On point. :D

HAHA, this is hilarious. Note that this is kind of NSFW for a few seconds, but pretty fucking funny. The comment about "can't wait to interact with the kids" couldn't have come at the wrong time

http://deadspin.com/comcast-sportsne...ium=socialflow

The Ricketts inherited a team loaded with many brutal contracts and a poor farm system. So he hired one of the most highly regarded GMs in the game to change the organization. Wirtz inherited a team about to bear the fruits of being brutal for a decade.

Plus, the NHL has a very restrictive salary cap, so being one of the highest salary teams in the NHL means little. Pushing out Dale Tallon in favor of Bowman was a bold move though, as was hiring Epstein instead of just overpaying for more free agents soon to be on the decline of their careers.

Yep, they have bad taste. But I can't say United Center's additions like the garish 'Madhouse on Madison' sign they hung up, the removal of prime 300 level seats (affordable seats) for 2 bars serving $8.50 beers and $10+ crap cocktails, a practice ice arena that looks like a prison. If the United Center was actually architecturally significant, I'm sure any Wirtz/Reinsdorf developments would be panned as well.

You could say, (many do!) that the Blackhawks do the same, with some of their sentimental commercials the past few years. (The current campaign is much better, however).

I give you TommyHawk. Many hawks fans used to feel the way about the atmosphere at the Stadium, which still held into the United Center. It was old time hockey, lots of organ music, limited high volume rock/rap/pop. Now there is a feathered mascot urging hawks chants and plenty of Donut Races, Kiss Cam, fake volume meters all game long.

If Rocky inherited a team as dysfunctional as the Rickett's, the good will of putting games on TV and reconnecting with a lousy human being like Bobby Hull would have quickly been masked by the Marketing Machine of a McDonough organization. Winning championships helps. But there's certainly grumbling of many long time fans, it's kept in check because the product on the ice cancels out some of the other annoyances of how McDonough runs things.

Fair enough. And I was never trying to suggest that Wrigley, prior to 08 or so, wasn't a tourist filled place. All I was saying is that, when I go to games in the last few years, it seems like everyone around me is there for their first time. Idk, clearly my rant seems absurd to you guys who are older than I am, but gimme a break. Does it really not feel like Ricketts is purposely gearing to the team and Wrigley to the out-of-town market??? I'm really starting to hate the random dude at the airport in Denver saying "oh I love Chicago! Go Cubs!"

And yes, back when I was a kid, the 90s, Chicago was not a very cool place to visit. Our tourism industry then and even in the early 00s consisted of mostly people within driving distance of the city. But today, it's unreal. Chicago seems more popular than ever and on par w say NYC or San Fran as far as national appeal. Am I not allowed to dislike the sudden popularity?

^ Tell you what:

Find another industry that will fill Chicago's hotel rooms and enrich our city coffers so that we can repair potholes, take out the trash, supply water, drain sewage, and run the trains and buses, and I'll let you dislike Chicago's 'sudden popularity'

you're allowed to dislike whatever you want.

i simply take exception to your assertion that chicago's (and in particular wrigley field's) popularity with tourists is some new, all of a sudden thing.

your comments reek of a lack of perspective to me.

Probably true. My comments were emotionally charged and fueled by seeing that sign thing and then the new mascot. I can be a bit of a hysterical poster at times. I'm very aware of that. Sorry, I just love my city. And I love the Cubs despite everything and anything. Call it what you will, but all these changes has me seeing Tom Ricketts as the enemy. And I can't help that. :/

In any event...

Oh how my city has changed. Close to 15 years to clear a revamp of O'hare and going on 4 years for reworking Harry Carry town. Sheep leading the Shepards.

Fuck Tom Ricketts. This is Chicago's team, not some fucking rich Kenilworth asshole from Nebraska's team. God this whole thing infuriates me.

Fuck the roof top owners. Maybe they should buy the team if they are so worried about losing their views.

