NL team.

              It’s not just that tradition tends to highlight the positive without acknowledging the negative, it’s that often tradition is based on flawed memories and false narratives.

              There’s something between leaving Wrigley because of it’s limitations and keeping Wrigley exactly the same as it has been for 20, 30, 100 years. It’s called restoration and renovation.

              1. Patrick W.

                1969-1972 the team drew slightly more than the NL average. I was wrong on that point.

              2. MichiganGoat

                Exactly the past is rarely as beautiful as we remember

            2. Funn Dave

              That is just ridiculous flamebait. Christian history is chock full of atrocities and unjust wars. The tradition of wine and crackers at Chuch comes from Jesus’ crucifiction. The bible is basically just a chronicle of F’ed up things the Christian god and his followers did. How many Christians do you see suggesting that we burn the bible and make a new one, with only happy thoughts and smiley faces?

              And again, modern life isn’t all hearts and roses, either. How many people are killed or injured in fights at stadium each year? How many rude, drunk morons do you have to put up with when you take the kids to the ballpark? Remember the football controversy this preseason where a player used the N word? How many openly gay basebally players do you see? There are still a significant number of MLB players who have stated in ESPN polls that they would be against having gay players in their lockerroom. Chicago is still an incredibly violent city. By your logic, people sixty years from now will be calling for the Cubs’ hypothetical new ballpark to be torn down, because things aren’t perfect now, either.

              But again, you’re trolling, so I’m not sure why I’m typing. They need to start giving me more work to do.

              1. MichiganGoat

                Wow so anything that you don’t agree with and miss the larger point is trolling? Viva la Internet.

              2. MichiganGoat

                And just to be clear, again, I’m not asking to burn or erase the history of the world. Just to be cautious of our idealization of the past because we have a good memories from that time. I want Wrigley to stay with the Cubs but I’m not going to throw the tradition card into the mix to justify staying.

                1. Funn Dave

                  So again, it all comes down to semantics, with you not liking the word tradition. I don’t like the word, either. That doesn’t change the fact that traditions exist, and that there are some pretty great ones at Wrigley. Remembering these traditions has nothing to do with forgetting the bad things that happened in the past. I’m heading home from work now, but seriously: if you’re not trolling and you actually believe what you’re saying, step back and think about how ridiculous it is to think that remembering which celebrities have done the 7th inning stretch will make us forget the Black Sox, Pete Rose, etc.

                  1. MichiganGoat

                    Enjoy the drive home and please step back yourself and try to see the larger point we are discussing here.

                    1. Eternal Pessimist

                      If you are telling me they were burning crosses in Wrigley in the 50′s or something similar (I don’t think so), I agree with you. If you are saying that there were such bad things going on in the 50′s that we can’t have good enough memories during that time to want to embrace certain traditions, I disagree.

                      I like Wrigley’s traditions and want the Cubs to remain at Wrigley, but if the cost (taxes, restricted revenue, etc…) keep the Cubs from producing a winner during my lifetime, I’ll gladly take the new stadium.

  22. ssckelley

    Woo hoo, Soler went 3 out of 4 today scoring a run and driving in 2.

    1. Funn Dave

      Glad to hear it.

  23. BigSmokeJ

    I think we need to go back to the tradition when only white guys played the game, ( I don’t think a lot of people would say those were the glory days).
    The 50′s when NY teams were winning every year, (except 57).
    When ballplayers didn’t cheat. (Oh yea like I believe that one).

    This thinking of because it was that way before, it has to stay that way is BS. Change happens everyday.

    1. Funn Dave

      Those are all historical characteristics of baseball, not Wrigley. Maybe we should start using golf clubs instead of bats, since they used bats in the days of racism and cheating (and by the way, those days are not over).

      1. MichiganGoat

        I think you are missing the point of what we are saying, we are not calling for erasing the past but instead allowing and embracing the evolution and progression of the game and society. Why would we want to return to a time when people were marginalized?

        1. Funn Dave

          We’re not “returning” to anything. We’re staying exactly where we are. Wrigley IS “embracing the evolution and progression of the game and society.” That’s why when you go to the stadium, you see black players and fans. That’s why we play with modern rules, just like every other team, at every other ballpark. That’s why we’re doing renovations–to evolve and progress. “Why would we return to a time when people were marginalized?” What on earth are you trying to talk about?

          1. Eternal Pessimist

            Yeah, I think the old goat has lost it a little bit…(I didn’t mean to marginalize the elderly as I am getting over-the-hill myself – not that it’s OK to marginalize the elderly if I’m young, etc..)

