The Cubs just released their promotional items for this season:
There are some pretty fun player bobbleheads, including one of Ryne Sandberg’s statue, plus Clark the Cub plushies for the kids. There’s also this incredible Pat Hughes sweater shirt. Guess I’ll be planning a trip if I can.
Yesterday, I posted on my FB page and on Twitter my first gut reaction to the latest twist in the Cubs v. Rooftops saga that began a long time ago in a galaxy, far, far away (or it just seems that way):
If you go to a rooftop across from Wrigley, or buy a drink in any of the bars they own, we're not friends anymore.
Is that childish and pouty? Absolutely. Do I take it back? Not really.
I'm not really going to disown anyone for going to a rooftop because there are bigger issues in the world to get that bothered about, but I'm not going to pay a nickel to anybody who owns those places and I don't think Cubs fans should either because they are now hurting the teams' ability to survive at Wrigley Field.
But let's take a step back. First, why in the hell do the neighbors even have a say in this?
This is one of the first questions I always get when this topic comes up from people who are baseball fans but not Cubs fans, or from people who like the Cubs, but don't fritter all their time away in the hive of scum and villainy that is Cubs blog world. Most people plain don't understand how this is even a thing.
So let's travel back in time to the early 80s, when the Cubs sucked, the Wrigleys finally sold a team they hadn't given a damn about in decades, Wrigleyville was Latin King territory, and you could tie an onion to your belt (which was the style at the time) and head to Wrigley to sit in the bleachers on the day of the game for a nickel or whatever. It was a time of innocence. A time when only day baseball was played, and hardly any of the players were millionaires. There were also no rooftop seats across the street.
Oh sure, people went up there from time to time, but they were people who lived in the buildings or had friends who lived in the buildings. It was a perk of living there. You had friends over, dragged a grill up top and hung out in the sun, drinking your own beer, and watching the Cubs from a distance. It was pretty cool and hardly anybody was aware of it.
Then the Cubs, under Dallas Green, managed to put together a team that actually made the playoffs. It was 1984. Harry Caray was in the booth, Ryne Sandberg was breaking Cardinals fans hearts, and the Cubs won the division for the first time in almost 40 years. It was a fucking party. The park was jammed full of partying people. This is when the national spotlight hit the rooftops, that were also more jammed than usual because everybody wanted to see the magic at Wrigley. So the TV cameras found the rooftop folks and their friends partying and Cubs fans at home began to think, "Wow, that looks AWESOME. I wish I could do that."
I don't know who did it first and it really doesn't matter, but someone over there got the idea to start selling access to the rooftops. And they had a lot of demand. A lot. So they put up junior high school style bleachers and installed bigger grills. And the TV cameras kept finding them and the demand kept growing.
Meanwhile, the Cubs viewed it as an opportunity to sell themselves. "Look!" They'd say through constant mentions by Harry or camera shots by Arne Harris, "The Cubs are so popular people are jamming onto the rooftops to see us play!"
The rooftops had plenty of business, and this was the first real opportunity the owners of the buildings had to really cash in on the Cubs being right next door since a local ordinance restricted the signage outside the ballpark. The old Budweiser sign in left field and the old Torco sign in right field were grandfathered in and if those signs ever come down, they can't go back up again.
But rooftop seating wasn't restricted and as it became bigger business, they needed all sorts of licensing from the city to operate. The rooftops claim the Cubs never objected. I don't know if they did or not, but they sure seemed happy to build the rooftops into the sun, ivy, baseball-the-way-it-was-meant-to-be mythology that they marketed in the absence of much winning baseball.
Since nobody was telling them otherwise, the rooftops then started heavily investing in their business. Wrigley's high-end amenities were non-existent. Sure, they had skyboxes, but they were tucked back in under the upper deck, and were pretty cramped. The food service sucked throughout the ballpark. So the rooftops started providing real food options and having actual good restaurants cater. They served top-shelf liquor. They had premium beer options and now serve real craft beer. They suddenly became a better option for the wealthy corporate customers that were becoming increasingly important to a baseball team's economics. They started putting additions on the buildings and building multi-level stadium-quality bleachers, with separate access stairs and elevators. They renovated apartments into full-service sports bars. Hell, a couple of those buildings were build for the express purpose of making them into stadium clubs.
All of these mega-complexes were built around a view of games that they did not own.
This was the crux of a lawsuit that the Cubs finally brought against the rooftops in 2002. We'll get back to that.
Meanwhile, the city had started moving on placing landmark status on Wrigley Field, meaning any change to the ballpark would have to go through a landmarks committee.
Mayor Daley always had a contentious relationship with the Chicago Tribune's editorial board, but you can't just take revenge on a newspaper that is mean to you if you're a politician. Freedom of speech and all that. But what you CAN do, especially in the seedy world of Chicago politics, is squeeze the baseball team owned by the newspaper, and that was the Cubs. People used to think that Daley only fucked with the Cubs because he was a Sox fan, but after the 1994 strike, he was pretty disillusioned with baseball altogether and really didn't give much of a damn anymore. The fact that it was the Cubs was more icing on the cake than a main motivator. He meant to make the Tribune squirm any way he could and landmarking Wrigley was just the next thing (see also, the Battle of Night Games).
I can't find when it was officially declared for review, but it definitely was under review in the early 2000s when the Cubs and rooftops started really clashing. The Cubs were in a hurry to make changes that wouldn't need to go through 8 billion steps (like we've seen for the current renovations now that the landmark status is officially official), but the changes required building out over the Waveland and Sheffield sidewalks and that got the neighborhood involved. The plans would also obscure the sightlines from the rooftops and so they began fighting the Cubs on the changes.
So there wasn't much, if any, political support for the Cubs against a neighborhood that loves having their property values shoot up because of the stadium, but hates every other part of living near a stadium: people, traffic, noise, etc. Cubs fans, as they are prone to do, were also going apeshit that the Tribune was going to ruin Wrigley Field by making the changes.
Things deteriorated between the rooftops and the Cubs and came to a head when the Cubs sued the rooftops at the end of 2002:
According to the Cubs’ complaint and to Andy MacPhail, President and CEO, as quoted above, the Chicago Cubs have a property right in the performance of the Major League baseball games played at Wrigley Field, and the rooftop owners infringe the Cubs’ copyrights by rebroadcasting the Cubs’ telecasts.
