PDA

View Full Version : Dear Comiskey Family: ****...


Kilroy
02-05-2003, 09:57 AM
Love,

Kilroy...



Now, Patricia Bellock, grandaughter of Chas. Comiskey and a state representative, is trying to change state law because they're mad about the name change. Story here (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-name05.html) .

I think that they oughta be thankful that the new park that they had nothing to do with constructing was named Comiskey for as long as it was. And in their complaining, they always ignore that JR has made a special point of saying that the Comiskey legacy will be honored at the park in an appropriate manner. I think that oughta be plenty considering there's a whole league full of teams that don't honor the legacy of their founders at all.

Bobby Thigpen
02-05-2003, 10:24 AM
I really think that the people that are complaining about this whole issue should shut the hell up. I think it's great that the Sox may be able to improve Comiskey greatly because of this deal. I just can't see why anybody is that upset about the renaming. It's not as if they're renaming the old park. The new park had nothing to do with the old and probably should have been named something different in the first place.

moochpuppy
02-05-2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Now, Patricia Bellock, grandaughter of Chas. Comiskey and a state representative, is trying to change state law because they're mad about the name change. Story here (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-name05.html) .



What right does she have? Sounds like she's just trying to stir the pot.

jortafan
02-05-2003, 12:26 PM
She's a DuPage Republican in an era in Springpatch where such a species is about as irrelevant as can be. Her bill's going nowhere. I can't see Mike Madigan letting it get anywhere. So we can relax.

Nellie_Fox
02-05-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
I really think that the people that are complaining about this whole issue should shut the hell up. Translation: "All those who don't agree with me should just shut up."

Cheryl
02-05-2003, 01:11 PM
While I can respectfully disagree with any poster here who doesn't like the new name, she should either put up some cash and buy her heritage back, or she can shut up about it. If her grandfather was around today, he probably would be astounded a company would pay good money to see its name on a ballfield. Then he'd get a better deal than JR did.

34 Inch Stick
02-05-2003, 03:13 PM
Talk about self serving legislation. Her constituency should vote her out just for wasting the legislative branch's time.

Bobby Thigpen
02-06-2003, 10:13 AM
Nelly, that is not what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say is that the majority of the people that are ripping this deal have absolutely nothing to do with the Sox. They are not fans, they are not working for the Sox, and they have probably never been to the new park. In fact the majority of the people that are bitching about it are northside Pissbag fans. I would agree with everyone that has said it earlier, Comiskey was torn down in 91 and renaming the new stadium is not a big deal. The only people making it a big deal are the same people that ridicule the Sox for everything that they do. These are the people that I wish would shut the hell up. If you don't like the deal then enlighten me on how it is such a bad deal. Until then, don't read things into my statements that are not true.

Nellie_Fox
02-06-2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
If you don't like the deal then enlighten me on how it is such a bad deal. You like the deal. Fine. I can't stand corporate-named ballparks. I can't tell one park from another by their names. I'm not going to try to convince you of anything; you're entitled to your opinion. You're just not entitled to say that everyone else should shut up, and that's what you said.

Dadawg_77
02-06-2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by moochpuppy
What right does she have? Sounds like she's just trying to stir the pot.

Well she is a State Representative, thus she has the right to introduce bill for the State Legislature's consideration. Since the State of IL built and owns the park, I think the State does have jurisdiction on this matter and/or future naming right matters for other public buildings. The State did give the Sox the right to seek and make a naming rights deal in the lease for Comiskey so nothing would change there until the current lease expires.

maurice
02-06-2003, 02:53 PM
I think the point (made nicely by Stick) is that she should spend her time taking care of her constituents rather than pushing her family's personal agenda. Her constituents are not likely to benefit from revoking the naming rights deal (assuming that such a thing is even possible).

Iwritecode
02-06-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
You like the deal. Fine. I can't stand corporate-named ballparks. I can't tell one park from another by their names

I know people that don't know who plays in Fenway park or Kauffman stadium. Unless the name of the team is in the stadium name (like Yankee Stadium) or you actually follow baseball it's hard to tell who plays where until you get used to it. You can't tell me you don't know who plays in Wrigley Field or Busch Stadium. (there are those corporate names again.) What about Pac Bell Park? The BOB? Staples Center? Pretty much the whole world knows what team used to play in Enron Field. I admit it's hard to get used at first but after awhile the names will be fairly common. Just give it time.