How exactly is this the fault of the rooftop owners. the CUBS willingly signed a contract with them. if they didnt want to abide by the contract, they shouldnt have entered into it in the first place. hell, forget signing. they created it!

My thoughts exactly. The vitriol directed at the rooftop owners was arguably justifiable the first time around - but now now. They have a contract! Why would they just roll over? If the cubs really want this they have to buy out the rooftops.

When you buy a business, you buy everything; the assets, the liabilities, and the contracts in place. For this billionaire to blame his neighbors for holding up a half-billion dollar improvement is a joke.

^^True that, and I am certainly not carrying water for the Ricketts, but really? It's ALL the Ricketts fault? There is no intransigence on the part of the roof top owners? I was under the impression that there had been significant negotiations between the club and the rooftop owners and it has been the rooftop folks who have junked it up.

Course now, the Ricketts will ride out the contract and then destroy the rooftop owners views completely.

Sounds like Mr. Servo would like the Cubs to adopt the same ownership model as the Packers... ;)

Oh, I definitely think everyone involved is acting like petulant 3 year olds. But ultimately its within the rooftop owners right to block the signage.

I still dont see why any of this is preventing Ricketts from moving ahead with other improvements.

I just wish the team wasn't owned by a fucking carpetbagger Nebraskan. I was always suspicious of this guy. The team should be owned by a Chicagoan. Dollar Tom Ricketts is going to destroy this team. Just watch.

Yeah, never trust a Nebraskan. What do you mean by destroy the team? Do you think they'll start having troubles like not being able to end the season above .500? They might even go 100+ years without a pennant if he does enough damage.

Looks like the rooftops won. From Blair Kamin on Twitter:

Source: https://twitter.com/BlairKamin/statu...31399025852416

Funny. I was thinking more like moving the team out of Chicago. But ^^^ I guess never mind. Idk. We'll see what happens.

:haha:

I was just going to say, how exactly does one 'destroy the Cubs'?

Awesome. This is definitely the better option of two evils.

I was listening to Boers and Bernstein (so take it with a grain of salt) but they brought up an interesting point in that the Cubs have inherent disadvantages in the crappy clubhouse, lesser workout facilities, and most importantly, day games. I am a lifelong fan, but at this point, I think that Wrigley Field itself is a large contributing factor into why the Cubs haven't won a World Series in 105 years. Even though I love the charms of Wrigley Field, and nothing compares to the experience of going to a game there, I feel like unless the stadium is either completely basically torn down and rebuilt or the Cubs move to a new stadium, they will never win the World Series.

I love the Cubs, but honestly, I have never been this disinterested in the team and the sport in general as I have been for the last two years.

Holy non sequitur, Batman! I agree that these are problems, but all these issues are being addressed by Ricketts without tearing down Wrigley.

Is there any reason the Cubs can't upgrade their clubhouse facilities inside of Wrigley? One of the ideas pitched by Ricketts was to build a brand new clubhouse beneath the outfield, which seems like a pretty good idea to me. That frees up space for workout facilities and other amenities for the team too.

There's no good spot for a bullpen, but you can't have everything. Pitchers warming up in left field is a tradition anyway.

Night games will increase this year to 36 with permission to go up to 43. The surrounding blocks are now more commercial than they've ever been, with residents pretty much banished within a 1-block radius of the park. That means fewer people to complain about night games.

I wont go through a full break down why the Cubs fan base is absolutely off their rocker with all of the rooftop/rebuild nonsense, but I will comment on this one tidbit.

The Cubs have played half of their games in the same, slowly evolving conditions for 100 seasons (which until the 1960s, those conditions were league average) and have always used those conditions as an excuse, when it should be an advantage. Who should be more accustom to playing day games? The player who does it 80 times a year or the one who plays 20? Afternoon sun in Right Field a total pain in the ass? Good thing you have played in the same conditions before and know what to do. Need to sac fly the runner in from 3rd? check the flags and see whether you need to hit a play ball to center field or left field. In addition to the never ending advantages, you are playing at HOME. Sleep in your own bed, no travel, short commute, family time, rabid fans.

