PDA

View Full Version : Cubs to Play at Cell During Renovations?


Viva Medias B's
02-13-2012, 06:10 PM
There is no done deal on this, but NBC 5 just ran a story by Mary Ann Ahern that the Cubs could play at U.S. Cellular Field if and when Wrigley Field is renovated. Ahern also suggested that the Cubs could make their season ticket holders buy PSLs to finance the renovations. While PSLs have been a big part of football stadium projects, have they ever been used for baseball?

WSox597
02-13-2012, 06:23 PM
We'll never get the smell out of the Cell if that happens.

I hope they play in Milwaukee, but money talks.

Fenway
02-13-2012, 06:34 PM
Cubs Deny Possible 2013 Move to U.S. Cellular

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Whither-the-2013-Cubs-139247408.html#ixzz1mJ9h4trg

soxnut1018
02-13-2012, 07:09 PM
If the Sox get some serious compensation for this, I'm all for it.

kittle42
02-13-2012, 07:41 PM
It wouldn't bother me terribly, but I'd much rather see them have to play out of state.

Lip Man 1
02-13-2012, 07:41 PM
JR has already made it clear in the past that he won't allow it. And before anyone says 'well the stadium is owned by the state, they can do what they want...' the contract states that JR has the final say on who or what can use the field.

This has come up in the past. Publicly JR has said he'd be willing to discuss it...privately its another story.

And they might have to go the PSL route, they won't be getting a dime from the city or state in these economic time no matter how much Cub ownership bitches.

Lip

PaleHoser
02-13-2012, 08:03 PM
I'd much rather see them have to play out of state.

I vote for North Korea.

Fenway
02-13-2012, 08:41 PM
Lip - It will happen for a variety of reasons.

1. Selig will demand it.

2. The White Sox can not afford the PR hit - and you really think the new Mayor will allow that amusement tax money to vanish for a year? City Hall could make life miserable for the White Sox and JR. That is how Chicago works.

3. The hotel and restaurant crowd will scream as well as the Cubs attract many out of towners.

4. 81 dates of parking in lots JR controls? 81 more dates for the new team store? That is $$$$$$$ the White Sox will need to compete against Detroit.

Lip you are forgetting one thing - Ricketts is not the Tribune.

Bottom line, the city and state will not allow the Cubs money to go to Wisconsin....PERIOD.


JR has already made it clear in the past that he won't allow it. And before anyone says 'well the stadium is owned by the state, they can do what they want...' the contract states that JR has the final say on who or what can use the field.

This has come up in the past. Publicly JR has said he'd be willing to discuss it...privately its another story.

And they might have to go the PSL route, they won't be getting a dime from the city or state in these economic time no matter how much Cub ownership bitches.

Lip

samurai_sox
02-13-2012, 08:42 PM
I vote for North Korea.

I vote for Hell.

central44
02-13-2012, 08:45 PM
JR has already made it clear in the past that he won't allow it. And before anyone says 'well the stadium is owned by the state, they can do what they want...' the contract states that JR has the final say on who or what can use the field.

This has come up in the past. Publicly JR has said he'd be willing to discuss it...privately its another story.

And they might have to go the PSL route, they won't be getting a dime from the city or state in these economic time no matter how much Cub ownership bitches.

Lip


This will show how young I am, but..:D:

Who paid for U.S Cellular Field? I remember hearing that it was built using taxpayer dollars. If that is the case, then I think the Cubs have a right to use the stadium if they need it--if it was the other way around, i'd be upset if I helped pay for a new Wrigley Field just to have my favorite team sent to Milwaukee for a year rather than be able to use it.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the idea of the Cubs using the Cell as their "home" park, and I know that the Reinsdorf doesn't have to allow it...but I also think that if it comes down to it, the right/classy thing for the Sox to do is allow them to use it.

If Reinsdorf funded the park on his own, on the other hand, then it's a different story...

Frontman
02-13-2012, 08:48 PM
Selig would allow the Cubs to play in Milwaukee, hands down. Why do you think the Brewers moved to the NL Central in the first place?

SephClone89
02-13-2012, 09:08 PM
Why the hell not? Wouldn't bother me.

Wouldn't there be more scheduling conflicts in Milwaukee anyway?

Fenway
02-13-2012, 09:21 PM
Selig would allow the Cubs to play in Milwaukee, hands down. Why do you think the Brewers moved to the NL Central in the first place?

Selig would invoke best interest of baseball in a hearbeat.

There is simply to much revenue that both Chicago and Illinois need for there to be any other answer.

Fenway never had to be shutdown for a year but it didn't have any upper deck to speak of.

soxnut1018
02-13-2012, 09:22 PM
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s14/tbone1018/Sodfather2.jpg

Noneck
02-13-2012, 09:39 PM
I see them playing at Sox park. I dont see Sox ownership passing up that $ and see no reason why they would want to. Beside the rent they could charge the cubs, parking, concessions, the in house corporate sponsorship which would increase and go right in ownerships pocket. Sox ownership are bunch of older guys, its the perfect opportunity to pad their pockets without doing much of anything. No pressure to put a winning product on the field this way, its easy money. And maybe after that, its time to put up a For Sale sign.

slavko
02-13-2012, 09:53 PM
This will show how young I am, but..:D:

Who paid for U.S Cellular Field? I remember hearing that it was built using taxpayer dollars. If that is the case, then I think the Cubs have a right to use the stadium if they need it--if it was the other way around, i'd be upset if I helped pay for a new Wrigley Field just to have my favorite team sent to Milwaukee for a year rather than be able to use it.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the idea of the Cubs using the Cell as their "home" park, and I know that the Reinsdorf doesn't have to allow it...but I also think that if it comes down to it, the right/classy thing for the Sox to do is allow them to use it.

If Reinsdorf funded the park on his own, on the other hand, then it's a different story...

It was built from funds derived from a public bond issue, not the hot button phrase "Taxpayer Dollars." The team pays rent. Starting to sound like Letters to the Editor around here. Reinsy has control, at least on paper. I'd bet the Cubs wind up playing at USCF.

Brewski
02-13-2012, 09:55 PM
I see them playing at Sox park. I dont see Sox ownership passing up that $ and see no reason why they would want to. Beside the rent they could charge the cubs, parking, concessions, the in house corporate sponsorship which would increase and go right in ownerships pocket. Sox ownership are bunch of older guys, its the perfect opportunity to pad their pockets without doing much of anything. No pressure to put a winning product on the field this way, its easy money. And maybe after that, its time to put up a For Sale sign.

You left out the insurance fire option.

moochpuppy
02-13-2012, 09:57 PM
I would be curious to see what they would draw at The Cell.

Fenway
02-13-2012, 09:59 PM
JR and the Sox have a very strong hand. In the end JR and the team will make $$$, the city and state will retain revenue the Flubs generate and everybody will will be singing kumbaya.

