Sports.yahoo.com is a pretty good place to find your sports news. Probably the best feature is that it integrates sporting news with your fantasy team to give you excellent updates on injuries, stats, etc.
What caught my eye on the site was this headline: No more Wrigley? Cubs ace asks for a new ballpark. Carlos Zambrano made some statements this weekend while enjoying the new Yankee Stadium about how nice it was. Of course, a player is going to want the coziest, most up-to-date club house. We all like a little luxury. The article was quick to add in Lou Pinella's comments on how great Wrigley Field is.
This debate has probably heated up even more recently do to the pending sale of the Cubs from the Tribune Co. to the Ricketts family. There were talks at one time that Wrigley would be sold to the city of Chicago, then it is part of the overall sale, then there were rumors of restricts on moving the Cubs.
I've been to Wrigley several times, but I can't say that I have actually been a part of the neighborhood. It does have some strange appeal that I cannot describe. Majestic is the only word that comes to mind. Still, would people really stop going to Cubs games with Wrigley was gone? Not if the new field helped them maintain good teams!
In the end, this is the same old debate on what is more important. Wrigley stays because the fans love it, at least that is the reason always given. But I can say as a die-hard Cubs fans, that I would much prefer a World Series title or two over a ballpark. It has long been discussed that Wrigley is part of the reason the Cubs cannot win. The ballpark is small and the seating is limited. The place has been falling apart for awhile now. The team loses revenue to rooftop partners and even with the recent expansion in the bleachers, I don't see how they can top much more than the 3.3 million attendance figures of last year. Plus, it has always been a fight with the residential area for game times and the amount of night games the Cubs are allowed to play.
Now, I am not claiming to know for sure, because I have never played pro baseball, but it seems that the players prefer night games. Everyone else plays mostly night games. The sun, the shadows, the early rises usually don't favor the players.
Parking for a Cubs game is ridiculous. You have to pay $20+ to park in the corner of a Taco Bell, and then, wait hours to be able to get out. The area bars are nice, but a new ballpark could present the same amount of options.
I've gone back and forth with myself on these issues numerous times. Still, it seems like a new stadium out in the 'burbs would allow for more night games, better player treatment, more fan options, better parking, more seating and still a good atmosphere. They built an updated replica of Yankee Stadium. Why couldn't they build a new park for the Cubs with ivy in the outfield, a big scoreboard, etc?
Change is hard for anyone to swallow. Still, monuments have their time. I am not saying tear down Wrigley. They should sell it to the city. Then, it can be used for city baseball, museum tours, etc. I am sure it will still be a good attraction and bring revenue to the city. I believe this could be change for the better and help maintain the Cubs as contenders for a World Series every year.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I might need some time to really respond to this topic. I have conflicting emotions and I am not sure how to best present those in a short response. Maybe within a week, I'll get something posted.
A couple things I can put down right away.
The notion of the Cubs not winning because of Wrigley has always been ludicrous to me. 99% of the reason the Cubs have been losers for 100 years is due to the fact that they didn't put a very good team on the field. Factor in luck, fate and bad omens that leaves very little for park deficiencies. Did anyone ever argue the Yankee's won a lot mostly because of their stadium (yes I know it had a short porch for Ruth to knock out homers)? They won because of the talent and management.
So has the idea of too many day games. One could argue that longtime Cubs would get used to that schedule providing unfair advantage over the visiting team more accustomed to the night game life.
Finally, the idea a bigger park equals more money. First, the Cubs are not hurting for profits. Second (and Snake probably understands the business ends better than I), the idea that you maximize profits in a new park, bigger park is somewhat a red herring. Could you increase them? Probably. But how much will adding 20,000 more seats decrease the buzz for trying to get a single game ticket. Do you sell out every game then? How many seats go empty during bad seasons compared to those at Wrigley? New parks are the playground for the rich, don't forget that. The push for this has as much to do with adding more skyboxes and luxury seating than anything else. But what if the Cubs lose that appeal even a little. Right now it's cool to be a Cubs fan. What if that turns (like it did in the 70s, and nobody pays a lot of attention to the Cubbies.) Are you paying for celebrity that's moved on to the new hot item?
Well 20,000 seats for 81 games @ $50 a pop is 81 million. I agree with your points about a good team, that is a management issue. That has been a positive change lately. So why shouldnt they continue to examine more positive change?