According to the rooftop owners’ answer to the complaint, the Cubs’ allegations are made solely to harass the owners and pressure the community and the City of Chicago to permit the Cubs to fundamentally alter Wrigley Field and the character of the Wrigleyville neighborhood.
So the Cubs were saying, "You don't have a right to sell a view of our product" and the rooftops countered with, "You are just saying that to bully us."
But it ultimately came down to who owned the rights to the view, and it isn't as simple as you might think if you read the article I linked to. Eventually a judge ordered a compromise be made, and the Cubs, who were hellbent on getting their Bleacher expansion before the landmark status was finalized, agreed to a deal where they got the expansion rights over the sidewalks and 17% of the revenues from the rooftops in exchange for a 20 year moratorium on blocking the rooftop views.
Essentially, the Cubs screwed themselves in the long run by being stupidly narrow-minded in their scope of what was a "win" for them. Someone with a longer view might have balked at committing to 20 years of status quo in a ballpark that was already 90 years old at the time. Maybe they could keep challenging and make the rooftops win their argument that they had a right to the view. Maybe they could have just said to hell with the 17%, just give us the rights to the sidewalk space and we'll stay as is for 5 years (or something a hell of a lot shorter than 20 years). I don't know, I wasn't there and I'm not a legal expert. But this agreement is now why the current Cubs have their hands tied when trying to renovate the ballpark.
They've cleared all the landmark hurdles, but the revenue-driving signage and jumbotron that will help pay for the non-revenue driving (but essential) changes are in potential violation of that agreement that doesn't expire until 2024.
So this is the Cubs' own damn fault, right? Well, yeah, pretty much, with a helping hand from Daley who helped put them in a position of angst where that deal seemed like a good idea.
But here is the thing, and I've said it before and I will keep saying it until I am blue in the face: The Cubs have a FINITE amount of time where playing at Wrigley Field is viable, from both an economic and safety perspective.
SOMETHING has to change. The Cubs can not compete like a large market team without the revenues that every other baseball team in the world has access to. The Cubs can not compete while asking their players to use equipment that is inferior to many NCAA Division III (non-scholarship) athletic facilties. THERE IS STILL SAFETY NETTING BECAUSE OF CONCRETE THAT STARTED CRUMBLING AND FALLING A DECADE AGO.
It. Can. Not. Continue. Like. This.
So, do the rooftops have a very serious case that their agreement is being violated? Yeah, they might (as GBTS has stated in the comments in earlier posts, this is also not crystal clear because it depends on the language of a contract we don't have access to, and depends on how a judge interprets that language). But the thing is, their end game makes the Cubs staying at Wrigley unviable. Their obstruction of the plans means that the Cubs will have NO OTHER CHOICE but to find someplace else to play. It can't continue like this until 2024, and if they somehow win and block the Cubs from making the changes, then they'll be signing their own businesses' death certificates.
It doesn't matter that Cubs fans will be pissed. There will be no other choice.
It doesn't matter that their brand will be damaged by moving away from the iconic Wrigley. There will be no other choice.
It doesn't matter that there has yet to be a real location floated as an option. There will be no other choice.
I don't understand why Cubs fans don't see this and I certainly don't understand why the rooftops don't see this. They seem to be operating under the impression that all they have to do is beat the Cubs in this battle and they can go back to raking in money like always. This isn't the Braves moving out of a 15 year old stadium. Wrigley is 100 years old and can't function in the modern era anymore.
The renovations won't destroy the rooftop businesses. They'll have less of a view than before, but they'll still have a view, and that means they'll still have a business. And if I'm the Cubs, I tell the rooftops that in exchange for dropping all this bullshit and letting the plans go, they can reduce the 17% payments or extend the contract so that further changes won't be permitted. Maybe both.
But for any settlement to actually take hold that doesn't end in more litigation that holds up the changes, the rooftops have to come to their senses and realize that they have no business at all if they force the Cubs to move. Perhaps a boycott of the rooftops and their bars would give them a taste of what life without the Cubs would be like and might prompt some movement. Because I honestly don't think that will ever happen without someone forcing the issue, and the city doesn't seem inclined to do so (Surprise!).
In my opinion, supporting the rooftops is giving financial approval of their methods to hold the Cubs back from becoming a real major market team and that is all I care about. The rooftop owners (legally or not) are willfully pushing the Cubs to a scenario where they will have to vacate Wrigley Field in order to grow as a franchise, and believe it or not, by the time a move would be made, the Cubs will probably be pretty good and people would go to watch them in a dome if it came to it. The Cubs are about 3 years away from serious contention, and if they started on finding an alternate location right now, they could probably move in right around that time frame.
New team, new stadium, new tradition. It brands itself.
The rooftops are destroying the chances of seeing our potential best seasons ever as Cubs fans in the venue we all (mostly) want them to be in when it happens.
So while it may not be "fair" since the Cubs (and Crane Kenney) are major culprits in coming to this point, my choice is to not support the rooftop owners because their end game is the least desirable to me as a Cubs fan.
Things can not continue like this.
The Cubs released more renderings of what they would like Wrigley to look like after the renovations they've been planning for four years are complete. There was nothing earth-shattering. We already knew what a jumbo video board would theoretically look like thanks to amateur fans with Photoshop skills. This version had lights on the top of it. Neat.
Of course, Tom Ricketts spoke optimistically that these plans would eventually come to fruition. He expressed confidence in the work they had already done with Tom Tunney and Rahm Emanuel to hash out the outlines of a plan that could get final approval from the next 800 layers of Chicago government bureaucracy. This presentation was barely any more interesting than any of the other renovation presentations the Cubs have subjected us to over the last four years.
Except for one little Ricketts quote, per the Chicago Tribune:
"I'm not sure how anyone is going to stop the signs in the outfield, but if it comes to the point that we don't have the ability to do what we need to do in our outfield then we're going to have to consider moving. It's as simple as that."
And that is pretty much all anyone has taken from the whole shebang.
The Tribune headline:
Ricketts threatens to move Cubs without OK for Wrigley upgrades
The Sun-Times:
Tom Ricketts threatens to take Cubs and go elsewhere
The Daily Herald:
Cubs chairman threatens to move team from Wrigley Field
ESPN Chicago actually played it cooler:
Cubs may ponder Wrigley exit
But then I saw the URL that indicated a much stronger headline from earlier in the day: http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/9230531/tom-ricketts-chicago-cubs-threatens-leave-wrigley-field-outfield-signage-not-approved
OH MY GOD!! RICKETTS IS A MONSTER!!!