Be worth it just to see people from Wilmette and Glencoe discovering life south of Roosevelt. :tongue:

Brian26
02-13-2012, 10:19 PM
I see them playing at Sox park. I dont see Sox ownership passing up that $ and see no reason why they would want to. Beside the rent they could charge the cubs, parking, concessions, the in house corporate sponsorship which would increase and go right in ownerships pocket. Sox ownership are bunch of older guys, its the perfect opportunity to pad their pockets without doing much of anything. No pressure to put a winning product on the field this way, its easy money. And maybe after that, its time to put up a For Sale sign.

Wow, that's depressing. Perhaps a bit too dramatic.

Brian26
02-13-2012, 10:23 PM
JR and the Sox have a very strong hand. In the end JR and the team will make $$$, the city and state will retain revenue the Flubs generate and everybody will will be singing kumbaya.

Be worth it just to see people from Wilmette and Glencoe discovering life south of Roosevelt. :tongue:

This issue came up in the late 80s when there was some chatter about the possibility of doing a full renovation of Old Comiskey (basically just short of a complete tear-down and rebuild on the footprint at the northeast corner of 35th & Shields). The idea was floated out there that the Sox would need somewhere else to play for at least two full seasons. The Tribune Company unequivocally said no to the Sox playing at Wrigley. The Bears also wanted nothing to do with the Sox when the idea of a multi-purpose stadium was proposed for the Sox & Bears in the late 80s.

I know that's now over two decades old, but I wouldn't blame Reinsdorf if he held a grudge.

WhiteSox5187
02-13-2012, 10:27 PM
This issue came up in the late 80s when there was some chatter about the possibility of doing a full renovation of Old Comiskey (basically just short of a complete tear-down and rebuild on the footprint at the northeast corner of 35th & Shields). The idea was floated out there that the Sox would need somewhere else to play for at least two full seasons. The Tribune Company unequivocally said no to the Sox playing at Wrigley. The Bears also wanted nothing to do with the Sox when the idea of a multi-purpose stadium was proposed for the Sox & Bears in the late 80s.

I know that's now over two decades old, but I wouldn't blame Reinsdorf if he held a grudge.

I believe the Sox have it in their lease agreement that they can decide who else gets to use the stadium and I cannot imagine JR agreeing to let the Cubs use the Cell because of what you mentioned. Unless the Sox get damned near all of the revenue the Cubs would generate from use of the Cell I can't imagine JR would allow them use of US Cellular Field.

Noneck
02-13-2012, 10:39 PM
Perhaps a bit too dramatic.

Perhaps but new beginnings are not always bad.

DumpJerry
02-13-2012, 10:55 PM
I vote for Hell.

They've already been playing there for about 98 years.

This will show how young I am, but..:D:

Who paid for U.S Cellular Field? I remember hearing that it was built using taxpayer dollars. If that is the case, then I think the Cubs have a right to use the stadium if they need it--if it was the other way around, i'd be upset if I helped pay for a new Wrigley Field just to have my favorite team sent to Milwaukee for a year rather than be able to use it.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the idea of the Cubs using the Cell as their "home" park, and I know that the Reinsdorf doesn't have to allow it...but I also think that if it comes down to it, the right/classy thing for the Sox to do is allow them to use it.

If Reinsdorf funded the park on his own, on the other hand, then it's a different story...
It was built with taxpayer dollars and is owned by the state agency (Illinois Sports Facility Authority) that was set up to be the owner. It was then leased to the White Sox with a lease which essentially gives the White Sox 100% control over the management of the entire facility and parking lots.

The Sodfather has been opposed to the idea for many years because of the wear and tear on the grass from 162 games being played in six months.

LoveYourSuit
02-14-2012, 01:02 AM
Would be stupid for the Sox not to open the doors.

All these years bitching about not capturing the casual fan, this basically gives you 81 dates you didn't have before to self promote your ballpark.

Also, with 180+ consecutive days of constant action around the neighborhood, I wonder if this brings more opportunity to expand on the retail/entertainment development around the park.

cub killer
02-14-2012, 02:01 AM
Would be stupid for the Sox not to open the doors.

All these years bitching about not capturing the casual fan, this basically gives you 81 dates you didn't have before to self promote your ballpark.

Also, with 180+ consecutive days of constant action around the neighborhood, I wonder if this brings more opportunity to expand on the retail/entertainment development around the park.

The long term negatives outweigh the short term positives. It would be stupid for the Sox to open the doors.

Helping the cubs become more of a cash cow than they already are, is suicide. Yes, it will happen eventually, but why speed the process? Not to mention, it will make us look like idiots by letting them use the Cell after the cubs told us NO to using Wrigley in the 80s.

I hope JR stands firm on this issue. Despite 2005, the horizon looks grim for us, let's face it. Our on-field success and their continued failures did little to close the gap in revenue between the clubs. They are poised to completely bury us to levels worse than pre 2005.

We shouldn't help them, the cash won't be worth it.

Fenway
02-14-2012, 02:34 AM
Let's play out the tape on this.

If JR and the White Sox refuse to let the Cubs use USCF how in the end does that help the White Sox?

At stake here is amusement tax and sales tax money to Chicago and Illinois. Without getting totally political can anyone really defend having JR deprive the city and state that revenue?

For the White Sox what is the downside of allowing the Cubs a year at USCF?

The team gets extra revenue - people will be exposed to the ballpark and neighborhood.

If push comes to shove ( which is the Chicago way ) - do you really think JR is going to risk having the City of Chicago writing up every possible violation that they can think of?

Bottom line - there is NO WAY the White Sox can say no because if they did and the Cubs had to play a year in Wisconsin - they would be crucified in a PR war.

It will never get to that point because of the tax revenue.



The long term negatives outweigh the short term positives. It would be stupid for the Sox to open the doors.

Helping the cubs become more of a cash cow than they already are, is suicide. Yes, it will happen eventually, but why speed the process? Not to mention, it will make us look like idiots by letting them use the Cell after the cubs told us NO to using Wrigley in the 80s.

I hope JR stands firm on this issue. Despite 2005, the horizon looks grim for us, let's face it. Our on-field success and their continued failures did little to close the gap in revenue between the clubs. They are poised to completely bury us to levels worse than pre 2005.

We shouldn't help them, the cash won't be worth it.

DumpJerry
02-14-2012, 09:33 AM
The long term negatives outweigh the short term positives. It would be stupid for the Sox to open the doors.

Helping the cubs become more of a cash cow than they already are, is suicide. Yes, it will happen eventually, but why speed the process? Not to mention, it will make us look like idiots by letting them use the Cell after the cubs told us NO to using Wrigley in the 80s.

I hope JR stands firm on this issue. Despite 2005, the horizon looks grim for us, let's face it. Our on-field success and their continued failures did little to close the gap in revenue between the clubs. They are poised to completely bury us to levels worse than pre 2005.

