Wrigley Field

That rotating banner ad thing they are putting behind home plate is going to be
disgusting.

Some say they need a new park, but I fail to see what a new park can give the
fans that is worth losing Wrigley over. You can't get any closer to the field,
and I don't think anyone cares about a jumbo tv in the outfield.

There's also no logic in pulling Wrigley only because it's old since it's a
beautiful kind of old. Not some low quality piece of garbage nobody wants to
look at.

Nothing good comes from moving or changing it.
 >> Stay informed about: Wrigley Field 

Matthew Superstar Swass wrote:

>
> Nothing good comes from moving or changing it.

Well, if you're the Cubs, moving into a new stadium gives you
- likely 5,000-10,000 more seats
- revenue from parking (something that they get very little of and at
$15 a pop X 10,000 cars x 81 games, thats $12M)
- more advertising space (ever been to Bank One Ballpark, there isn't a
surface that isn't covered with advertisements)
- other money making things like a micro-brewery, more gift shops, etc
- oh, and then there is that thing called naming rights.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

DmL
 >> Stay informed about: Wrigley Field 

Matthew Superstar Swass wrote:

> That rotating banner ad thing they are putting behind home plate is going to be
> disgusting.
>
> Some say they need a new park, but I fail to see what a new park can give the
> fans that is worth losing Wrigley over. You can't get any closer to the field,
> and I don't think anyone cares about a jumbo tv in the outfield.
>
> There's also no logic in pulling Wrigley only because it's old since it's a
> beautiful kind of old. Not some low quality piece of garbage nobody wants to
> look at.
>
> Nothing good comes from moving or changing it.
>

Can't the engineers come up with ways of expanding seating
and improving facilities without changing the interior
dimensions and appearance of the field and the overall
appearance of the structure? I have the same question
regarding Fenway. I'd like to see the traditions and charm
of both these legendary parks preserved and protected as
National Historical Sites. These are the oldest ballparks
still remaining; and that is even more emphasized by the
fact that after Yankee Stadium, which has undergone
significant changes, the 4th oldest park is, yep, Dodger
Stadium, arguably a "modern" ballpark.
 >> Stay informed about: Wrigley Field 

Jimbo opined ::::
>It's almost 2005! Wrigley is old and it no
> longer accommodates players fans,
> television and ownership as well as
> most ballparks. I love going to
> Wrigley.....

The Parthenon (sp) is old, old faithful is old, grandma is old.... but
people still flock to see them....

The Cubs are who and what they are because of Wrigley.... Put em in the
`burbs and we'll have the Brewers...

Is that what ya want? Leave Wrigley alone, please...!
 >> Stay informed about: Wrigley Field 

"Daniel M. Lichtenstein" <"Daniel M. Lichtenstein"> wrote in message
news:IsidndsurLfzpVfcRVn-oA@giganews.com...
>
>
> Matthew Superstar Swass wrote:
>
>>
>> Nothing good comes from moving or changing it.
>
> Well, if you're the Cubs, moving into a new stadium gives you
> - likely 5,000-10,000 more seats
> - revenue from parking (something that they get very little of and at $15
> a pop X 10,000 cars x 81 games, thats $12M)
> - more advertising space (ever been to Bank One Ballpark, there isn't a
> surface that isn't covered with advertisements)
> - other money making things like a micro-brewery, more gift shops, etc
> - oh, and then there is that thing called naming rights.
>
> This is just the tip of the iceberg.
>

Yeah, with a new ballpark they'd make a lot more money...
just like the White Sox.

Please name one team that has significantly improved its on-field
performance thanks to a new ballpark.
 >> Stay informed about: Wrigley Field 

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:57:27 -0600, "Dave Morrell"
<nospamdmorrell.DeleteThis@mail.com> wrote:

>"Daniel M. Lichtenstein" <"Daniel M. Lichtenstein"> wrote in message
>news:IsidndsurLfzpVfcRVn-oA@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> Matthew Superstar Swass wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Nothing good comes from moving or changing it.
>>
>> Well, if you're the Cubs, moving into a new stadium gives you
>> - likely 5,000-10,000 more seats
>> - revenue from parking (something that they get very little of and at $15
>> a pop X 10,000 cars x 81 games, thats $12M)
>> - more advertising space (ever been to Bank One Ballpark, there isn't a
>> surface that isn't covered with advertisements)
>> - other money making things like a micro-brewery, more gift shops, etc
>> - oh, and then there is that thing called naming rights.
>>
>> This is just the tip of the iceberg.
>>
>
>Yeah, with a new ballpark they'd make a lot more money...
>just like the White Sox.
>
>Please name one team that has significantly improved its on-field
>performance thanks to a new ballpark.
>

How about the Cleveland Indians?

