Wrigley Field

Before we get to tomorrow morning's Baker-bashing posts and Muskie
calling for everyone in management to be fired immediately, I'd like to pose
a question for some serious non-emotional responses. It revolves around
Ozzie Guillen's comments about Wrigley and Mike Imrem's column in the Herald
about them. Perhaps with all the money spent on additions and renovations
around Wrigley, this will be completely academic. But here goes. Should
Wrigley Field be replaced?
I can't believe I'm asking that question, because as probably the
oldest regular poster in this group, I have fond memories of Wrigley going
further back than any of you. I would never even have considered this up
until a year ago. But I believe Imrem and Guillen are right. It is not a
good stadium in which to play major league ball. And aside from emotional
reactions to the setting, it is not a good stadium for many fans to watch
baseball. The facilities for players and spectators are poor. The place is
literally starting to fall apart. With the cramped internal expansion, more
and more of the seats have obstructed views. I think it will also start to
become, if it has not already done so, a negative in attracting players.
Their clubhouse is cramped, training facilities limited, and foul lines
closer and closer to the stands so that chasing foul balls becomes more and
more hazardous for the fielders and less and less attractive to pitchers as
sure outs in other stadiums end up in the stands at Wrigley. And how much
is the increased ticket price a function of the Wrigley restrictions?
Hasn't Wrigley become the Williamsburg of baseball? Isn't it time to think
of another stadium?
Now, before I get flamed and before Muskie blathers on about how I'm
incompetent and need to be fired immediately, let me repeat. I love
Wrigley. I get an emotional lift each time I come up through the tunnel and
see the vines and the playing field. I have many great memories from there.
But can't we do better? Wouldn't it be possible to sacrifice for one
season? The Cubs could play in Sox Park (or whatever it's called now) for
the year that Wrigley (and some surrounding buildings) are torn down and
rebuilt right where it is now. The new stadium could retain much of what
makes Wrigley so charming today, but yet provide for the players and fans a
modern and more suitable venue for major league baseball.
And as usual, these are just my thoughts.

As one of the few members of this NG that attends a significant number
of games at Wrigley every year, I strongly disagree. I think it is a
cop out from a players point of view to compain that the field ( which
is very well maintained) or the cramped clubhouses are a problem with
winning. The park itself is in fact in good condition. It does lack
the numerous food & diversion options of newer stadiums but I could
care less. The bathrooms are fine, the ramps in the main park and the
bleachers are MUCH roomier and safer than the set ups in most of the
new parks. Very confused what you mean about the expansion causing more
obstructed view seats The expansion ( which as a traditionalist I
oppose ) is in THE BLEACHERS only, where there is NO obstruction. There
are no plans to expand the grandstand that I know of. There is a far
higher number of seats at Wrigley with good to excellent views than
most parks old or new. The second half of the seats in the grandstand
do generally have some posts in view but very few are in fact "bad"
seats. FYI the added box seats had ZERO effect on obstructed views. It
merely took away more foul territory.


I always got the impression that players really LIKED Wrigley and other
than the cramped clubhouse
I don't see the issue and if a guy is choosing a team by clubhouse
amenities I don't think I would
want him. I do think the ATTITUDE of formerly friendly Cub fans this
year might scare off some
potential players

Attacking Wrigley seems like an annual tradition particularly from
people who don't go there much ( I don't mean you Claude but do you go
much now ?). The Sox let their old and very nice ball park
deliberately deteriorate, blackmailed the city & state to build them a
new one which had a HUGE number of bad seats, sold off their "naming"
rights to fix some of the problems and still have a park with more bad
seats than Wrigley and zero charm.

An old stadium with a cramped clubhouse did not stop the Red Sox from
winning and
they have now renounced their misguided thoughts of replacing Fenway. I
suggest
we do the same with Wrigley

Jessica



Claude wrote:
> Before we get to tomorrow morning's Baker-bashing posts and Muskie
> calling for everyone in management to be fired immediately, I'd like
to pose
> a question for some serious non-emotional responses. It revolves
around
> Ozzie Guillen's comments about Wrigley and Mike Imrem's column in the
Herald
> about them. Perhaps with all the money spent on additions and
renovations
> around Wrigley, this will be completely academic. But here goes.
Should
> Wrigley Field be replaced?
> I can't believe I'm asking that question, because as probably
the
> oldest regular poster in this group, I have fond memories of Wrigley
going
> further back than any of you. I would never even have considered
this up
> until a year ago. But I believe Imrem and Guillen are right. It is
not a
> good stadium in which to play major league ball. And aside from
emotional
> reactions to the setting, it is not a good stadium for many fans to
watch
> baseball. The facilities for players and spectators are poor. The
place is
> literally starting to fall apart. With the cramped internal
expansion, more
> and more of the seats have obstructed views. I think it will also
start to
> become, if it has not already done so, a negative in attracting
players.
> Their clubhouse is cramped, training facilities limited, and foul
lines
> closer and closer to the stands so that chasing foul balls becomes
more and
> more hazardous for the fielders and less and less attractive to
pitchers as
> sure outs in other stadiums end up in the stands at Wrigley. And
how much
> is the increased ticket price a function of the Wrigley restrictions?

> Hasn't Wrigley become the Williamsburg of baseball? Isn't it time to
think
> of another stadium?
> Now, before I get flamed and before Muskie blathers on about how
I'm
> incompetent and need to be fired immediately, let me repeat. I love
> Wrigley. I get an emotional lift each time I come up through the
tunnel and
> see the vines and the playing field. I have many great memories from
there.
> But can't we do better? Wouldn't it be possible to sacrifice for one

> season? The Cubs could play in Sox Park (or whatever it's called
now) for
> the year that Wrigley (and some surrounding buildings) are torn down
and
> rebuilt right where it is now. The new stadium could retain much of
what
> makes Wrigley so charming today, but yet provide for the players and
fans a
> modern and more suitable venue for major league baseball.
> And as usual, these are just my thoughts.