We shouldn't help them, the cash won't be worth it.
Huh? How does this, as opposed to any other third ballpark option, make the Cubs "more of a cash cow?" It would make the Sox the cash cows here since they would be able to collect revenues for use of the park which they have exclusive control of.

doublem23
02-14-2012, 09:36 AM
Also, with 180+ consecutive days of constant action around the neighborhood, I wonder if this brings more opportunity to expand on the retail/entertainment development around the park.

I would doubt it since the park stands all by itself in acres of bare asphalt.

robertks61
02-14-2012, 09:46 AM
Listening to Anna Davlantes this morning on FOX News Chicago bitch about the possibility of her little cubbies playing on the South Side was gold.

RedHeadPaleHoser
02-14-2012, 09:58 AM
Not that fans have a vote, but this is a win for the Sox if the Cubs do play here.

We open our doors (or, based on the fact it will be reported this way in the media, the STATE'S DOORS), let the Cubs play at the Cell for one year. Because the "magic" will be missing since it's not Wrigley, the Cubs will pull 15-25K on average for regular season games - proving that the draw for the team is not the team but the building itself.

The Sox pick up all the parking revenue (since you will staff it anyway) and the Cubs pay rent to the Sox/state for playing there. The Sox are shown as good neighbors in the city while the Cubs rebuild Wrigley.

Jerko
02-14-2012, 10:09 AM
IF this happens, I wonder if one of the "conditions" would be that Sox ST holders get a "presale" for some Cub games. I wouldn't mind a weekday afternoon at the Cell watching the Cards, Reds, Phillies, Braves, hell, even the Marlins, pound lumps on the loveables.

Steelrod
02-14-2012, 10:13 AM
I see them playing at Sox park. I dont see Sox ownership passing up that $ and see no reason why they would want to. Beside the rent they could charge the cubs, parking, concessions, the in house corporate sponsorship which would increase and go right in ownerships pocket. Sox ownership are bunch of older guys, its the perfect opportunity to pad their pockets without doing much of anything. No pressure to put a winning product on the field this way, its easy money. And maybe after that, its time to put up a For Sale sign.
Firstly, the stadium authority would get the money, not the Sox. Secondly, the contract allows that nothing can take place 3 days before or after a homestand, to give the field a chance to rrecover.

Golden Sox
02-14-2012, 10:20 AM
The bad guys on the Northside donated quite a bit of money to keep open Thillens Little League Stadium a few years ago. Why not have the bad guys play at Thillens for a couple of years? It would be a perfect place for them. A little league team playing in a little league park.

Fenway
02-14-2012, 10:56 AM
This issue came up in the late 80s when there was some chatter about the possibility of doing a full renovation of Old Comiskey (basically just short of a complete tear-down and rebuild on the footprint at the northeast corner of 35th & Shields). The idea was floated out there that the Sox would need somewhere else to play for at least two full seasons. The Tribune Company unequivocally said no to the Sox playing at Wrigley. The Bears also wanted nothing to do with the Sox when the idea of a multi-purpose stadium was proposed for the Sox & Bears in the late 80s.

I know that's now over two decades old, but I wouldn't blame Reinsdorf if he held a grudge.

Don't forget Einhorn had been saying nasty things about the Cubs when he first bought the team. In any event Ricketts is not the Tribune.

I am not 100% certain the Cubs even said no to the Sox in the 80's. JR and EE wanted a NEW park and said all along Comiskey could not be saved.

The Mets were not thrilled with the Yankees playing at Shea for 2 years but put up with it.

This is only confirming what Janet Marie Smith said 2 years ago.....you need to shut Wrigley down for 1 or 2 years to doi t right.

CLUBHOUSE KID
02-14-2012, 11:11 AM
Be worth it just to see people from Wilmette and Glencoe discovering life south of Roosevelt. :tongue:

lol now that would be nice

Frontman
02-14-2012, 11:15 AM
Be worth it just to see people from Wilmette and Glencoe discovering life south of Roosevelt. :tongue:

lol now that would be nice


:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Bravo, well said.

Golden Sox
02-14-2012, 11:19 AM
There was talk in the 80's of a sports complex being built on the westside near the old Chicago Stadium. There would of been a stadium for the White Sox and another for the Bears. Michael McCaskey held a news conference saying he would not want to go in a stadium complex that would involve the White Sox. He said the Bears historical roots were with the bad guys on the northside. Needless to say, the complex didn't happen. Right after that the Halas family removed Mike Mccaskey from running the Bears. They finally realized he was an idiot. Would you really care what baseball team was playing across the street from you if you were getting a new stadium for your football team? Not only that, wouldn't the White Sox, Bears and the City of Chicago had been better off with that complex on the westside. Shortly after that, the United Center was built. It could of been one of the great sports complexes in the country.

Noneck
02-14-2012, 11:22 AM
Firstly, the stadium authority would get the money, not the Sox.

Are you saying that all revenue generated by the cubs playing at Sox park goes to the stadium authority but reinsdorf has to give the ok for this to happen?

Fenway
02-14-2012, 11:27 AM
There was talk in the 80's of a sports complex being built on the westside near the old Chicago Stadium. There would of been a stadium for the White Sox and another for the Bears. Michael McCaskey held a news conference saying he would not want to go in a stadium complex that would involve the White Sox. He said the Bears historical roots were with the bad guys on the northside. Needless to say, the complex didn't happen. Right after that the Halas family removed Mike Mccaskey from running the Bears. They finally realized he was an idiot. Would you really care what baseball team was playing across the street from you if you were getting a new stadium for your football team? Not only that, wouldn't the White Sox, Bears and the City of Chicago had been better off with that complex on the westside. Shortly after that, the United Center was built. It could of been one of the great sports complexes in the country.

There it is

http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/85ChicagoDomes_R.html

and this

http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/85Convertible_R.html

and then this farce

http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/Addison_R.html

doublem23
02-14-2012, 11:46 AM
Not only that, wouldn't the White Sox, Bears and the City of Chicago had been better off with that complex on the westside. Shortly after that, the United Center was built. It could of been one of the great sports complexes in the country.

The Sox and Bears maybe, but the city no way, considering how the United Center has absolutely murdered any westward expansion of gentrification past Ashland or the way UIC Circle Campus destroyed Little Italy and the area around Taylor (which it is only now beginning to recover), bulldozing the rest of the West Loop for these two disgusting monstrosities would probably have killed what has developed into one of the city's best neighborhoods.

slavko
02-14-2012, 11:51 AM
JR and the Sox have a very strong hand. In the end JR and the team will make $$$, the city and state will retain revenue the Flubs generate and everybody will will be singing kumbaya.

Be worth it just to see people from Wilmette and Glencoe discovering life south of Roosevelt. :tongue:

C'mon men, I'm from farther away than that. I'll give you a tour of Waukegan some time, if you think you can handle it.

Nellie_Fox
02-14-2012, 12:11 PM
I am not 100% certain the Cubs even said no to the Sox in the 80's.Well, none of us can be certain, because we weren't involved in the discussion, but that's what was reported at the time, and the Cubs didn't deny it.

eriqjaffe
02-14-2012, 12:17 PM
and then this farce

http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/Addison_R.htmlIsn't that farce what wound up becoming U.S. Cellular? I seem to remember that the Sox basically used the Addison blueprint.

