Would You Draw the Line at Naming Rights for Wrigley Field? And Other Bullets | Bleacher Nation

Social Navigation

Would You Draw the Line at Naming Rights for Wrigley Field? And Other Bullets

Chicago Cubs

I know this will ring as one of the worst and lamest #BloggerProblems in the world, but I just spent 30 minutes trying to get on the WI-FI at Panera before giving up and tethering to my phone. That’s a stupidly long time to try and fail to get on, but it’s like … that’s part of why I come here. I want to eat and use your internet. So I felt like when I gave up, it was like I wasn’t entirely getting what I came for.

Naturally, as soon as I tethered, popped out the Arrieta post, and then went to order my food, the computer connected to their WI-FI, somehow on its own. The lesson is sometimes you have to give up, I guess.

In any case, today’s a big one, with the Ohtani negotiating deadline coming tonight, the Rule 5 Draft roster deadline later today, and already rumors flying like that Jake-Arrieta-Brewers one. Oh, and Andre Dawson is coming back to the Cubs organization!

Don’t mess with me today, internet. I need you.

  • An interesting consideration in the context of the Cubs continuing to have a ballpark without naming rights attached (what a deal for the Wrigley Company, eh?), I was intrigued to read that the Nationals have been trying to sell naming rights to their park for the last two years, but haven’t had success. It’s been a while since the last big naming rights deal before U.S. Cellular Field became Guaranteed Rate Field this year; Globe Life Park in Arlington is the last I can remember, and that was 2014. At the time of the Rangers change, the average naming rights deal was $1.5 million to $3 million annually, according to ESPN. If the Cubs were ever going to try to pull off a “Such and Such Brand Park at Wrigley Field” naming rights situation, I can only imagine the dollars they would demand to justify the perceived slight to fans. It might just be one of those things that’s never worth it from a brand perspective (both to the Cubs and the buyer).
  • That reminds me of an annually interesting temperature-taking question for fans: assuming all dollars go right back into baseball operations, how much would the Cubs have to charge for Wrigley Field’s naming rights for you to be on board? Let’s assume it would be phrased, as above, “Such and Such Brand Park at Wrigley Field.” Is that worth … $10 million annually, and a slightly better bullpen each year? $20 million annually, and the ability to always go after the best free agent pitcher on the market and paper over busts? More? Less?
  • (Me? Well, I’d just rather the Cubs didn’t go down that road at all. Yes, I’m sure there’s a price level where you simply can’t not do it, but I think the risk in damaging the valuable asset that is Wrigley Field is too great. (I also think the buyer would regret being associated with that damage.))
(Photo by Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images)
  • In a more recent picture, and at a slightly turned angle, you’d see the Ernie Banks statue in that picture. Speaking of Mr. Cub:

  • Gotta use the guy while you still can:

  • Here’s the thing about this tweet. If you change just one word – *ONE WORD* – it suddenly becomes ‘Go Cubs Go’:

Author: Brett Taylor

Brett Taylor is the Editor and Lead Cubs Writer at Bleacher Nation, and you can find him on Twitter at @BleacherNation and @Brett_A_Taylor.