At least, that is the sense most fans are given when, at some point in the day, every single major media outlet covering the Cubs screamed a variation of the word "threaten" to describe Tom Ricketts' quote as they strove to drive traffic to their sites.
But is it really a "threat?" The media seems to want to have you believe it is. And they also seem to think it is an empty one. The collective clucking of the tongues at Tom Ricketts' perceived impudence is almost deafening.
If you're up early Thursday, check me out on CBS This Morning with Charlie Rose and Gayle King talking Cubs and empty threats.
— Gordon Wittenmyer (@GDubCub) May 2, 2013
Threatening to leave Wrigley Field nothing new. Tribune Co. did it all the time trying to get lights.trib.in/ZASyfI
— Paul Sullivan (@PWSullivan) May 2, 2013
Once again, Ricketts overplays his hand. He'll move Cubs the same day he extends Soriano's contract.
— Gene Wojciechowski (@GenoEspn) May 2, 2013
Nothing sillier than threat 2 abandon $ cow, undermine value of franchise & real estate just b/c can't get everything Goldilocks-style #Cubs
— Christina Kahrl (@ChristinaKahrl) May 2, 2013
Tack on about a billion similar tweets from riled-up fans, and the consensus is that the Earth will plunge into the sun before the Cubs would EVER leave Wrigley.
The problem is that Wrigley won't exist forever. There is a time coming when Wrigley will eventually start falling apart again and fans will be in physical danger if they set foot in the place. It's almost a certainty. Those nets aren't hanging there as some reminder of the Golden Age of Baseball where all the stadiums had nets to protect fans from falling concrete. As I said in the comments the other day, the place is LITERALLY falling apart. Not figuratively. Actual concrete is actually crumbling. This is not a condition that tends to fix itself over time. Something must be done or somebody will end up getting hurt. And soon.
It is clear the Cubs will not get government funding like many other sports teams have received over the years. You can argue whether that is right or wrong, but no matter your opinion, it isn't an option for the Cubs. Period.
The new plan involves the Cubs paying for it themselves, but then being allowed to run their business like a normal business without a billion roadblocks in their way intended to benefit everyone in the neighborhood but the Cubs. They want a few extra night games and the ability to charge corporations for placing some signs in their ballpark. You know, LIKE EVERY OTHER MAJOR LEAGUE TEAM THAT HAS EVER EXISTED. But nothing about that plan is certain. The rooftops have been talking about suing and you can bank on someone that needs to give approval will hold this up for their own agenda. This is Chicago, afterall, lest we forget.
So Ricketts is confident, but Ricketts is a Cubs fan. He knows what it is like to be five outs away from the World Series with a three-run lead and your ace on the mound and have everything go to hell. So what happens if it does?
What options are left? They can't get government funding and they won't be allowed to do it themselves (and let's not pretend that any owner anywhere would do this deal without having increased revenue streams to make it worth their whiles).
The options left on the table would then be: 1) Stay at Wrigley as is or 2) Move somewhere else.
They can only stay at Wrigley for so long. Meanwhile it will continue to be a dump for their players (a point that will be even more blatant when they start training in their state-of-the-art facility in Mesa, Arizona during the Spring) and they'll continue to be handcuffed by shitty advertising and TV revenues because nothing will have changed from the way it is today. Hooray. What a lovely option.
Seriously, the Cubs get pounded left and right for not acting like a "major market" team, but they aren't one. Not anymore. The scope of the game's economics has changed and selling 3 million tickets a year doesn't automatically put you in the "major market" class.
Don't get me wrong, the team will get better than what they're putting out there now. They almost have to be once they restock the farm system at all the levels, but what sold Ricketts and a large portion of fans on the rebuild was that the Cubs would rebuild a core "the right way" and then use their significant financial muscles to add on where other teams in the division won't be able to afford to. Except now, the Cubs' financial muscles will be flabby and they won't be able to lift a wallet much better than what the Cardinals can do. That's a nice step forward as an organization, but I personally want to beat the fucking Cardinals. Regularly.
And even if that is all doom and gloom, how many years do we think Wrigley has left in it? Like I said, it is already literally falling apart. I shudder to think what some of the support structures might look like in the places of the stadium we don't see. Wrigley has a finite amount of time left and I'm of the opinion that time period is a lot shorter than anybody really wants to admit. The reason the price tag on this renovation is $500 million is because they aren't just slapping a coat of paint on it and calling it renovated. They'll be replacing or stabilizing key parts of the structure as well as digging out entire new areas under existing structures that were built on the understanding that solid ground would be below. That's going to take additional reinforcement. That gets expensive.
The only other stadium besides Fenway I could think of that was in a similar situation to Wrigley was Tiger Stadium. It was a beloved stadium that many Tigers fans still sorely miss, but the Tigers moved instead of renovating. I got to wondering why. I found out through my Google machine that they had a couple of plans that would have been cheaper than the $300 million they ended up spending on Comerica Park.
One was the Cochrane Plan for an estimated $26 million:
The Tiger Stadium Fan Club, which claims 12,000 members, last year presented the lower-budget Cochrane Plan to the Tigers. The plan would:
- Leave the first and second decks unchanged, including view-obstructing posts in front of some seats.
- Build a third deck that would add 73 luxury suites.
- Expand clubhouse, concession, rest room and office space.
That doesn't seem to address many structural issues. It sounds like they were just going to tack on a third deck onto an almost 100-year old stadium, so that doesn't sound overly sound to me and probably would have ended up costing a lot more than the $26 million estimated price tag.
A second renovation plan, proposed by Ann Arbor contractor Joe O'Neal and Birmingham architect Gunnar Birkerts, would cost $70 million-$95 million. Without interrupting play at the ballpark, that plan over three to four years would:
- Remove all the support posts.
- Expand concessions and restrooms.
- Add a 400-seat stadium club and 200 luxury boxes.
This sounds closer to what the Cubs are planning, but it still doesn't involve changing the footprint of the stadium as the Cubs' does, nor does it involve digging under the existing structure and field.