DumpJerry
02-14-2012, 12:47 PM
Also, with 180+ consecutive days of constant action around the neighborhood, I wonder if this brings more opportunity to expand on the retail/entertainment development around the park.
Not development since this would be a one year wonder. It would probably mean a good year for the establishments already in place. After the Cubs go back north, I don't see their Northside fans making the trek all the way to Bridgeport to go to bars that are pretty much like the ones within walking distance of their condo up north when there is no Cub game to attend.

TheOldRoman
02-14-2012, 01:04 PM
Isn't that farce what wound up becoming U.S. Cellular? I seem to remember that the Sox basically used the Addison blueprint.Basically, except for better ramps and a roof.

I looks like it will come down to the Cubs playing in the Cell, and there is no way around. Sure, the Sox don't want to help the Cubs build their playground which will help them maximize revenue. But even if the Sox had the power to say no and cast them off to Milwaukee, what would that get them? The Cubs would still get their new park built, they would still maximize revenue, and the Sox would miss out on whatever money they will get from the Cubs playing there for a year. As much as I would hate to see the Cubs playing there, it just doesn't make sense to turn them down. But I will say that the Sox should be allowed to rake them over the coals to the tune of 100% of parking and concessions revenue in addition to a cut of the tickets sold. Basically, tell them you can play here but you have to give up a year or concessions and advertising dollars. And don't forget, it would allow the Sox to more than double the advertising revenue they get from inside the park.

Whitesox029
02-14-2012, 01:18 PM
Secondly, the contract allows that nothing can take place 3 days before or after a homestand, to give the field a chance to recover.
If this is true, then there's no way it will happen.

What I am actually most concerned with is the lack of respect Cubs fans will have for the park and surrounding area. It might sound silly, but almost none of them live in that area. University of Illinois sees the same thing on Unofficial St. Patrick's Day, when truckloads of douchebags come to Champaign from other schools to drink themselves silly for two days, trash the campus, and leave the city to clean it all up. University police arrest reports always indicate more out-of-towners than U of I students. If JR wanted to be snarky, he'd allow them to come, but arrange for barriers to be put up around all monuments and statues on Cubs game days.

On the positive side, it would be a real shocker for a lot of Cub fans to see what happens when you trot out a 90-loss team in a ballpark that isn't touted as a city landmark and tourist attraction in and of itself. They'd draw well for the first series, but after that the novelty would wear off.

C-Dawg
02-14-2012, 01:25 PM
They'd draw well for the first series, but after that the novelty would wear off.

After all, it is, you know, in a terrible ghetto.

Fenway
02-14-2012, 01:33 PM
It comes down the city and state will not allow the revenue to go to Wisconsin.

Just suppose Wrigley fell down tomorrow - the White Sox would be forced by Selig to let them in.

81 extra baseball games would be hard on the field but you simply tell the Cubs they have to pay for a new field after they move out. In any event a full slate of baseball would do less damage than 10 NFL games.

Sportsman's Park in St. Louis, Shibe Park in Philadelphia, Dodger Stadium and Shea all had 2 teams playing and survived.



Basically, except for better ramps and a roof.

I looks like it will come down to the Cubs playing in the Cell, and there is no way around. Sure, the Sox don't want to help the Cubs build their playground which will help them maximize revenue. But even if the Sox had the power to say no and cast them off to Milwaukee, what would that get them? The Cubs would still get their new park built, they would still maximize revenue, and the Sox would miss out on whatever money they will get from the Cubs playing there for a year. As much as I would hate to see the Cubs playing there, it just doesn't make sense to turn them down. But I will say that the Sox should be allowed to rake them over the coals to the tune of 100% of parking and concessions revenue in addition to a cut of the tickets sold. Basically, tell them you can play here but you have to give up a year or concessions and advertising dollars. And don't forget, it would allow the Sox to more than double the advertising revenue they get from inside the park.

amsteel
02-14-2012, 01:36 PM
Oh god, how delicious would it be for the Sox to make a boatload of money off the deal, make some decent free agent signings for once, and win another WS?

Simply, how awesome would it be for the Sox to win as a direct result from the Cubs' actions?

Frater Perdurabo
02-14-2012, 01:38 PM
If JR wanted to be snarky, he'd allow them to come, but arrange for barriers to be put up around all monuments and statues on Cubs game days.

When the Marlins visit the Cubs in 2013, Ozzie can see some fans actually piss on his statue.

tstrike2000
02-14-2012, 04:01 PM
When the Marlins visit the Cubs in 2013, Ozzie can see some fans actually piss on his statue.

Nicely played, Sir.

Tree Hate Me
02-14-2012, 04:39 PM
They'd have no reason to stick to the 18 night game limit if they played at USCF, but I'd be interested to see just how many 1:20pm starts the Cubs would schedule if they were to play a season at 35th and Shields.

russ99
02-14-2012, 07:03 PM
Lip - It will happen for a variety of reasons.

1. Selig will demand it.

2. The White Sox can not afford the PR hit - and you really think the new Mayor will allow that amusement tax money to vanish for a year? City Hall could make life miserable for the White Sox and JR1. That is how Chicago works.

3. The hotel and restaurant crowd will scream as well as the Cubs attract many out of towners.

4. 81 dates of parking in lots JR controls? 81 more dates for the new team store? That is $$$$$$$ the White Sox will need to compete against Detroit.

Lip you are forgetting one thing - Ricketts is not the Tribune.

Bottom line, the city and state will not allow the Cubs money to go to Wisconsin....PERIOD.

1) Forget Selig. More and more the "commissioner of baseball" is siding with the biggest teams and kowtowing to TV dollars over the well-being of the league.

Besides Jerry and Bud are supposedly super-tight. If anyone can sway Bud away from this, it's Jerry. Maybe he can call in the "kill a potential World Series team to be a hawk in the lockout" marker.

2) Why can't the Cubs do most of the rehab work in the off-season? Even start the home schedule late or or end early... Other teams have done this (Like Oakland with the football stands) so why should the Sox make major changes to allow for 162 game days (neighborhood, sharing the gate, security costs and field-wise) to accomodate Ricketts being a cheapskate?

3) Cubs fans will hate the Cell, even if they go to games there. The stereotypes die hard. If anything, the Sox will take a worse PR hit letting the Cubs fans bad-mouth the stadium than saying no.

4) Do you really think the Cubs would gift Jerry a lion's share of the parking revenue if the Cubs had 81 home dates there?

Lip Man 1
02-14-2012, 07:32 PM
Russ:

Well thought out post.

Lip

Fenway
02-14-2012, 07:45 PM
1)
2) Why can't the Cubs do most of the rehab work in the off-season? Even start the home schedule late or or end early... Other teams have done this (Like Oakland with the football stands) so why should the Sox make major changes to allow for 162 game days (neighborhood, sharing the gate, security costs and field-wise) to accomodate Ricketts being a cheapskate?