Nellie_Fox
02-06-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
You can't tell me you don't know who plays in Wrigley Field or Busch Stadium. (there are those corporate names again.) What about Pac Bell Park? The BOB? Staples Center? Pretty much the whole world knows what team used to play in Enron Field. I admit it's hard to get used at first but after awhile the names will be fairly common. Just give it time. Wrigley and Busch are a little different, as they are the actual family names of the team owners when the parks were built, not these made up, no connection to anything, corporate names. PacBell is a great example. PacBell has already been bought out by some communications conglomerate and now no longer exists by that name. Therefore, the ballpark will have yet another new name next year to represent the new computer-generated name. How long before U.S. Cellular gets acquired, merges, or ceases to exist, and the park name changes again? You say that after a while you get used to it, but two of the examples you give (Enron and PacBell) are already changing.

No, I don't know who plays at the Staples Center. I don't even know what it is.

Look, you guys like this, fine with me. You don't care about tradition, okay by me. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind. I don't like it, and nothing you say is going to change my mind. I still remember Forbes Field, Crosley Field, Ebbets Field, Sportsman's Park, the Polo Grounds. How many of the current corporate names will still hold memories for people fifty years from now, when they've probably changed six or eight times each?

Iwritecode
02-06-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Wrigley and Busch are a little different, as they are the actual family names of the team owners when the parks were built, not these made up, no connection to anything, corporate names. PacBell is a great example. PacBell has already been bought out by some communications conglomerate and now no longer exists by that name. Therefore, the ballpark will have yet another new name next year to represent the new computer-generated name. How long before U.S. Cellular gets acquired, merges, or ceases to exist, and the park name changes again? You say that after a while you get used to it, but two of the examples you give (Enron and PacBell) are already changing.

No, I don't know who plays at the Staples Center. I don't even know what it is.

Look, you guys like this, fine with me. You don't care about tradition, okay by me. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind. I don't like it, and nothing you say is going to change my mind. I still remember Forbes Field, Crosley Field, Ebbets Field, Sportsman's Park, the Polo Grounds. How many of the current corporate names will still hold memories for people fifty years from now, when they've probably changed six or eight times each?

Actually, I just read that Pac Bell is going to stay Pac Bell through next year. I guess they'll change the name after that.

Staples Center is where the Lakers play. Sorry, I switched sports on ya there... ;)

I guess it's the generational gap between us. I have no idea what any of those stadiums you just mentioned are. I've heard of the polo grounds though...

My main point is the same team will be out there no matter what the name of the stadium is. If the building is in the same spot the memories will stay the same no matter what's written on the outside. It's not like Comiskey (the first one) didn't go through a couple name changes of it's own.

Bobby Thigpen
02-06-2003, 03:50 PM
Nelly, I think tradition died with the old park. How many people didn't even call the new Comiskey by that name? I think that if this is the only way that the park can be upgraded then fine by me. I respect your opinion, but I just don't understand how you can't like something that can only benefit the Sox.

Even if US Cellular goes out of business they are contractually bound to pay the Sox the 68 million. If they do go out of business in five years what's to say we won't take their money and rename the park Comiskey Park. I think that would be hillarious.

34 Inch Stick
02-06-2003, 03:54 PM
Nellie you are right there is probably no argument to change a person's opinion on either side (that won't stop me from trying though).

The ballpark names that you listed, I assume that you remember the name because of the team that played there, or the charm of the building, not because of the name on the front door. You were probably not a regular in any of those stadia (you like the Latin). If you are like the majority of people you probably never set foot in the venue.

As an example Three Rivers Stadium is a great name. It sounds pleasant and is descriptive of a place I would like to see a game. It was a cookie cutter dog of a place in reality. Even a place like Olympic Stadium sounds great but we know the reality.

I understand to you the name is part of the charm. To me a rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

The only real problem I have is if Comiskey had been done correctly the first time this money could have gone to something other than stadium renovations. Another three million a year for other purposes would have been nice.

Nellie_Fox
02-06-2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
I think that if this is the only way that the park can be upgraded then fine by me. See, I'm not one who thinks Comiskey is in desperate need of upgrading. The only thing I don't care for is the upper deck, and there is nothing that can be done now to change how high or steep it is, and it is really no higher or steeper than most of the other new gingerbread ballparks with their manufactured quaintness that everyone seems so enamored of.

Bobby Thigpen
02-06-2003, 04:02 PM
I don't think anything needs to be drastically changed either.(although the proposed homer porch does look very nice) I like the way it is currently. My point is that if changing the park gets more people to come out then it will only increase the Sox revenue. If revenues increase then maybe, just maybe the Sox could go out and sign top notch free agent talent more often. At the very least Reisndorf could stop using that as his excuse not to get talent. I also would love to have a better looking park than the Pissbags do so that their last pathetic comeback in every argument would become a non factor.