The problem has always been poor ownership, and a lack of sound management.

Luckily one of those problems has been corrected. The Cubs will field very competitive teams in the near future, it is just a matter of how much of our souls as fans we are willing to let be sold to a billionaire from Nebraska.

Every team should adopt this ownership model. Sports team owners are greedy entitled bastards, every one of them.

Almost every issue in professional sports can be traced back to owners that shit on their cities, their players, their fans, and their traditions. They blackmail governments and taxpayers into surrendering billions of dollars for new stadiums, yet keep all the profit from said investment while shouldering none of the risk. If they don't get the billions on demand, they decamp for another city and leave millions of fans in the lurch. They abuse their players and neglect to inform them of the severe health consequences they often face. Etc.

Haven't seen anything anywhere else about that rooftop agreement.....
Indeed. It seems to many Cubs fans have been duped lately into the excuse making of the Ricketts and Co. As if the reason why the Cubs haven't done what the Red Sox have is because they don't play enough night games or they don't have a blaring jumbo tron bringing in a few extra million dollars per year (a very small drop in the bucket compared to gate receipts and TV deals). A new TV deal in the billions that will be coming in a year and that will allow the Cubs to play big ball with the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox more then some car/beer signage in the outfield could ever come close to. The difference in being competitive depends on this and not stream some kiss cam jumbo tron or even batting cages or more night games (not that I'm personally opposed to either). Now the Cubs have depicted the rooftoppers as the ones who are holding up all the progress of the stadium, neighborhood, and team performance based on some signage and said jumbo tron. It borders on the absurd. The real issue for decades has been the lack of development of farm players, bad scouting and drafting, and at times frugality from the Wrigley's and Tribsters.

I'm all for upgrading the stadium. In fact I think tearing it down from foul to foul pole and building a very modern grandstand is a worthy option to look at. Also development outside the stadium should be welcome but again there the city and ballpark really should demand some better more thoughtful design that is better then a literal mix of Vegas-meets-Disney that Ricketts is offering.

It has never been the grandstands which defines Wrigley (for me) nor is it its best attribute. The outfield sweep though is something extremely unique and dare I say beautiful in regards to sports venues. When I'm watching a game inside Wrigley I feel like I'm not only watching a ball game but taking in Chicago at the same. Why some are so eager to junk it up with a jumbotron and used car signs making the redevelopment of Navy Pier look classy by comparison I'm not sure. Without the outfield vista Wrigley becomes closer to a very run of the mill ballpark losing much of its allure IMO. If done it goes from being a rather typical park with still substandard space and amenities that are still substandard compared to completely new parks. So in fact you get the worst of both worlds with a Ricketts rehab in that it is not completely updated stadium while also losing the uniqueness and "charm" that makes Wrigley Wrigley (the outfield sweep largely). Maybe this seems like an overreaction or over romanticized notion to some non-Cubs fans or even to some Cubs fans who have licked up the Ricketts sob story. However I sincerely think that many would slowly be driven away and take in less games (especially during inevitable hard years) by taking away what I think makes Wrigley special (even if some fans appreciate it only on a subconscious level) which is why I think Ricketts is so short sighted in his plans to deface what is best about Wrigley.

And all this talk about "just leave" the neighborhood by fans is equally idiotic. With a new stadium in Rosemont, Glenview, or Arlington Heights the Cubs are just the Mets, Phillies, or Angles (as opposed to the Yanks, Red Sox, or Dodgers) who have to win 90 games per year in order to draw 3 million and warrant having the 2nd highest ticket prices in baseball. Keeping up the brand (which Wrigley is a MAJOR element of) depends partially on respecting and updating the park the right way which then will warrant them obtaining Yankee/Dodger TV deals and revenues well into the future.
By weaking their brand and appeal of which Wrigley is a MAJOR part). The strength of their brand translates into dollars by way of TV deals, gate receipts, and merchandise sales. That brand has made the Cubs one of the biggest national fan bases (arguably largest outside the Yankees) in the country. A brand and a charismatic stadium that has allowed the Cubs to charge the 2nd highest ticket prices in MLB even during very lean years even during the putrid last five.