4) Do you really think the Cubs would gift Jerry a lion's share of the parking revenue if the Cubs had 81 home dates there?

2 - Lack of room for a staging area - and that upper deck may well need to be rebuilt. In the case of Oakland, Mt. Davis did not preclude the rest of the park being open.

4 - Parking may well be JR's ace in the hole. You can bet the ranch that Jeremy Jacobs (http://media.delawarenorth.com/delaware+north+companies/executivebios/jeremy-m-jacobs.htm) who runs the concessions and team store (http://media.delawarenorth.com/delaware+north+companies/news/chicagosportsdepot.htm)will lobby JR for 81 more dates.

Brian26
02-14-2012, 08:23 PM
There it is

http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/85ChicagoDomes_R.html

I know we talked about this about a year ago, but this is the plan that absolutely kills me.

The view from that location would have been phenomenal to CF, with the Hancock and Mechandise Mart in the distance.

You would have had the park right on the Green Line/Pink Line at Lake Street. Ogilvie Station would have been a block south on Clinton. Union Station would have been three blocks south and a block east. You'd be on the southwest tip of River North and the northwest tip of the Loop, within walking distance for people either coming from work or home.

And the park would be just a few blocks right off the Ryan/Kennedy for anyone who insisted on driving.

Brian26
02-14-2012, 08:30 PM
4 - Parking may well be JR's ace in the hole. You can bet the ranch that Jeremy Jacobs (http://media.delawarenorth.com/delaware+north+companies/executivebios/jeremy-m-jacobs.htm) who runs the concessions and team store (http://media.delawarenorth.com/delaware+north+companies/news/chicagosportsdepot.htm)will lobby JR for 81 more dates.

Nothing like another 81 games of third-world concessions in the upper deck with stale buns, undercooked food and apathetic, lethargic workers. Sportservice sucks to high hell.

Fenway
02-14-2012, 08:33 PM
Nothing like another 81 games of third-world concessions in the upper deck with stale buns, undercooked food and apathetic, lethargic workers. Sportservice sucks to high hell.

Some places like Milwaukee they are very good - USCF is decent compared to TD Garden that they OWN :angry:

Brian26
02-14-2012, 08:39 PM
Some places like Milwaukee they are very good - USCF is decent compared to TD Garden that they OWN :angry:

Can't comment on the Garden, but I can tell you the quality of the food and the service has gone down the toilet over the past ten years at the Cell in the UD. I'm talking about the freshness of the food, how hot it is (warm pretzels that feel cold when you bite into them? Unacceptable), the cleanliness of the concession areas (flies/no hand washing), stale buns for the last homestand of the season every year. Just disgusting ****. Unacceptable.

The Club Level, on the otherhand, is ALWAYS phenomenal in terms of food and service. The Bertucci's rule.

DSpivack
02-14-2012, 08:40 PM
Can't comment on the Garden, but I can tell you the quality of the food and the service has gone down the toilet over the past ten years at the Cell in the UD. I'm talking about the freshness of the food, how hot it is (warm pretzels that feel cold when you bite into them? Unacceptable), the cleanliness of the concession areas (flies/no hand washing), stale buns for the last homestand of the season every year. Just disgusting ****. Unacceptable.

The Club Level, on the otherhand, is ALWAYS phenomenal in terms of food and service. The Bertucci's rule.

Yep, the churros used to be fresh and hot, too. :whiner:

Fenway
02-14-2012, 08:58 PM
The Club Level, on the otherhand, is ALWAYS phenomenal in terms of food and service. The Bertucci's rule.

Jacobs doesn't have the club level :tongue: Levy does.

http://www.levyrestaurants.com/venues/us-cellular-field

DumpJerry
02-14-2012, 10:25 PM
1)2) Why can't the Cubs do most of the rehab work in the off-season? Even start the home schedule late or or end early... Other teams have done this (Like Oakland with the football stands) so why should the Sox make major changes to allow for 162 game days (neighborhood, sharing the gate, security costs and field-wise) to accomodate Ricketts being a cheapskate?

3) Cubs fans will hate the Cell, even if they go to games there. The stereotypes die hard. If anything, the Sox will take a worse PR hit letting the Cubs fans bad-mouth the stadium than saying no.

4) Do you really think the Cubs would gift Jerry a lion's share of the parking revenue if the Cubs had 81 home dates there?
You can't end the regular season early to get the work started-what if the team makes the post season?

It's a myth that Cub fans hate coming to Comiskey. I know many Cub fans and they enjoy coming to Comiskey. I go to 50+ games a year and always see plenty of Cub fans there.

The Cubs won't be able to "gift" the parking to JR. It's JR's revenue to keep. The Sox' lease with the State gives the team exclusive control over the lots. If JR wants to keep the revenue, then he gets the revenue.

MARTINMVP
02-14-2012, 11:25 PM
You can't end the regular season early to get the work started-what if the team makes the post season?

It's a myth that Cub fans hate coming to Comiskey. I know many Cub fans and they enjoy coming to Comiskey. I go to 50+ games a year and always see plenty of Cub fans there.

The Cubs won't be able to "gift" the parking to JR. It's JR's revenue to keep. The Sox' lease with the State gives the team exclusive control over the lots. If JR wants to keep the revenue, then he gets the revenue.

The Cub fans who do go to the Cell (with the assumption that the Cubs do play there for a year) will be a mixed bag. Plenty of them will rip the Cell just for the sake of it, mixed in with the more down to earth who will actually admit the Cell is a nice ballpark. Then there will be others who won't give a damn either way. After that one year, none of them will give a damn regardless what they thought of the park. They'll be in their "new and improved" dream ballpark, bragging about how they have the better ball park.

A lot of what Fenway wrote early on in this post makes sense, and is certainly feasible. The only certainty is that, according to Lip, at one point, JR was absolutely against ever allowing the Cubs to play there. How long ago was that though? Does new Cub ownership change anything? Has any previous sour grapes worn off by now? And... money talks. But until then, all we are griping about is speculation.

Lip Man 1
02-15-2012, 01:14 AM
This is all now a moot discussion.

Comcast Sports Chicago reported tonight Cub officials said any renovations to Wrigley Field would be done in stages over several years and they would not have to play games anywhere else.

Lip

Fenway
02-15-2012, 01:28 AM
This is all now a moot discussion.

Comcast Sports Chicago reported tonight Cub officials said any renovations to Wrigley Field would be done in stages over several years and they would not have to play games anywhere else.