The 10 years before Jacobs Park opened = 708 - 965, ZERO Titles

The 10 years after Jacobs Park opened = 874 - 726, 6 Division
Titles, 2 AL Titles

There are other examples, but the Indians are probably the best.

--John A.
 >> Stay informed about: Wrigley Field 

<John A.> wrote in message
news:tlhks0pkj9gklgavhcdka6heo6tatrssjq@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:57:27 -0600, "Dave Morrell"
> <nospamdmorrell RemoveThis @mail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Daniel M. Lichtenstein" <"Daniel M. Lichtenstein"> wrote in message
> >news:IsidndsurLfzpVfcRVn-oA@giganews.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Matthew Superstar Swass wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Nothing good comes from moving or changing it.
> >>
> >> Well, if you're the Cubs, moving into a new stadium gives you
> >> - likely 5,000-10,000 more seats
> >> - revenue from parking (something that they get very little of and at
$15
> >> a pop X 10,000 cars x 81 games, thats $12M)
> >> - more advertising space (ever been to Bank One Ballpark, there isn't a
> >> surface that isn't covered with advertisements)
> >> - other money making things like a micro-brewery, more gift shops, etc
> >> - oh, and then there is that thing called naming rights.
> >>
> >> This is just the tip of the iceberg.
> >>
> >
> >Yeah, with a new ballpark they'd make a lot more money...
> >just like the White Sox.
> >
> >Please name one team that has significantly improved its on-field
> >performance thanks to a new ballpark.
> >
>
> How about the Cleveland Indians?
>
> The 10 years before Jacobs Park opened = 708 - 965, ZERO Titles
>
> The 10 years after Jacobs Park opened = 874 - 726, 6 Division
> Titles, 2 AL Titles
>
> There are other examples, but the Indians are probably the best.
>

Giants win totals:
1994 55
1995 67
1996 68
1997 90 (won division)
1998 89
1999 86
(Pac Bell opens)
2000 97
2001 90
2002 95
2003 100
2004 91

In the playoff hunt until the last weekend (or better) all 5 years. Payroll
bump had to help.

Agree to your point, new ballpark does not equal success on field.
 >> Stay informed about: Wrigley Field 

<John A.> wrote in message
news:tlhks0pkj9gklgavhcdka6heo6tatrssjq@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:57:27 -0600, "Dave Morrell"
> <nospamdmorrell DeleteThis @mail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Daniel M. Lichtenstein" <"Daniel M. Lichtenstein"> wrote in message
>>news:IsidndsurLfzpVfcRVn-oA@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthew Superstar Swass wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nothing good comes from moving or changing it.
>>>
>>> Well, if you're the Cubs, moving into a new stadium gives you
>>> - likely 5,000-10,000 more seats
>>> - revenue from parking (something that they get very little of and at
>>> $15
>>> a pop X 10,000 cars x 81 games, thats $12M)
>>> - more advertising space (ever been to Bank One Ballpark, there isn't a
>>> surface that isn't covered with advertisements)
>>> - other money making things like a micro-brewery, more gift shops, etc
>>> - oh, and then there is that thing called naming rights.
>>>
>>> This is just the tip of the iceberg.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, with a new ballpark they'd make a lot more money...
>>just like the White Sox.
>>
>>Please name one team that has significantly improved its on-field
>>performance thanks to a new ballpark.
>>
>
> How about the Cleveland Indians?
>
> The 10 years before Jacobs Park opened = 708 - 965, ZERO Titles
>
> The 10 years after Jacobs Park opened = 874 - 726, 6 Division
> Titles, 2 AL Titles
>
> There are other examples, but the Indians are probably the best.
>
> --John A.