Nellie_Fox
02-06-2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
I also would love to have a better looking park than the Pissbags do so that their last pathetic comeback in every argument would become a non factor. Think about it. If Wrigley Field (the name of the owners, not some corporation whose only connection to the team was writing a big check) didn't exist, and somebody built a new ballpark today that looked exactly like Wrigley, the reaction would be something like "holy crap, what kind of weak excuse for a ballpark is that?" It's not better looking than Comiskey, it's just old and venerated. It's a dump, and we all know it.

Bobby Thigpen
02-06-2003, 04:10 PM
I know, but I would like the new and improved park to be so far beyond compare that even the majority of Cubs fans couldn't even argue it. Maybe this post should be in pink. :D:

fuzzy_patters
02-06-2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by maurice
I think the point (made nicely by Stick) is that she should spend her time taking care of her constituents rather than pushing her family's personal agenda. Her constituents are not likely to benefit from revoking the naming rights deal (assuming that such a thing is even possible).

She is not trying to revoke the naming rights deal. If you read the article, she is trying to pass legislation to block future name changes of publicly own stadiums. This would affect Chicago's other public stadium, Soldier Field, but it does not affect the name on Sox Park.

34 Inch Stick
02-06-2003, 04:14 PM
It the Sox are playing, I would probably go to any type of stadium, anywhere in the city. It's the team that matters to me.

The Sox should just do a better job of selling the positives of Comiskey. The lower deck is great. It may be a sacrilege but I prefer the lower deck at Comiskey to that of Wrigley. The food is as good as any in this state. I could go on but who really cares. The deal is done, renovations will be undertaken and life will go on.

Cheryl
02-06-2003, 05:50 PM
Well Nellie, how far back do we go with this tradition thing? No DH? No divisions? No night games? Only white players?

Things change. Not always for the better, but they do.

jortafan
02-06-2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
She is not trying to revoke the naming rights deal. If you read the article, she is trying to pass legislation to block future name changes of publicly own stadiums. This would affect Chicago's other public stadium, Soldier Field, but it does not affect the name on Sox Park.

BUT, her bill (if it ever became law, which I don't think it would) would affect the ability of U.S. Cellular Field to ever have its name changed in the future. That is important in the event the company does not succeed, and someone else winds up trying to buy the naming rights in the future (which is always a possibility, since if U.S. Cell went bankrupt, the rights to the name on the ballpark would be an asset that could be sold off).

In short, her bill is actually bad for business interests, which is why I find it ironic that a DuPage GOPer is sponsoring it. I'm sure there are many people in Springpatch who would like to see the bill get stuck in a committee, and wish that Bellock would just keep her trap shut.

Nellie_Fox
02-06-2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
Well Nellie, how far back do we go with this tradition thing? No DH? No divisions? No night games? Only white players?
And how far are you willing to go with abandoning tradition for no reason other than $$$$$$$? Selling advertising space on the players' uniforms, like they do in Europe? How about a great big IBM logo on the Sox' jerseys, opposite the Sox emblem?

Cheryl
02-06-2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
And how far are you willing to go with abandoning tradition for no reason other than $$$$$$$? Selling advertising space on the players' uniforms, like they do in Europe? How about a great big IBM logo on the Sox' jerseys, opposite the Sox emblem?


Okay. As long as JR uses the money on the team.

Nellie_Fox
02-06-2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
Okay. As long as JR uses the money on the team. Wow. That's all I can say.

Dadawg_77
02-06-2003, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen

Even if US Cellular goes out of business they are contractually bound to pay the Sox the 68 million. If they do go out of business in five years what's to say we won't take their money and rename the park Comiskey Park. I think that would be hillarious.

If US Cellular goes under, the contract is worth what ever has been paid and paper it was written. Contracts can and do become invalid in bankruptcy courts.

Now, I am not sure on this point but even if the law passes, the Sox could still sell the naming rights up to the point where the lease on the park runs out. Since the lease grants the right to sell naming rights to the Sox, the State is legally bound to follow contract even if it run against laws passed after the contract was signed.

34 Inch Stick
02-07-2003, 10:02 AM
Nellie, I hate it when the league fouls a team's uniform hat during the World Series by placing a logo on the side. Still, I know you are not naive. You know this game, for some, has, and will always be about the money.

When I look pictures of classic stadiums, they had advertising on the outfield walls. The practice was stopped for a long time. However with the retro parks, it was once again considered nostalgic and is now prevalent throughout the league. The dot race, hat under ball game, bottled water race, bus race plane race, pizza race in between innings is annoying. The side change was never envisioned by the founders as a principal spot for advertisement, but now it is. While it may change your experience, it does not change the game.

I fear the day advertisements are on uniforms, but it will happen. The Anaheim Mighty Ducks were generated from a movie. At some point, a conglomerate owned team is going to push the envelope and say we are no longer the Chicago Cubs we are the Tribune Greatests. They will win a court battle over it and the practice will become the norm.

It does not change the game.