Lip

CSN-Chicago hasn't gotten a story right yet. Adamle (WMAQ) just e-mailed me that Theo will be meeting with the alderman from the 44th (Tom Tunney) in the next couple of days. Epstein hired some MIT people to look at the integrity of Wrigley and the report wasn't good. The entire upper deck has to be rebuilt, the lower bowl is fine.

gobears1987
02-15-2012, 05:42 AM
I'd be 100% OK with this so long as the Sox got to keep all of the parking revenue.

gobears1987
02-15-2012, 05:46 AM
This issue came up in the late 80s when there was some chatter about the possibility of doing a full renovation of Old Comiskey (basically just short of a complete tear-down and rebuild on the footprint at the northeast corner of 35th & Shields). The idea was floated out there that the Sox would need somewhere else to play for at least two full seasons. The Tribune Company unequivocally said no to the Sox playing at Wrigley. The Bears also wanted nothing to do with the Sox when the idea of a multi-purpose stadium was proposed for the Sox & Bears in the late 80s.

I know that's now over two decades old, but I wouldn't blame Reinsdorf if he held a grudge.

That was the Tribune Company. If they still owned the Cubs, then I'd be 100% with Reinsdorf telling them to go **** themselves. The Ricketts now own the team and I'd be 100% for having them spend a season at USCF so long as the Sox can milk it for revenue.

gobears1987
02-15-2012, 06:05 AM
CSN-Chicago hasn't gotten a story right yet. Adamle (WMAQ) just e-mailed me that Theo will be meeting with the alderman from the 44th (Tom Tunney) in the next couple of days. Epstein hired some MIT people to look at the integrity of Wrigley and the report wasn't good. The entire upper deck has to be rebuilt, the lower bowl is fine.

I have never sat in the UD at Wrigley and there is a reason for it. People can say all they want about feeling vertigo at USCF with the steep stairs, but at least I don't have to worry about the place collapsing during a game. Heck, I waited in the USCF concourse during a tornado in June 2010. It was probably one of the safest places in the entire South Side to be at that time.

roylestillman
02-15-2012, 07:10 AM
Jerry will take out his lease point to a clause and say no. The ISFA will Wring their hands and talk about the milions it will cost to perform an off season staged rebuild of Wrigley. Jerry will then say he is willing to compromise for the folllowing improvements to The Cell....

The art of the deal.

DumpJerry
02-15-2012, 08:26 AM
The Cub fans who do go to the Cell (with the assumption that the Cubs do play there for a year) will be a mixed bag. Plenty of them will rip the Cell just for the sake of it, mixed in with the more down to earth who will actually admit the Cell is a nice ballpark. Then there will be others who won't give a damn either way. After that one year, none of them will give a damn regardless what they thought of the park. They'll be in their "new and improved" dream ballpark, bragging about how they have the better ball park.
So? Why do you care what some Cub fans say? This isn't a high school popularity thing. Since the Comiskey opened in 1991, I have had hundreds of Cub fans tell me they love our park. They love the spacious concourse, the food and the atmosphere. This is probably why I always see a lot of Cub fans at Sox games.

MARTINMVP
02-15-2012, 09:08 AM
So? Why do you care what some Cub fans say? This isn't a high school popularity thing. Since the Comiskey opened in 1991, I have had hundreds of Cub fans tell me they love our park. They love the spacious concourse, the food and the atmosphere. This is probably why I always see a lot of Cub fans at Sox games.

Eh, I don't specifically care too much what Cub fans think about the Cell. I was only stating that some of them will like it, some of them will hate it just to hate it, while the rest simply won't care -- it would only be for one year or two. Then afterwards, regardless of what they felt, they'd be back in their own ballpark. Was just stating an observation... didn't intend for it to come across that I care whether they like our park or not.

I wasn't disagreeing with your assessment about seeing plenty of Cub fans at the park who actually like it. While agreeing with what you wrote, I was simply adding my own two cents. :smile:

C-Dawg
02-15-2012, 10:27 AM
If the Cubs DO wind up playing at USCF, will the tickets be widely available at face value? Or will the Cubs still scalp their own fans by selling them primarily through their own scalping subsidiary, Premium Tickets Inc?

Fenway
02-15-2012, 10:41 AM
I have never sat in the UD at Wrigley and there is a reason for it. People can say all they want about feeling vertigo at USCF with the steep stairs, but at least I don't have to worry about the place collapsing during a game. Heck, I waited in the USCF concourse during a tornado in June 2010. It was probably one of the safest places in the entire South Side to be at that time.

4 years ago I was in Wrigley for this - it was scary

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-080804-chicago-cubs-houston-astros,0,6740158.story

robertks61
02-15-2012, 10:53 AM
If the Cubs DO wind up playing at USCF, will the tickets be widely available at face value? Or will the Cubs still scalp their own fans by selling them primarily through their own scalping subsidiary, Premium Tickets Inc?

They can try. As I'm bored and out of work for a bit due to surgery I was looking at prices for April 11 Brewers at Chc. Good seats available for $10 or less on Stub Hub. I don't foresee a big demand unless the Yankees come to Chicago for another historic series vs. Chc!

I do see the Chc fan base having a good experience at U.S. Cellular if it were to happen.

Nellie_Fox
02-15-2012, 12:02 PM
To those of you who are all for this, wait until September when the grass looks like a park district field because they don't have any off-days for proper maintenance.

Golden Sox
02-15-2012, 12:18 PM
Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves here? If you remember, before Blago got arrested, Wrigley Field was going to be sold to the State Of Illinois. After he got arrested, that quietly disappeared. Who"s going to pay for fixing the dump on Addison? From what I know, the Ricketts family has no intentions of paying for it. If the State of Illinois buys Wrigley Field and its run by the same agency that owns the Cell, Reinsdorf would probably have no choice but to allow the bad guys to play at the Cell.

Nellie_Fox
02-15-2012, 12:24 PM
Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves here? If you remember, before Blago got arrested, Wrigley Field was going to be sold to the State Of Illinois. After he got arrested, that quietly disappeared. Who"s going to pay for fixing the dump on Addison? From what I know, the Ricketts family has no intentions of paying for it. If the State of Illinois buys Wrigley Field and its run by the same agency that owns the Cell, Reinsdorf would probably have no choice but to allow the bad guys to play at the Cell.He has a lease, with provisions that give him veto power over any other use of the park than White Sox baseball. Do you think a landlord can tell you that you have to let another of his tenants stay in your apartment while his apartment is remodeled? It doesn't matter that the landlord owns both apartments, your lease gives you exclusive use of your apartment. This is the exact same thing.

Lip Man 1
02-15-2012, 02:10 PM
Nellie is correct although if you believe the Cub brass playing at U.S. Cellular Field isn't an option in the first place.

Lip

Huisj
02-15-2012, 03:12 PM
There it is

http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/85ChicagoDomes_R.html

and this

http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/85Convertible_R.html

and then this farce

http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/Addison_R.html

I'm not sure the designer of the second one understood the future of the hitters background in center field. Turning wall around to make seats in center field wouldn't be so practical.

Fenway
02-15-2012, 04:06 PM
Nellie is correct although if you believe the Cub brass playing at U.S. Cellular Field isn't an option in the first place.