I should have said name two, but Cleveland is the exception. Look at the
new ballparks built in the last ten years and nearly all of them are no
better than before and several are worse. Philly, Atlanta, Pittsburgh,
Cincinnati, Detroit, the White Sox, Milwaukee, Houston, Seattle, San
Francisco, San Diego. Do you really think a new park will make a team more
competitive?
 >> Stay informed about: Wrigley Field 

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 23:43:53 -0600, "Dave Morrell"
<nospamdmorrell.TakeThisOut@mail.com> wrote:

><John A.> wrote in message
>news:tlhks0pkj9gklgavhcdka6heo6tatrssjq@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:57:27 -0600, "Dave Morrell"
>> <nospamdmorrell.TakeThisOut@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Daniel M. Lichtenstein" <"Daniel M. Lichtenstein"> wrote in message
>>>news:IsidndsurLfzpVfcRVn-oA@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matthew Superstar Swass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing good comes from moving or changing it.
>>>>
>>>> Well, if you're the Cubs, moving into a new stadium gives you
>>>> - likely 5,000-10,000 more seats
>>>> - revenue from parking (something that they get very little of and at
>>>> $15
>>>> a pop X 10,000 cars x 81 games, thats $12M)
>>>> - more advertising space (ever been to Bank One Ballpark, there isn't a
>>>> surface that isn't covered with advertisements)
>>>> - other money making things like a micro-brewery, more gift shops, etc
>>>> - oh, and then there is that thing called naming rights.
>>>>
>>>> This is just the tip of the iceberg.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, with a new ballpark they'd make a lot more money...
>>>just like the White Sox.
>>>
>>>Please name one team that has significantly improved its on-field
>>>performance thanks to a new ballpark.
>>>
>>
>> How about the Cleveland Indians?
>>
>> The 10 years before Jacobs Park opened = 708 - 965, ZERO Titles
>>
>> The 10 years after Jacobs Park opened = 874 - 726, 6 Division
>> Titles, 2 AL Titles
>>
>> There are other examples, but the Indians are probably the best.
>>
>> --John A.
>
>I should have said name two, but Cleveland is the exception. Look at the
>new ballparks built in the last ten years and nearly all of them are no
>better than before and several are worse. Philly, Atlanta, Pittsburgh,
>Cincinnati, Detroit, the White Sox, Milwaukee, Houston, Seattle, San
>Francisco, San Diego. Do you really think a new park will make a team more
>competitive?

I think that in almost every case, a new ballpark provides additional
revenue streams (advertising, naming rights, increased attendance, etc
etc) and that gives a team more flexibility in establishing budgets,
planning and filling needs.

It does NOT make poor management decisions better, nor does it smooth
over past mistakes.

But, if I am trying to compete in today's marketplace, I'd rather do
it with the additional revenue streams than without.

--John A.
 >> Stay informed about: Wrigley Field 

"Al Yellon" <me.TakeThisOut@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95C85D3869C64meprivacynet@130.133.1.4...
> "Daniel M. Lichtenstein" <"Daniel M. Lichtenstein"> wrote in
> news:IsidndsurLfzpVfcRVn-oA@giganews.com:
>
> >
> >
> > Matthew Superstar Swass wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Nothing good comes from moving or changing it.
> >
> > Well, if you're the Cubs, moving into a new stadium gives you
> > - likely 5,000-10,000 more seats
> > - revenue from parking (something that they get very little of and at
> > $15 a pop X 10,000 cars x 81 games, thats $12M)
> > - more advertising space (ever been to Bank One Ballpark, there isn't a
> > surface that isn't covered with advertisements)
> > - other money making things like a micro-brewery, more gift shops, etc
> > - oh, and then there is that thing called naming rights.
>
> The problem is, if the *CUBS* do this, they also lose a *significant*
> portion of the mystique that *IS* the Cubs.
>
> Wrigley Field and its atmosphere are worth millions of dollars a year to
> the Cubs, and management knows it.
>
> The ONLY other team that has such a mystique is the Red Sox -- why do you
> think they reversed course and, after saying they needed a new ballpark,
> they are now adding seats to and refurbishing Fenway Park?
>
> Incidentally, Fenway is in *far* worse shape than Wrigley Field.
>

When was the last time you were there? I was there last May and was amazed
at all the rehab/upgrades they've done at Fenway so far. Obvious difference
from my last visit in May '98. The whole RF area under the stands was
expanded and re-done: new entrance, concessions, bathrooms, etc. Not to
mention the additional seating on the Green Monster and RF Roof.