At the end of the day, both plans seemed more or less like putting lipstick on a pig. They would be extending the use of the stadium for a few years through those changes, but eventually Tiger Stadium would fundamentally fail as old structures tend to do. Maybe that is why the Tigers ultimately didn't go that route. I'm sure the public funding of the new stadium, combined with the neighborhood around Tiger Stadium crumbling around it played into that decision as well.
But from what I'm seeing, it didn't look like there was a real viable long term plan to stay in Tiger Stadium even if the ownership and the city had been interested in doing so. Hence, they moved.
Likewise, if the Wrigleyville neighbors or greedy politicians submarine the latest plan to stay at Wrigley, I don't see any more long-term options for Wrigley Field. This is not Tom Ricketts necessarily saying he desires to take his ball and go home. He's saying that's what's left if this plan doesn't come together.
Everybody saying the Cubs moving would lose the loyalty of thousands of fans is correct. Finding a long-term viable solution to stay in Wrigley is the best solution for all the parties involved. But if that option is closed down, then what's left? Moving elsewhere. It's the only option that would be left on the table. It's not a threat. It's a fact.
Since writing most of this, the voice of the rooftops, Beth Murphy, has expressed optimism that maybe the Cubs and the rooftops can live happily ever after. Per Paul Sullivan:
“I think we’re at a point in the process where we’re just going to have to work out the details (of the plan),” Murphy said. “I no longer believe the Cubs want to block us. I wasn’t sure before, but I no longer believe that. I truly am optimistic they want to work this out.”
I don't know what Crane said or did to elicit that kind of quote from Murphy, but that right there may be the most productive thing he has ever done in his tenure with the Cubs. This is probably on par with if Alex Gonzalez had actually managed to turn that double play ball.
I'm not celebrating a done deal yet, but if she holds with this attitude (assuming the rest of the rooftops are also likewise impressed with Crane Kenny's… um… sincerity), this goes a long way to avoiding the doomsday scenario where the Cubs actually would have to start looking at other locations.
When the Ricketts family first took over the Cubs, some of the first words out of their mouths were expressions of unbridled love of Wrigley Field. They were going to win and they were going to win in Wrigley Field. That was their story. Tom went around telling anybody who would listen that he once lived across the street from Wrigley. He skipped classes at University of Chicago to attend games, ultimately ending up taking five years to graduate as a result. He met his wife in the Wrigley bleachers.
The love Tom Ricketts felt for Wrigley was almost unnatural. I think part of the reason Joe and Pete so vehemently oppose gay marriage is that they fear the slippery slope that would eventually allow Tom to divorce his wife and marry Wrigley Field.
Around these parts, we criticized this because it essentially removed all leverage the family had in negotiating with the city. They would ask for public funds. The city said no. They asked again and almost had a deal, then Joe fucked everything up with his Super PAC and hate of the President, who was coincidentally the Mayor's buddy.
Then the Cubs came out and said they'd pay for the whole thing themselves on the condition that they be allowed some wiggle room on the restrictions placed on it by city ordinances and landmark designations that turn every remodel of a urinal trough into a six month ordeal of community meetings and posturing in the media. Shockingly, the idea was met with scorn by Wrigley's neighbors and Tom Tunney, who tore himself away from counting the money in his pockets from the rooftop owners long enough to tell the Cubs to just replace the manual scoreboard with a videoboard if they want one that badly.
It was a Sisyphean ordeal all because there was never really an alternative for the Cubs. Rosemont offered them a crappy piece of land that nobody wants because it's practically on an O'Hare runway, so that wasn't ever really an option. So the Cubs were negotiating with people who basically kept poking them in the chest, kicking sand in their face, and asking, "What are you gonna do about it?"
So the agreement announced late last night that the Cubs and the City of Chicago have come to an agreement to allow the Cubs to spend $500 million of their own money on the crumbling ballpark is something of a minor miracle. Somewhere along the line, the city moved a bit, the Cubs moved a bit and they all ended up shaking hands with each other. And it only took three and a half years to add a couple of signs and a few more night games. Progress!
The agreement allows a number of changes that will help the Cubs separate us from even more of our money in the near future, per Carrie Muskat:
This is good news for the organization. It will allow them to sell their TV rights for more money when they get to that point because night games are more valuable. They'll hopefully have more space within the park to add some decent food and beverage options. As of right now, the closest thing to craft beer that they carry is Bud Light Lime-a-Ritas and Labatt's Blue (it's Canadian!). At least they aren't trying to call those "craft" beer like some teams. *cough* Yankees! *cough*
So while we will eventually be forking over larger amounts of our money to the Cubs, this allows them to sink the millions they need to into renovating the player facilities to bring them at least into the 20th century of modernization. It also provides them with the revenue capable of sustaining a larger payroll in the event they ever have players that actually require larger salaries.
So though I may be snarky about it because it is the Cubs and they have always shown an amazing capacity to fuck things up for themselves, this is a good day to be a Cubs fan. Finally.
The full approved proposal can be found here.
Tom Ricketts will hold a press conference today at 11:00am. Live streaming here.
I recently stopped in at a local dive called Ritz Klub in Michigan City, Indiana. I had heard their burgers were the best thing ever to happen to dead cattle, so I had to see for myself. I had also heard the place was something short of a spectacle for the eyes, and I love a place that’s not too fancy.
Trust me, Ritz Klub is not too fancy.
This wasn’t a hole in the wall; it was a rented-out nook in the far dark corner of a hole in the wall. It smelled like beer and grease with faint wispy reminders of an age when smoking wasn’t merely legal but practically mandatory in such establishments. Smaller than some walk-in closets, the room was shabbily divided into four quadrants: the seating area, the pool table, the jukebox, and the bar.
No two of the 7 or 8 tables in the place were alike. They may very well have been the remnants of 7 or 8 different cafeteria fire sales. My friend and I sat down at the one in front of the two giant tanks of carbon dioxide. We weren’t handed menus. They were printed on a half-sheet of paper (one side) mounted in a clear plastic tabletopper. Burgers. Three varieties of fries. A couple options nobody ever orders. That’s your menu.
The pool table was small. The jukebox was gargantuan. The bar sat about eight, and six of the stools were occupied. Before our arrival, the rest of the less-than-cavernous environs was deserted.
The lighting was extremely dim except for the overpowering glow of a few really nice widescreen TVs mounted around the place. Clearly the primary investments poured into this place over the last decade were for entertainment purposes.
This was a place where you come to watch the game. They’ll even give you the remote to the screen nearest you.