Lip

CSN did not put that report up on the website for whatever reason.

http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs

Last summer it was reported that the Red Sox told the Cubs that if they had to do it again they would have built a new park, the renovations were more expensive and tricky than expected. ( and Fenway didn't have any upper deck to speak of )


What I was told is the Cubs want the renovations ( or rebuild ) done by 2014 (the official 100th of the ballpark -or at worst 2016 which is the 100th of when the Cubs moved in).

In any event before anything is concrete they want Alderman Tom Tunney to be informed before the press gets it.

DSpivack
02-15-2012, 04:10 PM
CSN did not put that report up on the website for whatever reason.

http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs

Last summer it was reported that the Red Sox told the Cubs that if they had to do it again they would have built a new park, the renovations were more expensive and tricky than expected. ( and Fenway didn't have any upper deck to speak of )


What I was told is the Cubs want the renovations ( or rebuild ) done by 2014 (the official 100th of the ballpark -or at worst 2016 which is the 100th of when the Cubs moved in).

In any event before anything is concrete they want Alderman Tom Tunney to be informed before the press gets it.

No way is that possible.

Fenway
02-15-2012, 04:20 PM
No way is that possible.

I wouldn't think so for 2014.

The albatross is the upper deck. When Yankee Stadium was rebuilt in the 70's the second and third tiers were replaced which is why it took 2 years.

Sam Zell more than likely unloaded the Cubs knowing that the ballpark had to dealt with and decided to let somebody else deal with it. By comparison he has kept most of the broadcast division intact.

DumpJerry
02-15-2012, 05:03 PM
To those of you who are all for this, wait until September when the grass looks like a park district field because they don't have any off-days for proper maintenance.
Even with a few off days, some park districts have turf maintenance issues....
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2579/3901485075_062757323d.jpg

doublem23
02-15-2012, 06:41 PM
Even with a few off days, some park districts have turf maintenance issues....
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2579/3901485075_062757323d.jpg

We're still aware that a football game does 1,000 x more damage to a grass turf than a baseball game, right?

DumpJerry
02-15-2012, 08:38 PM
We're still aware that a football game does 1,000 x more damage to a grass turf than a baseball game, right?
Of course I am. I am also aware that many NFL stadiums don't have grass that looks like **** before the game starts.

Golden Sox
02-15-2012, 09:36 PM
I knew somebody who use to work for the Tribune. He said when the Tribune bought the bad guys on the northside they wanted to build a new ballpark just west of Wrigley Field. The new park was suppose to be between Clark and Southport and Addison to Waveland. They then were going to tear down the dump and use it for parking. I don't know why they didn't do it then but wouldn't that make more sense now than renovating the dump? I heard former Governor Thompson say that to redo the dump properly, it would take $500 million dollars. If you're going to spend that type of money, why not build a new stadium? If they build a new stadium for the bad guys, they won't have to play at the Cell.

DSpivack
02-15-2012, 09:54 PM
I knew somebody who use to work for the Tribune. He said when the Tribune bought the bad guys on the northside they wanted to build a new ballpark just west of Wrigley Field. The new park was suppose to be between Clark and Southport and Addison to Waveland. They then were going to tear down the dump and use it for parking. I don't know why they didn't do it then but wouldn't that make more sense now than renovating the dump? I heard former Governor Thompson say that to redo the dump properly, it would take $500 million dollars. If you're going to spend that type of money, why not build a new stadium? If they build a new stadium for the bad guys, they won't have to play at the Cell.

Where? :scratch:

The Cubs are very much tied into their neighborhood. Where else could they move and still have the identity and business model in which they are so tied into a neighborhood as they currently are in Wrigleyville/Lakeview?

Most new stadiums today cost well north of $500 million, and that's in today's money, not 1980s dollars as was the case back then. In the 1980s, buying up that real estate may have been possible, as the neighborhood was not what it is today. Now, that would seem absolutely impossible and completely cost-prohibitive.

Foulke You
02-16-2012, 01:02 AM
We're still aware that a football game does 1,000 x more damage to a grass turf than a baseball game, right?
We are also talking about 162 baseball games being played in one Summer vs. 8 football games. This is excluding any potential postseason games. Someone would need to move Roger Bossard into The Cell and buy him an Espresso machine to keep that field looking good.

Foulke You
02-16-2012, 01:06 AM
4 years ago I was in Wrigley for this - it was scary

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-080804-chicago-cubs-houston-astros,0,6740158.story
I remember seeing highlights from that one. I was at the July 1st White Sox vs. Cubs matchup at Wrigley last season. The wind prior to the start time of the ballgame and during the first two innings was absolutely HOWLING. I had seats in the last row of the upper deck and with every gust you could feel the entire ground shaking. The nets that are set up to catch the falling concrete looked like they were going to fly off completely. I don't think that upper deck can take another 10 years of Chicago weather.

Fenway
02-16-2012, 01:23 AM
Ahhh Lip failed to mention Kaplan was the source of the CSN story

http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/cubs-talk/post/Should-the-Cubs-move-to-US-Cellular-Fiel?blockID=652044&feedID=10336

Last fall the CSN-NE people discovered Kaplan had NO CLUE what was going on in Theogate and Michael Felger just destroyed him on the air saying "Do you work for CSN-Chicago or the Cubs?"

Kaplan was known to be a Crane Kenney mouthpiece and I seriously doubt Theo has any use for Kenney and before taking the job made sure that HE has total control of the operation.

BTW Theo has also told Boston media that the Red Sox should have played in Foxborough for a year to do Fenway right.

doublem23
02-16-2012, 01:26 AM
We are also talking about 162 baseball games being played in one Summer vs. 8 football games. This is excluding any potential postseason games. Someone would need to move Roger Bossard into The Cell and buy him an Espresso machine to keep that field looking good.

Yeah but that's the key, we're talking about summer vs. winter. Baseball, obviously, runs through the growing season here, plenty of sunlight to help grass recover from the very limited abuse it would take during a baseball game. Football, most of the games fall outside the standard growing season here in Chicago, and again, the Bears have only had the problems with the field since they rebuilt Soldier Field and drained even more precious sunlight.

I would still think that even if the Sox and Cubs shared a park for 1 summer, that field would still take about a million times less abuse over the course of the season than Soldier Field does every 10-12 games per season its used by the Bears.

Noneck
02-16-2012, 01:46 AM
Yeah but that's the key, we're talking about summer vs. winter. Baseball, obviously, runs through the growing season here, plenty of sunlight to help grass recover from the very limited abuse it would take during a baseball game. Football, most of the games fall outside the standard growing season here in Chicago, and again, the Bears have only had the problems with the field since they rebuilt Soldier Field and drained even more precious sunlight.

I would still think that even if the Sox and Cubs shared a park for 1 summer, that field would still take about a million times less abuse over the course of the season than Soldier Field does every 10-12 games per season its used by the Bears.


Maybe the resident east coaster can fill us in how Shea's grass was when the yanks and mets played there.

Fenway
02-16-2012, 01:56 AM
Maybe the resident east coaster can fill us in how Shea's grass was when the yanks and mets played there.