            1. MichiganGoat

              The points I’ve been discussing was never narrowly focused on Wrigley, it’s a broader discussion about how society idealizes the past and ignores the negative parts of the past. We have positive memories that we use to create traditions, but those traditions assume that the past was good for all the people. It’s not. So instead of trying to hold onto those fuzzy memories and wanting to keep those going through maintaining traditions we are missing out on developing a better future.

              So taking it to Wrigley are we holding onto a blurred memory of the past instead of making the right progressive move to rebuild the franchise elsewhere. I hope we stay in Wrigley, I believe the Cubs can be more profitable and thereby successful by staying at Wrigley but if the reason to stay is because of tradition we are helplessly failing.

              1. Eternal Pessimist

                I think your argument is a big overreach. I could use your argument to say that there we shouldn’t look forward to a Cubs game today, because there are still injustices going on in Chicago today.

                There is no era of pure “goodness” so there do we just not celebrate any traditions?

                1. MichiganGoat

                  I’m not saying you can’t have your traditions but when we use traditions to impede progress to benefits life is a bad choice. Traditions are fluid and to hang on simply to honor a tradition when a change is better we shouldn’t hang onto that so called tradition just because previous generations did it.

                  1. Eternal Pessimist

                    I think some of your earlier comments read a little differently (perhaps unintentionally?)

                    “I’m not saying erase the history, simply saying stop idealizing history while ignore the horror of the time by using words like tradition.”

                    Wanting to keep the Wrigley “tradition” really had nothing to do with accepting or embracing the horror of the time (to me anyway…and I don’t think to anyone else hoping for preservation)

                    “Wanting keep Wrigley the way it was during our grandfather & great grandfathers time is ludicrous because we can’t say things were better back then without embracing the horrors of the previous eras.”

                    I was fortunate enough to travel through Europe this summer and so much architecture from amazing (and often terrible) history was preserved…it would be a shame to lose it all.

                    “Yes we can have great memories of the past but to try to return to the past is a horrible idea.”

                    Preserving tradition is not the same as returning to the past…anyway, I don’t think tradition hawks are really looking to go back to the way things were, just keeping some of the feel of the park and the beers.

                    By the way, I would like to preserve Wrigley, but not at the expense of something better.

                2. MichiganGoat

                  There are better and more rational reason not to change something besides the silly tradition arguement. Just because something has been done the same way for countless years doesn’t mean we can’t change it.

                3. mjhurdle

                  horrible analogy.
                  no Cub fans watch Cub games because of “tradition”.

                4. Patrick W.

                  I don’t think that’s the argument. I don’t even think it’s an argument. It’s just an acknowledgement that one person’s tradition, steeped in memories of the good ole days gone by, might be a reminder of another person’s trigger to the nightmare of those exact same days.

                  It’s a call to take a moment and be willing to question your own traditions by viewing it through a different, and wider lens.

                5. MichiganGoat

                  Exactly Patrick… being reflective about the traditions we hold dear is a mature and progressive way to look at life. When we hold into the past through “traditions” we block our ability to progress toward the future. This is a discussion that is larger than Wrigley but if traditions are the sole reason for staying or doing anything it’s time to rethink and reflect on the reality. There are very good reason to stay at Wrigley but traditions is not one of them.

                  1. mjhurdle

                    i disagree. It is a tradition for me to have some Newcastle while i stay late at work to deploy my coworkers code changes. And i will support that tradition to the day i die, progress be damned!!

                    1. MichiganGoat

                      Never said you can’t enjoy your traditions but if that tradition prevents future success then the reflective and progressive choice would be to change beers ;)

                    2. mjhurdle


  24. Die hard

    There is something to be said for suing to prevent Carpetbaggers from forever altering ones neighborhood …. Suit may have merit

  25. BigSmokeJ

    Those are historical characteristics as people want to believe the past. The old ball parks are the best, the old timers never cheated, the game was better in the old days. These are all ideas that people want to believe actually happen(ed) but in reality were never the case.
    Hey I’m all for gutting the stadium and fixing it the correct way. But the ball park is not why I became a fan. And if the city, rooftops, neighborhood will not allow them to rebuild it with modern conveniences then they need to move.

    I love the tradition of a father bringing his son to pee in the urinals, just like his dad brought him. Son the smell of pee on your shoe is special. We’ll talk about this the rest of our lives.

    1. MichiganGoat

      Yes it is human nature to idealize and remember the good of the past and calling those fuzzy feelings tradition vs just embracing a good memory.