“They” are a brother and sister team who run the place. Sam works behind the bar, serving up colossal steins of beer and half-pound (at least) cheeseburgers on toasted sesame-seed buns. No joke, they serve a 5-WAR burger. The sister comprises the entire wait staff. I assume her name is Margaret . . . because she really looks like a Margaret. She needed a full two minutes to examine my ID under the glow of the lamp in a nearby popcorn machine, even though all I drank was a Pepsi. She’s really cute in a way only Margarets can pull off.
But the raison d’être of this joint is the bar and its assorted viewing options. And that’s really the raison d’être of this post: the phenomenon that took place there during my visit (and, I presume, the one that takes place just about every night).
The men sitting at the bar came to watch the White Sox game. Or they came to commiserate, and the game gave them an excuse to stay for three hours. They sat together and barked at the screen. When Hawk uttered his catchphrases, these six Sox fans recited them in unison (He gone!). When the Orioles started breaking out against Jake Peavy and the Sox bullpen, these guys filled Hawk’s long, frustrated silences with wisecracks and red-blooded advice (Hit ’em. Open up a can of whoop ass. Whoop ass! Whoop ass!). And during commercials, they’d pass the time with political analysis (I heard that if Obama gets reelected, the Amish are gonna move to Canada).
It was fantastic. It made me think of that question Aisley asked earlier: What does it take to get White Sox fans to the ballpark? The answer seemed so clear. No, not “a designated driver” or “the short bus.” For Sox fans to go to the game, it has to make more sense for them to go instead of hanging out with each other in front of the big screen and cheap beer.
And really, that’s not all that different from the reasoning of Cubs fans. We just tend to hang out at a much more expensive bar.
And let’s be honest, at it’s best, Wrigley was a family-friendly bar. In the ’70s, the cover charge was a quarter. In the ’80s, when I first started attending games as a kid, there wasn’t a single time I didn’t have to (get to?) pass a couple rounds of beer along my row at least every other inning. Ever since, the atmosphere of the place has fluctuated between frat house and upscale(ish) pub.
Wrigley and the Cell have both raised their cover charges inordinately. Cubs fans still flock to the Northside dive in droves, but most Sox fans (and, let’s be honest, a ton of Cubs fans) seem to recognize with greater consistency that the ambience, thrill, and camaraderie can be replicated elsewhere.
But this post isn’t really about attendance. This is a post about us, the fans. We the people, I guess. The teams we watch are the excuses we use to come together as friends, especially if we’re uncomfortable considering each other friends.
Take this blog, for example. Commenters drop by when there are a lot of others joining in the discussion, not necessarily when there’s a game on. The Cubscentric posts are basically a front to excuse discussion about anything. (Side note: the tagline for this site could easily be “A Cubscentric Circle of Hell.”) Cubs news draws more of us out of our holes, but the range of topics covered in this site’s comments is broader and more diverse than my Facebook feed ever is. The Cubs are our excuse for showing up so we don’t ever have to admit that we really just like each other. And please, don’t. I don’t want this to get awkward.
My point, if I even have one, is that it’s nice to have a place to get together and converse without taking ourselves too damn seriously. But, at the risk of taking this too damn seriously, it’s pretty cool to have a place to go where everybody knows your fake name.
Aisle 424 wrote last week about the paucity of fans at U.S. Cellular at the conclusion of the White Sox' sweep of the Yankees, and it got me to thinking. It got me to thinking so much I actually used the word paucity in a sentence. But mostly it made me ponder the possibility of the same thing eventually happening to the Cubs. Sure, in this current epoch of unconditional attendance (or at least ticket purchasing) by the Wrigley faithful and word-of-the-day Cubs blogging by yours truly, it doesn't seem like a remote possibility that a good Cubs team would ever have such a difficult time putting blue-bleeding butts in the bleachers.(Sorry, that expression is completely gross, but I'm keeping it.) But over time, it's a real possibility.
If Cubs fans lost interest one by disappointed one, if the market for witnessing baseball melancholy gradually dried out, if you, dear reader, became the first domino in a chain of secession from Cubdom . . . the Cubs could eventually become unpopular. What I want to know is, what would it take?
What would have to happen to make you stop attending Cubs games altogether? I'm not saying you'd abandon all hope and start cheering for the Expos to make a comeback, I'm just asking, what would it take to make you so disinterested in watching Cubs baseball live that you wouldn't even go to a game in which their Cy-Young caliber pitcher had a chance to lead the sweep of the best team in the league? Let's face it, that's pretty much the pinnacle of attendance apathy.
I know some of the OV regulars have no interest in attending as it is. But if you are among the throng of willing participants in the conga line through the Wrigley turnstiles, what would it take to get you to hang up your . . . conga shoes? Here are some possibilities.
Maybe it's the rising ticket prices that could dissuade you from buying tickets. That would make sense. The Cubs are a bad baseball team charging really-good-team prices to watch them play bad baseball. But if cost is going to be the predominant factor in turning Cubs fans away, the Cubs would have to be absolutely obstinate about keeping prices high. For whatever reason, a lot of people are still investing a lot of money in buying tickets to Cubs games, and if that trend is declining, it's doing so slower than a Joe Mather curveball.
I'm laughing loudly at the idea of the Cubs collapsing. What's to collapse? It's not like the Cubs are a house of cards waiting to fall. They're a house of card. But I'm using C-words here, so deal with it. If the Cubs stay really bad for a really long time (and who among the living and reasonably sane doesn't think that could happen?), interest will wane. Judging by the current market, they'd have to continue losing, uninterrupted by success, for the better part of a decade. That can be tough. You never know when even an ineptly run team might accidentally be good for awhile, so the Thoyer Super Friends brain trust would have to thoroughly disappoint to sustain the current tidal wave of suck. I'm not saying it isn't a possibility, but the inertia of Cubs fans' loyalty doesn't seem to allow for a mass exodus due to bad baseball anytime soon.
Let's not forget that the White Sox are less than seven years removed from their last World Series parade. If the same thing happened to the Cubs, is it possible that fans would stop coming to Wrigley? Cubs fans could tune out the way Moonlighting fans did after David slept with Maddie. Once the seemingly endless chase for success finally comes to an end, maybe that could be the ironic last straw for fans just looking for a reason not to come to the ballpark anymore? Maybe Cubs fans only want what they can't have. Maybe . . . heh, shit, come on. This would never happen.