Shea had grass problems long before the Yanks played there

from 1966

http://blip.tv/game7tv-the-locker-room/jets-knock-pats-out-of-playoffs-1966-4630238

Noneck
02-16-2012, 02:00 AM
Shea had grass problems long before the Yanks played there

from 1966

http://blip.tv/game7tv-the-locker-room/jets-knock-pats-out-of-playoffs-1966-4630238

That was the Jets season finale in 66, I am more concerned with the Jets season opener in 75.

Fenway
02-16-2012, 02:05 AM
That was the Jets season finale in 66, I am more concerned with the Jets season opener in 75.

There ya go :smile:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/197510050nyj.htm

JnYyBgOBLW4

Noneck
02-16-2012, 09:01 AM
There ya go :smile:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/197510050nyj.htm

JnYyBgOBLW4


Its hard to tell how bad the field was at the start of the game but Ill take your word on it.

MARTINMVP
02-16-2012, 09:26 AM
All this bickering and talk about grass, the sun, and the Cell has me really craving a hot sunny day in July while sitting in the outfield stands. Wow... for better or worse, I'm ready for baseball season to begin!

Lip Man 1
02-16-2012, 12:46 PM
Kaplan on Chicago Tribune Live! yesterday said he's spoken to sources both with the Cubs and White Sox.

He said the Cubs sources told him they won't even need to play anywhere else because any renovations will be done in stages over several years.

He said Sox sources told him they wouldn't allow the Cubs to play at U.S. Cellular because "of the damage 162 games would cause to the field..."

Take it for whatever it's worth to you.

Lip

Fenway
02-16-2012, 01:04 PM
In that same segment Kaplan also tossed out another idea. ( Is this him or was he fed this?)

Cubs build a brand new park where Waveland Golf Course is on LSD and the Park District then gets the Wrigley footprint.

http://www.csnchicago.com/pages/cubsvideo?PID=6cLLTB-zed1otlaDc7dPsiJsKf0M5oAHR0ROXXB


Kaplan on Chicago Tribune Live! yesterday said he's spoken to sources both with the Cubs and White Sox.

He said the Cubs sources told him they won't even need to play anywhere else because any renovations will be done in stages over several years.

He said Sox sources told him they wouldn't allow the Cubs to play at U.S. Cellular because "of the damage 162 games would cause to the field..."

Take it for whatever it's worth to you.

Lip

Fenway
02-16-2012, 01:56 PM
Does Kaplan take a helicopter ride to Cub and Bears games? Anyone who has driven on The Drive before or after a Bears' home game can tell you about the traffic nightmare is becomes. Now, imagine that 81 times a year between Irving Park and Belmont, not to mention for a few miles north and south of there.

Stadiums should access points from four directions, not two (Soldier Field) or almost three (Kap's suggestion of Waveland Golf Course).

Bears traffic is a picnic compared to the Redskins in Landover or the Patriots in Foxborough.

Janet Marie Smith told the Cubs they HAVE to close Wrigley down for a year or two to make the renovation work and she is the expert in the field.

What people forget about Fenway is that the park while it opened in 1912, it burnt down in late 1933 and Yawkey rebuilt it in time for the 1934 season.
http://www.midcoast.com/~lizmcl/360106.jpg

$250,000 was a lot of money in 1934.

NardiWasHere
02-16-2012, 01:59 PM
CSN-Chicago hasn't gotten a story right yet. Adamle (WMAQ) just e-mailed me that Theo will be meeting with the alderman from the 44th (Tom Tunney) in the next couple of days. Epstein hired some MIT people to look at the integrity of Wrigley and the report wasn't good. The entire upper deck has to be rebuilt, the lower bowl is fine.

Why is Theo (President of Baseball Operations) hiring engineers and meeting with aldermen about stadium improvements?

Fenway
02-16-2012, 02:13 PM
Why is Theo (President of Baseball Operations) hiring engineers and meeting with aldermen about stadium improvements?

I would suspect 2 reasons.

1 - He has been through the renovation process in Boston.

2 - Crane Kenney and the alderman can not stand each other.

Theo would not have come to Chicago unless Kenney answers to him as he went through that in Boston with Larry Lucchino.

NardiWasHere
02-16-2012, 06:41 PM
I would suspect 2 reasons.

1 - He has been through the renovation process in Boston.

2 - Crane Kenney and the alderman can not stand each other.

Theo would not have come to Chicago unless Kenney answers to him as he went through that in Boston with Larry Lucchino.

I was under the impression that Ricketts likes Kenney, but Theo (rightfully) made it clear that he was the one in charge of all baseball decisions.

I had no idea Theo had any authority or pull on the business side of things. Interesting. To me, that seems like unnecessary stuff on his plate. If I was in charge of the Cubs I'd tell Theo to just focus on baseball. It's not that I don't think he's a smart and capable dude, its just that it seems unnecessary. He's got enough to worry about and I'm unaware of any expertise he has in that area... even if he was around a similar situation in Boston.

Fenway
02-16-2012, 07:52 PM
Theo did a lot of the work with Boston officials on the renovations as John Henry thought a local guy would find it easier to work with the pols than Larry Lucchino.


I was under the impression that Ricketts likes Kenney, but Theo (rightfully) made it clear that he was the one in charge of all baseball decisions.

I had no idea Theo had any authority or pull on the business side of things. Interesting. To me, that seems like unnecessary stuff on his plate. If I was in charge of the Cubs I'd tell Theo to just focus on baseball. It's not that I don't think he's a smart and capable dude, its just that it seems unnecessary. He's got enough to worry about and I'm unaware of any expertise he has in that area... even if he was around a similar situation in Boston.

Viva Medias B's
02-16-2012, 11:07 PM
Bears traffic is a picnic compared to the Redskins in Landover or the Patriots in Foxborough.

Janet Marie Smith told the Cubs they HAVE to close Wrigley down for a year or two to make the renovation work and she is the expert in the field.

What people forget about Fenway is that the park while it opened in 1912, it burnt down in late 1933 and Yawkey rebuilt it in time for the 1934 season.
http://www.midcoast.com/~lizmcl/360106.jpg

$250,000 was a lot of money in 1934.

Did it burn completely to the ground, or was it just gutted?

Fenway
02-16-2012, 11:11 PM
Did it burn completely to the ground, or was it just gutted?

They lost everything from first base to the outfield including the bleachers.

The third base stands had burnt down 10 years earlier and Yawkey was rebuilding those as well.

http://legendaryauctions.com/LotImages/59/87864a_lg.jpeg

Fenway
02-16-2012, 11:16 PM
In just 3 months Yawkey had the stands rebuilt. It was the depression and he hired everybody that showed up and they worked around the clock.

http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/bos/fenwaypark100/img/rfpavilion_1934.jpg

C-Dawg
02-17-2012, 08:22 AM
http://www.midcoast.com/%7Elizmcl/360106.jpg


Did they ever catch those bandits that stole the $1000?