      1. Funn Dave

        So your entire (completely and abhorrently absurd) point is about the semantics of “tradition” vs. “good memories?”

        1. Patrick W.

          Wow is that reductionist. Tradition has a very specific meaning that explains the actions of a person or a group of people. The actions are the important part of tradition… it is how we respond to our memories. Good memories may just be good memories upon which you never act, and which you never attempt to recreate.

          Traditionally the Washington D.C. NFL team has had an incredibly offensive name. A good memory is Doug Williams and team crushing the Denver Broncos.

          1. MichiganGoat

            Exactly memories are frozen, stagnate things, but traditions are active and fluid and we should be aware of what we are trying to maintain and keep alive.

        2. MichiganGoat

          Memories are exactly that… memories. Snapshots of the past but traditions is the foolish act of trying to maintain and build around those fuzzy snapshots while ignoring the other pictures of horror that were not in our personal photo album. There is a very fundamental difference enjoying those pictures and trying to recreate those pictures. But are you too dense to see the difference between the two?

          1. Funn Dave

            Mmm, nope. I’m not sure where you got your definition of tradition, but it sure as hell ain’t Webster’s, and it has nothing to do with ignoring anything.

            1. MichiganGoat

              TRADITION: the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.

              MEMORY: something remembered from the past; a recollection.

              Big differences here in definitions

              1. DarthHater

                What in the world are you arguing about now, Goat? No way am I going to go back and read all that crap to try to figure it out. :-P

                1. ssckelley

                  You should, it was an interesting debate. Brain even called me a parking lot monkey, or something like that.

    2. jh03

      “…the old timers never cheated…” lol. Yeah, okay.

  26. BigSmokeJ

    Being sentimental to me has nothing to do with the place, it has to do with the people I’m with or were with.
    Is it the ballpark that means something or the fact your father, brother, sister, wife were there with you. I personally don’t need the building to relieve those memories and bring a smile or tear to my eye. All I need is the person or the memory of that person or time.
    No one can take the memories away from anyone they are there forever, but that doesn’t mean the park needs to be there forever.

    1. YourResidentJag


  27. Kevin

    Macha was selected #19 in the 2012 draft. The Cubs tank to pick #6 and pick Almora who is still in the minors. Theo -1

    1. Jono

      Thanks, captain hindsight

      It might be useful to compare Almora to other draft picks around that slot, not just the single best draftee who is being showcased in the world series right now. If you’re going to compare the cubs’ picks to the single best pick of that draft, you’re going to always be disappointed

      1. Bwa

        Wacha also developed a great breaking ball which he did not have when he was drafted. Plus wait and see if almora will turn into what he is supposed to.

        1. Jono

          Plus Almora was drafted out of high school.

          1. Bwa

            Also buxton came out of that draft. Did the twins make a bad pick too?

    2. ssckelley

      Right, Almora has flamed out already. Never mind they also drafted Pierce Johnson, Paul Blackburn, and Duane Underwood in that draft, along with a bunch of prospects at the trade deadline.

  28. Cheryl

    What would happen if Ricketts said – You win. We won’t do any renovation. We’ll let the place
    deteriorate until the city condemns it, and since we can’t change things so we make money we’ll declare bankruptcy and wait until the contract with the rooftop owners runs out and just develop our minor league system while the cubs travel from city to city to play without a home of their own. I’m so sick of this renovation thing I wish something like this could happen – an impossible dream.

    1. Crazyhorse

      Well when the city condemns Wrigley field because the owner failed to bring it up to code. I guess the owners would be fined. then the City would eventually make the Ricketts family forfiet the site or sell it for pennies on the dollar for what its worth. I guess Chicago could then lease ,sell, bring in entertainment during the summer months .

      Lets get even dumber – once the Cubs move – heck let Mark CUban buy the Staduim – let him Sue MLB for not letting him own a baseball – let MLB award Cuban a franchise and That team will win a World Series before the Omaha Cubs win a title .
      sound dumb ? yeah so are most of these posts tonight. including this one.

  29. William

    After watching that pitiful throw to third, I am convinced the Cardinals used a voodoo doll to poke at Breslow’s elbow and alter his throw.

  30. Fastball

    A great Chicago fire burns Wrigley to the ground and spreads to the bars across the street and they are rubble. 2 years later a new Wrigley with everything a fan player and owner could hope for. And the insurance companies paid for it. Ricketts has lots oofminey for the players nobody thought he could afford. The Cubs win the world series and people travel from far away places to see the new Wrigley and start new memories for a lifetime.

    Great bedtime story for my grandkids. Wish it were true.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.