This is has been a really, really boring team to watch. Maybe people for whom the novelty of new prospects playing at the major league level has become tiresome will actually slip into a state of prolonged unconsciousness. That might physically prevent fans from attending games at Wrigley, but it would, ironically, be just the thing to make the endeavor bearable.
This is the one I'd be most interested in feedback on. What if the Ricketts finally approved and implemented serious changes to Wrigley Field? Or maybe they blow up Wrigley altogether and start from scratch. What level of change would it take to kill your interest in coming? Replacing the troughs with civilized urinals? Cutting off beer sales in the top of the third inning? Orange shag carpeting in the mezzanine suites? Or, perish the thought, replacing the Wrigley scoreboard with a gigantic jumbotron that merely simulated the old-fashioned hand-operated scoreboard? Seriously, what change at Wrigley would keep you from ever returning?
Really. They are the Cubs. If there's one thing they can do, you'd think it would be getting people to stop coming. Somehow they're failing even at that.
What the hell is wrong with us?
I love Wrigley Field. I love watching games there. I love that it is nestled into the neighborhood and it has become the focal point of the local businesses in the area. I love the absence of a scoreboard that doesn’t tell me when to cheer. I love the minimal advertising that assaults my eyes when watching a game.
People think because I don’t want to ignore the falling concrete, the rapidly aging support beams, the perpetual smell of urine, and the inability to move around the park without experiencing gridlock that makes all but the worst rush hour traffic the Kennedy has to offer seem tame by comparison, means that I hate Wrigley Field. I don’t. I wouldn’t have spent fifty or so games per year for thirteen straight seasons there if I hated it.
But there comes a time when people have to start being honest with themselves and what kind of viability Wrigley Field has left. It’s kind of like trying to decide when a beloved pet nears the end of its life.
My cat is approaching 17 years old. He’s an old cat. He doesn’t jump and play with string anymore. He is the only cat I have ever seen that has grown bored with chasing the laser beam. I have no idea how he can possibly sleep more than he did when he was a young cat, but he does. Sometimes he loses his balance and falls off the couch. He’s an old cat and he has been a companion of mine for basically his entire life (and almost half of mine), but I have no false hopes that he’ll be around forever. At some point, as his health eventually will fail, him being around will be more for my enjoyment than his. I’m not looking forward to that day.
Wrigley is an old ballpark. It can’t keep up with modern stadiums in revenue generation. It is restricted by neighborhood zoning and its landmark status from adding advertisements. Its scoreboard doesn’t provide much beyond the most basic stats that modern fans want to know. Sometimes pieces of it fall off. It is nearing the end of its life and I’m not looking forward to that day either.
While we, as fans, are willing to look past many of Wrigley’s problems because we love the view so much, we ignore how Wrigley Field is currently hurting the Cubs. They have to spend millions per year just in general upkeep to prevent more of it from breaking off than already does. They still haven’t removed the netting that was put in place in 2004 to catch pieces that broke off. You don’t think that if they had fixed it adequately enough to the point where they were 100% sure more wouldn’t break off that those nets would still be there, do you? They are constant and blatant reminders of the park’s age and fragility. They would not be there if the Cubs weren’t worried that they might be necessary.
The facilities are a joke. Take the Wrigley tour if you don’t believe me. The Cubs home locker room is barely on par with my Division III school’s facilities, and we are dead last in our conference as far as athletic amenities. I’ll say that again. The Cubs are struggling to keep up with facilities that are years behind current NCAA Division III facilities.
So they are at a competitive disadvantage from a monetary standpoint and from a preparation standpoint simply because Wrigley Field is old. So why not fix it?
Because the Rickett’s plan to revamp the stadium and dig under the field to increase the players’ facilities is already ballparked at costing $500 million. Would there be anyone shocked if the price tag eventually crept up into the $750 million or even $1 BILLION range? We’re talking about wholesale replacement of foundational supports and girders that are essentially orginal parts of the ballpark. That ain’t going to be cheap. It would almost necessitate shutting down at least parts of the stadium to accomplish, and that is going to cost the team revenue that it can’t spare because it is already in violation of MLB’s debt ratio policies. Where is this money going to come from? The bankrupt state of Illinois?
All the while, the expectation of a good part of the fanbase is that the Cubs maintain a competitive payroll, increase the scouting and development budget, spend their own money to preserve all the parts of the stadium that they love while increasing the amenities, and not raising ticket prices along the way. They would also like a solid gold house and a rocket car.
This would be like asking my cat to climb to the top of the refridgerator to be able to get to his food and water, making him learn to use a doorknob to get to his litterbox, and then using the pooper scooper all on his own.
I simply don’t see how all of the necessary renovations can be made while simultaeously keeping them in the park to keep the revenues stable, keeping ticket prices down, maintaining a seriously competitive team on the field, and not taking money for signage or naming rights. I also don’t see how acknowledging this makes us less of a baseball or Cubs fan.
I will enjoy the time I have left with Schultz for as long as possible. For as long as he wants to curl up on my lap, try to pretend like he’s invisible as he “sneaks” towards my pizza, or headbutts me in the face when he wants me to scratch him behind the ears, I’ll be happy to have him around.
Likewise, I’ll go to Wrigley and enjoy the ivy. I’ll take in the sun and the atmosphere and love every minute I’m there as a getaway from the hum drum of actual life. I’ll continue to hope and pray that somehow, the Cubs can exceed expectations for once while they reside in the park so that we can enjoy a World Series in that building.
But when Schultz gets sick and can’t maintain his health, we’ll have a decision to make, and I hope I am strong enough to make the one that isn’t based on my own selfish desires.
Wrigley is sick. Demanding that the Cubs spend enormous time, energy, and money on something that is probably beyond realistic hope of saving is selfish on our part and it only hurts the Cubs’ abilities to move forward in the new reality of major league baseball.
Do we have the strength to say goodbye when it comes time? I hope so.
Continue reading “Sometimes You Have to Learn to Say Goodbye to Those You Love”
Today, I happened upon a site looking at how well you would do historically if you bet on the Cubs regularly.
Obviously, (and I don’t think we needed actual data to convince us of this) the result of such betting would have been bad. Not Oh-Darn-I-Guess-I-Won’t-Be-Able-to-Buy-That-iPad-Now bad, but more like Holy-Shit-I’m-Now-Homeless bad.