I am looking at taking away excuses. They always said that the limited seating in Wrigley hurt the overall budget. 81 mil is a payroll for most teams. The burden is on management to fill those seats and if they ride the wave of good revenue to better play (which money doesnt always mean success but it has a pretty good track record) then they need to explore that option. The tickets are hot cause there is only 40k of them per game. They are losing potential revenue out on the secondary market right now.
I don't think you get used to day games, maybe if you played them for 2 weeks straight. But I think you can agree the body starts to hurt over 5 months of sleeping/playing at night then during the day for a few days then back to nights, traveling etc. Wouldn't it benefit the players to have better facilities to keep them relaxed and give them better treatment/training? Wouldn't attendance go up if they had more night games that people could attend instead of during the day when most people work. All I am saying is if day games were such a great idea, more teams would have them than just the Cubs.
Part of this I agree is a bad attempt to rationalize 100 years of futility. But some of it does have its merit as well. I am trying to think with my business head rather than my heart. Otherwise, I wouldnt get a firery reaction out of you. :)
I am not sure that the track record of new ballparks indicates an increase in revenue or an increase in spending. The Pirates, Reds and Astros come to mind off the top of my head. We don't know for sure new ownership will pump money into the team once he gains control. You would assume so, but who's knows how the purchase and the economy will effect their checkbook in the long run. A new ballpark also costs a lot, including a lot for the taxpayers.
Second, the Cubs have been a top-5 spending team the last decade and still rank near the top of most profitable organizations.
Do you also assume a new ballpark guarantees more day games? Will a suburb want 50,000 people roaming the streets at 10:30 (with a fair share of those people having varying amounts of alcohol in their system. Where would this place be? Do you remain north? There's basically affluent neighborhoods up that way, probably don't want all the elements of MLB team around.
What is the ratio of day games the Cubs play now compared to other teams? They play quite a few night games during the week now. Facter in that most teams play day games on Saturday and Sunday. I bet the difference is not as much as one would think.
My actual feeling about this might surprise you. Maybe I am getting old or jaded or something else all together, but it doesn't get that big of a rise out me. This will happen in our lifetimes, unless I die tomorrow.
The Reds, Pirates, Astros arent even close to the market the Cubs have so I dont think that is a good gauge. I would say the Giants have done well in their new park and it is beautiful but everyone always had some much history with Candlestick. See how the Yanks & Mets do replacing their legendary stadiums in these next few years.
There are 'burbs chomping at the bit to the land a new Cub's stadium. I forget but i've heard several Northwest suburbs mentioned. They would kill for that revenue stream.
A bigger stadium would allow them to keep ticket prices lower in parts while still raising revenue and allowing more people to attend games. How many Cubs fans go to Milwakuee because it is too hard to get tickets to Wrigley or they dont want to deal with getting to Wrigley. That is lost money. The highest attendance most of these smaller market teams have is when the Cubs come to town. They are a draw unlike most teams.
When I get a chance I am going to do my counts on Day games. I want to know the true answer as much as you.
True, but all three have more recent traditions of putting out consistent winning teams than the Cubs, and during those times they drew well despite the vogue term "small market." The Reds in the early 90s, and in the 70s. The Pirates had a good run in the late 80s, early 90s also were good in the 70s and whenever Clemente played. Astros went to a WS in 2005, but were actually a better organization for pretty much the entire decade of the 90s. Since the new parks, all three have behaved even more like small market teams (maybe not the Astros, although many of their moves have been for the aging-catch-lightning-in-a-bottle guys rather than prime time stars). I am just saying is there correlation between the average team getting a new park and spending less.
Do the Cubs "traditionally" behave more like the Reds, Astros and Reds or like the Mets, Red Sox and Yankees?"
This is the first time the Cubs have had repeat playoff appearances and each of those were first round sweeps. Then you have individual seasons that seem to be more an exception than a rule - 2003, 1998, 1989, 1984.
You can look at the Mets and Yankees, but those two teams spend money simply to make their fans happy whether or not its really good for the team. I'm not sure I want that for the Cubs.
There's probably a stat somewhere, maybe on baseballreference.com that probably give number of day and night games for each team. Maybe I'll check it out when I get a chance. I, too, have a big day ahead of me so I may not get to it till tomorrow.
Post a Comment