(Interesting visit in '98, pitching matchups were Cone/Saberhagen and
Hentgen/Martinez. Cy Young winners starting for both teams on consecutive
days. Doubt that's happened too many times before.)

I took the tour as well this year; the place looks better now than I'd seen
it in years. They spent tons of money and apparently intend to keep doing
so.

Where Wrigley has it over Fenway is the grandstand seating. 15" wide wooden
seats, cramped rows, many seats facing the wrong way. No way to "fix" this
without seriously reducing the capacity of the park.
 >> Stay informed about: Wrigley Field 

Re: Wrigley Field

Group: alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs Date: Wed, Dec 22, 2004, 9:57pm
From: nospamdmorrell.DeleteThis@mail.com (Dave Morrell)
"Daniel M. Lichtenstein" <"Daniel M. Lichtenstein"> wrote in message
news:IsidndsurLfzpVfcRVn-oA@giganews.com...
Matthew Superstar Swass wrote:
Nothing good comes from moving or changing it.
Well, if you're the Cubs, moving into a new stadium gives you
- likely 5,000-10,000 more seats
- revenue from parking (something that they get very little of and at
$15 a pop X 10,000 cars x 81 games, thats $12M)
- more advertising space (ever been to Bank One Ballpark, there isn't a
surface that isn't covered with advertisements)
- other money making things like a micro-brewery, more gift shops, etc
- oh, and then there is that thing called naming rights.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Yeah, with a new ballpark they'd make a lot more money... just like the
White Sox.
Please name one team that has significantly improved its on-field
performance thanks to a new ballpark.
-----------------------------------------------------
Seattle
 >> Stay informed about: Wrigley Field 

Re: Wrigley Field

Group: alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs Date: Wed, Dec 22, 2004, 11:43pm
From: nospamdmorrell DeleteThis @mail.com (Dave Morrell)
<John A.> wrote in message
news:tlhks0pkj9gklgavhcdka6heo6tatrssjq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:57:27 -0600, "Dave Morrell"
<nospamdmorrell DeleteThis @mail.com> wrote:
"Daniel M. Lichtenstein" <"Daniel M. Lichtenstein"> wrote in message
news:IsidndsurLfzpVfcRVn-oA@giganews.com...
Matthew Superstar Swass wrote:
Nothing good comes from moving or changing it.
Well, if you're the Cubs, moving into a new stadium gives you
- likely 5,000-10,000 more seats
- revenue from parking (something that they get very little of and at
$15
a pop X 10,000 cars x 81 games, thats $12M)
- more advertising space (ever been to Bank One Ballpark, there isn't a
surface that isn't covered with advertisements)
- other money making things like a micro-brewery, more gift shops, etc
- oh, and then there is that thing called naming rights.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Yeah, with a new ballpark they'd make a lot more money... just like the
White Sox.
Please name one team that has significantly improved its on-field
performance thanks to a new ballpark.
How about the Cleveland Indians?
The 10 years before Jacobs Park opened = 708 - 965, ZERO Titles
The 10 years after Jacobs Park opened = 874 - 726, 6 Division
Titles, 2 AL Titles
There are other examples, but the Indians are probably the best.
--John A.
I should have said name two, but Cleveland is the exception. Look at the
new ballparks built in the last ten years and nearly all of them are no
better than before and several are worse. Philly, Atlanta, Pittsburgh,
Cincinnati, Detroit, the White Sox, Milwaukee, Houston, Seattle, San
Francisco, San Diego. Do you really think a new park will make a team
more competitive?
-----------------------------------------------------
Financially, yes.
 >> Stay informed about: Wrigley Field 

As a practical matter there is zero chance of it happening. A new
ballpark would run about 500 million and they would not get ONE penny
in city or state funding. Trib is not stupid and frankly they don't
even really suggest or threaten this. They KNOW that Wrigley itself is
what brings in the fans and while they want to get more seats they have
NO desire or financial resources to build a new one. Personally I
don't see why any serious fan would want one. The park is beautiful and
other than rather boring food selection there is nothing really
missing. I don't know a single "regular" ( i.e. those of us that go to
20 plus games a year)that has any desire to see Wrigley replaced or
substantially changed.

Jessica
 >> Stay informed about: Wrigley Field