The Sox for instance have less brand appeal then the Cubs. This is an inherent disadvantage that translates into loss of revenue which means less dollars to throw at players and compete. If you care about the Cubs then you care about them not making stupid short sighted moves that will lessen their brand appeal. Defacing Wrigley so that it loses its uniqueness and "charm" is one certain way to bring down that brand appeal. If you are the owners or fan who cares deeply about the long standing health of the team then dumbing down the brand should be the last thing you want to do because ultimately it means less money to compete.

This is the most ridiculous nonsense Ive ever heard spouted. These are grown adult men, operating at the pinnacle of human fitness (well OK, debatable), being paid untold millions of dollars to play a child's game for a living. And Im supposed to feel sympathy because, "Oh the clubhouse is a little cramped."

cry. me. a. river. There are players that played in legit dumps 50 years ago and still hold records.

Nicely put.

The only thing I don't agree with is the idea of replacing the grandstand with something new and modern. If they need to replace it with the exact same thing, that's fine. But in no way would I be okay with any kind of 'upgrade' to the grandstand. And really, that's one of my major issues with this entire thing: the notion that the stadium is flawed or lacking in some way. Look, I realize the grandstand itself is falling apart. Replace that with new materials? Fine. But keep it EXACTLY the same.

What really gets me angry is hearing people talk about how the concourse needs 'upgrading'. It doesn't. It's Wrigley. It's not whatever ballpark your (Mr. Transplanted-to-Chicago-for-work-after-college-and-thinks-he-has-the-right-to-weigh-in-on-this-issue-because-he-gets-tickets-from-his-job-and-calls-himself-a-Cubs-fan) out-of-town ass grew up going to. It's old; it's run down; we pee in troughs; but it's where and how we've played baseball on the Northside of Chicago for 100 years now, and it's beautiful. I, personally, don't want anything about it to change. It's bad enough they messed with the bleachers. And aside from taking the grandstand down and replacing it with exact same thing just in new materials, I am opposed to changes... esspecially in the name of 'upgrading', which is a fucking farce.

Regardless of your disdain for players' attitude, it is definitely a factor when they are considering several offers from teams.

The Cubs are already at a huge disadvantage because players don't really see it as a place for championships. The poor player facilities just make it worse.

Really the only thing we can compete on is money (obviously) and history/tradition, but the Yankees, Red Sox, etc have that AND a winning record AND more money.

I respect your idea about the grandstand and I would be OK if they only did minimal structure upgrades on it to make it "safe".

Until the last few years I would have myself have been against making any wholesale changes to the grandstand given that I always liked the whole Wrigley package as it was. However over the last few years I have realized that what makes Wrigley special (to me a least) is much more the outfield rather then grandstand or exterior shell. I mean what on the outside are we preserving. The chainlink fencing? The concrete panels lining the side walk? Other then the marquee itself I don't see much on the outside that needs to be over nostalgic about. And in the grandstand though I do like the configuration of the seats I do think the obstructed views of the I-beams and the overhanging skyboxes is quasi-unacceptable. Also a new single line of skyboxes could be put up of the second deck in a new grandstand. These are real changes and concerns I think that most of the fans would really appreciate but which aren't in the plans to get done. To me making a ballpark "modern" doesn't equate with blasting oversized TV's and advertising signs as it does the Ricketts and some fans. I think a new modern grandstand (think Target Field or some of the new European soccer stadiums) could provide great inspiration for a contrasting grandstand and a historical outfield. That is just my ideal. Of course keep the troughs. :D

I am also very skeptical of owners and their architects who do "retro" parks be they new or restored. Frankly I think its been overdone and the results are not all that impressive in many cases. No doubt one just needs to look at the neo-traditional schlock the Ricketts have planned for their triangle building and hotel as a reason to be fearful of what they would with their ideas of historical interpretation are.