I don’t fully understand how lost “units” are calculated in this post, but I don’t think you have to understand the math behind it to catch the drift of what they are getting at:
The Cubs are down a staggering 173.34 units since 2000. I don’t think any other team is down even 100 units during the same stretch. Keep in mind: this is a team that has made the playoffs multiple times during the 2000s.
Is there a reason for this? Yes, at least I think there is. The Cubs, much like this season, have always managed to hold their own on the road. But they get crushed at home, primarily because oddsmakers give Wrigley Field way too much credit. The Cubs are 9-13 at home this year but are already down 6.37 units.
Three times since 2000, the Cubs were profitable on the road even when they lost 10 or more units in a season at home. Seven times the Cubs have lost more money at home than they did on the road.
Total units lost since 2000:
On the road: -44.59
At home: -123.18
Keep in mind that they said that no other team has lost even 100 units overall in that time period and the Cubs lost over 123 just at Wrigley. Holy. Shit.
But what is causing this? Are oddsmakers using an assumption on “homefield advantage” that simply doesn’t exist at Wrigley? Is it because Cubs fans bet on the team no matter what so the oddsmakers know it and set the odds even more in their favor compared to true odds? Maybe a combination of the two?
It’s kind of fascinating and something that could really only happen to the Cubs. We’ll just throw this onto the pile of the ever-growing list of reasons that maybe the Cubs would be better off just tearing down Wrigley Field and starting over.
I had the opportunity to take in a ballgame at AT&T Park in San Francisco on Friday so I thought I would put it up against Wrigley to see how it compares. Of course, I have one game experience at AT&T and hundreds at Wrigley, so this is not intended to be the final word in comparisons. I’d welcome any additional viewpoints in the comments
Almost everybody I dealt with at AT&T was very friendly and courteous. The concessions people were very nice, answered questions politely and moved the lines along pretty quickly. Most of my interactions with concessions was on the Club Level, so I would expect the service to be better there, but I also had an opportunity to get food in the lower level and bleacher area and the service was just as good there.
The ushers held up people from entering aisles when a batter was in the batters box. Again, this was in the club level so I don’t know if that is standard in the rest of the ballpark, but I thought it was a nice touch. We were warmly greeted upon entering and also upon leaving. One woman usher gave me a high-five as we went out after the Giants had won on a walk-off single by Freddy Sanchez.
The one weird, off-putting event was in the bleacher area. We walked out to the Standing Room area behind the right-field bleachers right above McCovey Cove for the last inning and found a gap where we could see through all of the people standing in front of us (the game was exciting so everyone was on their feet). A security guard told us we had to move back away from the bleachers, so we did, and then immediately a bunch of teenagers moved into the spot we had just been with no word from security. It was very weird and seemed unnecessary, but we just moved on to another spot where we actually had a better view of the game-winning hit, so it worked out.
I have complained for years that the Cubs’ customer service is atrocious when considering how much money they take from us on a yearly basis while usually providing an inferior product on the field. Based on my small sample-size I can’t think of a single area where the Cubs do something better to serve their fans than the Giants do and they just won the World Series, so if anyone could take fans for granted, it should be the Giants and not the Cubs. The Ricketts have made vast improvements in this area, but visiting AT&T highlights how wide the gap still is.
I had a screen shot of a personalized thank you e-mail we received from the Giants, but I can’t get the photo to work and I’m on my way out the door so you’ll just have to take my word for it.
I’m fairly certain the Cubs don’t do anything like this for their ticket purchasers.
This isn’t even close. If we were to liken this to comparing players’ baseball skills, AT&T is like Albert Pujols and Wrigley Field is Koyie Hill.
I stuck mostly with staples so I could compare apples to apples and hot dogs to hot dogs. The hotdogs were about the same as what you’d find, but the buns were fresh. Again, this was one time and maybe I just got lucky, but my odds of finding a hot dog with a bun that isn’t too stale or too soggy is about 50%. We got two hot dogs at AT&T and they were both good quality.
The nachos were drenched in cheese and jalapenos, and they weren’t the lowest quality chips or cheese either. The only dissapointment was that we ran out of chips before running out of cheese and we opted not to lick the container. They also had a higher grade nachos available with beans, guac, sour cream and chili available which looked really good if you like all those extras.
I’ve always liked Wrigley’s nachos, but I never really realized how much better simple cheese and chips with jalapenos could be.
Then there was the options. Oh my lord, the options. Crab sandwiches. Garlic fries (I ate plenty of garlic fries in San Fran, so I opted not to get them at the ballpark). Something called a cha-cha, which I’m informed is a Jamaican dish. They had vendors selling hot chocolate straight out of a thermal dispenser backpack that included a dollop of whipped cream, if you so desired. Think about that the next time you get a tepid chocolate at Wrigley. They had churro vendors coming around with the sticks of cinammon sugary goodness. I could go on, but you get the picture.
I know Wrigley has tried to get better with the food options, but again, AT&T just highlights how little bang a fan at Wrigley gets for his or her buck.
The last snack I got was a simple bag of cinnamon-sugar candied almonds. I love those things and it seems like most minor league ballparks have them available. As far as I know, they aren’t at Wrigley yet despite needing very little room to operate. This is a crying shame, in my opinion.
The fans, for the most part, at AT&T seemed very interested in the game itself. They watched the game and had opinions on just about all the players. They seem to hate Miguel Tejada and Mike Fontenot is gaining popularity (he helped himself there with a triple into the gap to get the Giants on the board). Of course, Buster Posey is the main man in the lineup and in the Giants’ fans’ hearts. I would assume only Lincecum would come close to Buster, but I didn’t have the pleasure of seeing him pitch.
Just about everyone was wearing orange and black and the tone throughout the game was extremely hopeful despite getting no-hit by Ubaldo Jimenez through the first 5 innings and falling back 3-0 early on. Every walk or single was greeted with a big cheer as the start of a potential rally. When they actually came back to tie the game in the 8th and win it on a walk-off single in the 9th, the place went crazy.
I tweeted in the 9th that it was strange being in a stadium not filled with an impending sense of doom when things didn’t go exactly right. I guess winning a World Series is good for a healthy sense of optimism.
The bleachers reminded me of the days in Wrigley before the prices went through the roof. Those are decent enough seats, but they aren’t prime and they aren’t priced like prime seats. So it was an interesting mix of demographics with limited budgets. The roving bands of teens were annoying, but they were mostly hanging out in the back of the bleacher area so if we had actual tickets to those seats, I don’t think they would have been a problem.
Up in the club level, there were few blatant businessmen who were only there to entertain clients. They may have been, but if so, they were better at blending into the fan atmosphere than the folks who try to impress clients with seats at Wrigley. I didn’t notice many people on their phones. In fact, Kris and I were probably on the most as we tweeted periodically throughout the game.
Fans are fans, and I think the similarities between the two fanbases far outnumber the differences, but overall, I’d say the fans at AT&T were there for the game. I can’t always say that about the Wrigley crowd.
We arrived to AT&T via a ferry from Larkspur across the bay. Not having to deal with game traffic was a huge plus and we got some great views of the city as we came across the bay. I’d recommend it if you’re in the area.
There was also a ferry that docked in McCovey Cove from Oakland, so that is another good option. Not that I recommend spending a ton of time in Oakland. Otherwise, access to the park is pretty good from the city. It’s right near the Bay Bridge so car access from across the bay is pretty easy. It’s also far enough from the Wharf and other touristy areas that I imagine knowledgeable drivers can get there from the city itself without a ton of problems, but I didn’t do it so I don’t know how it actually works for drivers.
Once in the park, we had a hell of a time finding the Club Level. It is possible we are just dense and missed the signage, but I never saw a single sign pointing the way to the 200 level. We figured it out and discovered the memorabilia area in the Club section that is pretty cool. Lots of autographed balls and bats, plus other stuff from Giants’s history. We didn’t have time to spend in there, but I’d definitely go back to check it out further.
Obviously, taking a boat to Wrigley isn’t an option, but the location right off the Red Line and having the Brown Line within easy walking distance is a huge plus. I’d never want to drive to Wrigley for a night game either since you can’t park anywhere near the ballpark without paying a crapload of money to someone (whether its a private garage owner or the team).
I always thought the signage in Wrigley Field was pretty good too. It’s been a long time since I didn’t know exactly where I was going in there, but I don’t remember ever having a problem finding my way around. So Wrigley has a bit of an edge there, from my experience.
AT&T Park is beautiful. There is no getting around it. The location gives great views of the Bay, the architecture is classic yet modern, and they did a phenomenal job of getting advertising all over the park without beating you to death with it.
The scoreboard and outfield area is the most heavily advertised and I just didn’t seem to mind it. This photo doesn’t even include the giant Coke bottle behind the left field bleachers.
Wrigley is still tops in my book from the inside, but it isn’t a runaway and I’d be thrilled if Wrigley was re-done to include the modern features like this that allows for added revenue without distracting from the beauty of the game.
From the outside, AT&T has Wrigley beat. The brick facades are fantastic and the surrounding area is very nice and inviting. For all of the charm of Wrigleyville, it isn’t pretty to look at and we’ve been over how dumpy the outside of the stadium is.
The day started off great because it was the first homegame since Willie Mays’ 80th birthday, so there was a nice pre-game birthday party for Willie including video testimonials from former teammates, colleagues, and celebrities ending in the park singing Happy Birthday. It was fantastic to see one of the best players of all-time, even if he was just sitting in a chair taking it all in. Throughout the game, we were treated to various highlights from the career of the Say Hey Kid. It was all very well done and Willie seems genuinely touched.
Unfortunately, we didn’t arrive soon enough to get the Mays statue or the orange and black birthday hats they passed out to the fans, but it was still cool.
Any game that ends in a walk-off win is great, and it still baffles me how the Giants are doing it. Pitching obviously, but Cain started off a little rough and dug the 3-0 hole that the climbed out of in the later innings. Nate Shierholtz tied it with a 2-run, 2-out single in the 8th, and Freddy Sanchez got the walk-off single to drive in Cody Ross who had led off the 9th with a pinch double. Who are these freakin’ guys?
I really enjoyed the experience at AT&T. It was nice seeing a couple of good teams in a well-played game. It was nice having room to roam in the corridors of the ballpark. It was really nice to be treated pleasantly by the stadium staff.
I still love Wrigley and the feeling of watching my favorite team when they win, but if I removed my personal bias, I’d have to say AT&T is the superior ballpark and the fan experience is far superior. I’d really like to go back again.
I am one of the people who would be upset if the Cubs moved out of Wrigley Field. As much as I bitch about the crowded walkways and the lack of decent concessions, I would be sad if they had to move. I think that puts me in a minority in this particular corner of the Cubs blogosphere.
I enjoy having a minimum amount of ads smacking me in the face as I watch a baseball game. I like not being told when to clap by a giant video scoreboard. I love the view from my seat of the surrounding neighborhood, and I think it is cool that people are so interested in what’s going on that they pay exhorbitant amounts to sit on rooftops across the street.
However, if there is one thing I could give a damn about in the current version of Wrigley Field is its exterior. The exterior of Wrigley Field is ugly, and crumbling, and just plain disgusting. There is nothing quaint about the chain-link fences surrounding the inner walkways. There is no architectural wonder in the concrete slabs on the exterior with the occasional tiny window that look out onto the abandoned triangle parcel that serves as a makeshift parking lot.
With the exception of the iconic marquee, the beauty of Wrigley Field is entirely on the inside. So this is why I don’t understand why people get upset when the Cubs try to improve the exterior.
I happened to catch a post over at The Wrigley Blog that shows the Cubs putting in LED lights above the ticket windows on Clark and Addison.
It chaps my hide to report that they have added bright Red neon over each of the ticket windows. (Lord knows, they want you to really know that they are OPEN and have plenty of tickets available). And they have also added some sort of e-lectronic message board. My grandson tells me they are LEDs and let me tell ya, they are about 10 times as bright as the glorious neon lit Marquee.
Lord help us.
I just don’t get the angst. So the Cubs want to improve customer service by putting up a system that gives them more options than signs that read simply “OPEN.” So what? Does this distract anyone from enjoying the game? No. There isn’t much short of a mortar attack that can make the exterior of Wrigley uglier, so I don’t see the problem.
From my perspective, if the aesthetics of the lights above the ticket windows were the biggest problem facing the Cubs, I would be thrilled to death. I just don’t get it.
Continue reading “Wrigley Field is Not Beautiful From the Outside”