What I have never gotten, is why haven't the Cubs over the years bought all the buildings that have (or could have) rooftop seating?

Why don't they just buy them as they come on the open market? They could set up a couple shell companies that would have agents buying them as they come up for sale? Had they started doing that in the 1980's maybe they would now own the majority of them by now.

The seats could then be sold just like they are inside the stadium. The Cubs get more seats without doing anything to the park itself.

Because in the 80s it was still basically just a few dozen residents with folding chairs and Weber grills. At the time I dont think anyone could have forseen the big business its since morphed into.

The steel frame is really the only notable thing. It just screams Chicago, since the load-bearing steel frame is a Chicago innovation.

The infill panels have changed so much over the years there's nothing to preserve. The renovation plans will restore it to the 1935 appearance (roughly speaking) but they could put in something totally new and I wouldn't care if the steel was still visible. The open feeling is important, though.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/25...idewrigley.png
SBNation

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/01/...-over-rf-sign/ get em :whip:

and heres a perfect example

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BdgsL8kCQAA7FT2.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BdgsL8kCQAA7FT2.jpg:large

Heh. Heh heh heh... :haha:

http://chicago.curbed.com/uploads/cubspark-2-thumb.png

http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...sney-world.php

Would they move to Rosemont already......:yuck:

WTH is that?

I bet Tom Servo is gonna love this!

I'm gonna love it too.

Ughh. Such a wasted opportunity. In fact its worse then that. Its truly the bringing of schlocky 1990's Navy Pier re-design plopped down in perhaps the most important tourist zone outside of downtown. Truly Vegas meets Disney......

And I hate the stupid Rosemont crack was made in jest. Because if you have any love of the city or the Cubs you would grasp what reactionary folly that would be to get up and move to Rosemont.

It was a joke made out of frustration, take it as such and move on. Everyone understands what a loss the Cubs would be to the City of Chicago and Wrigleyville. I personally want neither the Cubs to leave nor this proposal to come to fruition.

Yaaaaay!!! Let's turn Chicago into Disneyland! Fun for the whole family too! I hope they include a circus and petting zoo.

Oh, and boy I'm glad they hired 1992 to design everything because I was getting worried they might ruin Wrigley.

:fruit:

:dead:

Yeah... Let's let Ricketts run his business. Yeah...

People have become so polarized against the rooftop owners at this point that they see this as an issue regarding the infringements upon a business owner and nothing more. They've stopped seeing this as an issue regarding anything historic or worth preserving. Most people have taken the stance of, well Wrigley is a dump anyway. And I blame asshole writers like Dan Bernstein and others from the Tribune for perpetuating this farce of a mentality. In no way is this an issue of letting a businessman run "his" company; rather, this is simply a case of a billionaire trying to use our city and our team and our field as his cash cow. And it's fucking enraging to hear assholes try and spin this any other way. It's absolutely maddening to see people become so diluted into believing this nauseating idea that Wrigley and the surrounding area needs upgrading. This is the same virus of an idea that destroys Goldberg gems in the name of improvement.

Its quite sad that the best proposal for this site was, and still is, the work of a student. Call it it faux historicism, but I take this ten times out of ten over the garbage from VOA.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-n...SP+Marquee.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-S...+Rooftop+C.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-A...PERSP+XMas.jpg

source: Marty Sandberg

No shit. I would have no problem with an honest effort like that.

The student's work is nice. Much more subdued but in character with the neighborhood and stadium.

omg just hire the student

Can't, it doesn't allow for enough revenue opportunities... you know, to keep the team competitive. :rolleyes: