PDA

View Full Version : Best Ballparks


voodoochile
04-22-2003, 08:23 PM
I guess it is time for the annual fluff piece to promote the Trib's baseball club... er... I mean ballpark...

I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but Wrigley was rated the best ballpark in the majors by Paul Sullivan...

Shocking News (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-030422epballparks.story)

LuvSox
04-22-2003, 08:33 PM
I refuse to read the article, so I'll just be sarcastic.

Wrigley is the best place to..........

Throw back fake homers and keep the real balls

Be so out-of-your-mind drunk on Bud that you don't even know "that guy" playing first

Piss on the neighbors lawns

Hear people like Ted Bessell (sp?) murder "Take Me Out To The Ball Game"

Steal baseball traditions from the southside

Neglect to wash your hands after using the bathroom because the 'classy' Cubbie fans urinate in the sinks

Pay outrageous mark-ups on tickets from brokers that the Cubs sold the tix to in the first place, keeping them out of your grimey hands

Not give a sh** who wins as long as that doofus in RF hits a couple of dingers

dougs78
04-22-2003, 09:53 PM
I have to speak up here. Of course I disagree with Wrigley being #1, but I'll have to say that the rest of his list was pretty good. Of the ones I've been to (about 14) I think his list was comparable to where I'd have them. The only real difference is that I don't think much of Wrigley or Yankee Stadium. I think Fenway is the best and I really like PNC Park.

But really, before you criticize him too badly, realize his list was not completely off base. I think we all just have a negative bias about the AA park on the north side of town.

TheBigHurt
04-22-2003, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by LuvSox
I refuse to read the article, so I'll just be sarcastic.

Wrigley is the best place to..........

Throw back fake homers and keep the real balls

Be so out-of-your-mind drunk on Bud that you don't even know "that guy" playing first

Piss on the neighbors lawns

Hear people like Ted Bessell (sp?) murder "Take Me Out To The Ball Game"

Steal baseball traditions from the southside

Neglect to wash your hands after using the bathroom because the 'classy' Cubbie fans urinate in the sinks

Pay outrageous mark-ups on tickets from brokers that the Cubs sold the tix to in the first place, keeping them out of your grimey hands

Not give a sh** who wins as long as that doofus in RF hits a couple of dingers

HAVE you been drinking again? :D: :)

MHOUSE
04-22-2003, 10:09 PM
I don't think it was a surprise that the cubune rated Wrigley #1. But shouldn't technology and cleanliness of newer ballparks eventually outdate it? Plus it has weeds! Anyways so long as he seemed ok with the rest then you can't complain.

fuzzy_patters
04-22-2003, 10:32 PM
It's interesting that Sullivan ranks Wrigley Field #1, yet he complains about the smell at the Vet. Does Sullivan where a clothespin on his nose when he visits Pissley?

TheBigHurt
04-22-2003, 10:47 PM
WELL PSullivan wrote it.....I bet if the Moronati guy wrote it more people would be complaining......AM i acully right????

BE GOOD

TheBigHurt
04-22-2003, 10:49 PM
WELL i guess its true what they say in NY Shea is the baddest.....I'VE been there many times and dont think its that bad

BE GOOD

fuzzy_patters
04-22-2003, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by TheBigHurt
WELL i guess its true what they say in NY Shea is the baddest.....I'VE been there many times and dont think its that bad

BE GOOD

I've never been there, but I find it hard to believe that any outdoor stadium can be worse than Olympic Stadium, Tropicana Field, or the Mettrodome. Baseball was meant to be played on grass, oudoors.

MJL_Sox_Fan
04-22-2003, 11:06 PM
The wrigley b***s*** aside, I was somewhat pleased to see the Cell come in at 15 or 16. Which surprises me since the trib likes to ruin game recaps of big Sox wins by bemoaning the lack of fans and rehash complaints about the upper deck.

voodoochile
04-22-2003, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
I don't think it was a surprise that the cubune rated Wrigley #1. But shouldn't technology and cleanliness of newer ballparks eventually outdate it? Plus it has weeds! Anyways so long as he seemed ok with the rest then you can't complain.

Those are my main gripes with the place. I realize the age of the place and the day games with the ivy makes the place a fan favorite, but if you take away the age, it isn't that great of a park. In fact the seats are downright uncomfortable. The bleachers are just benches for cripes sake. It's all about the hype, not the actual amenities.

fuzzy_patters
04-22-2003, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Those are my main gripes with the place. I realize the age of the place and the day games with the ivy makes the place a fan favorite, but if you take away the age, it isn't that great of a park. In fact the seats are downright uncomfotable. The bleachers are just benches for cripes sake. It's all about the hype, not the actual amenities.

Right on. What's the deal with old parks, anyway? I really don't understand the nostalgia angle. Most people who remember when Wrigley was fairly new and saw World Series games there are either dead or in nursing homes. For the majority of people who attend games there it has always been an old dump. Wouldn't Cubs fans like to watch the same players in the same uniforms play in a state of the art stadium? Why do they enjoy sitting behind a pole engulfed in the stench of urine?

T Dog
04-22-2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
Right on. What's the deal with old parks, anyway? I really don't understand the nostalgia angle. Most people who remember when Wrigley was fairly new and saw World Series games there are either dead or in nursing homes.


There's about 15 years, I think, between Wrigley Field being new and World Series games being played there. When it was fairly new, it was judged unsuitable to host the Cubs appearance in the World Series.

When I was a kid, I basically knew Old Comiskey. I had been to a few games in Wrigley and seen a twi-night doubleheader in Forbes Field. When I moved out west, I was impressed with the Southern California ballparks because I didn't realize a baseball stadium could be clean. It isn't a small difference. If you found someone who didn't know Wrigley Field is supposed to be a shrine and took him to ballparks, I'm sure he would prefer Anaheim to Wrigley.

cheeses_h_rice
04-22-2003, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
Right on. What's the deal with old parks, anyway? I really don't understand the nostalgia angle. Most people who remember when Wrigley was fairly new and saw World Series games there are either dead or in nursing homes. For the majority of people who attend games there it has always been an old dump. Wouldn't Cubs fans like to watch the same players in the same uniforms play in a state of the art stadium? Why do they enjoy sitting behind a pole engulfed in the stench of urine?

Allow me to devil's advocate here a bit.

IMO, the main appeal of Wrigley Field is the fact that it's located smack-dab in the middle of a busy neighborhood. There really is more of a sense of hubbub and excitement around the park than at US Cellular, which is basically parking lots and a baseball stadium set off from everything else. When I was growing up (as both a Flubs and Sox fan), I remember the thrill I used to get when we'd ascend the stairs to the lower level and see that brick wall and green field. It IS a "homier" experience than you get at the new ballparks.

However, in recent years, I've come to dread the actual experience of watching more than an inning or two of baseball at Wrigley. The seats are just too small and uncomfortable; the concourses are too crowded and small; the interior of the park smells like crap; and many views are blocked by either the beams or the underside of the upper deck (good luck seeing anything resembling a high fly ball when you're toward the back of the lower deck). It isn't as bad as County Stadium was in its final days (man, what a dump), but I think it's going to be heading that way...

Vsahajpal
04-23-2003, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
Allow me to devil's advocate here a bit.

IMO, the main appeal of Wrigley Field is the fact that it's located smack-dab in the middle of a busy neighborhood. There really is more of a sense of hubbub and excitement around the park than at US Cellular, which is basically parking lots and a baseball stadium set off from everything else. When I was growing up (as both a Flubs and Sox fan), I remember the thrill I used to get when we'd ascend the stairs to the lower level and see that brick wall and green field. It IS a "homier" experience than you get at the new ballparks.

However, in recent years, I've come to dread the actual experience of watching more than an inning or two of baseball at Wrigley. The seats are just too small and uncomfortable; the concourses are too crowded and small; the interior of the park smells like crap; and many views are blocked by either the beams or the underside of the upper deck (good luck seeing anything resembling a high fly ball when you're toward the back of the lower deck). It isn't as bad as County Stadium was in its final days (man, what a dump), but I think it's going to be heading that way...

That's pretty much where I stand, I love Wrigley but it isn't perfect at all. The lower level (200) just sucks, and so does the parking. But I love where the park is situated, love the brick walls, the ivy, and the scoreboard. My heart races every time I get close to that park, even during offseason nights bar-hopping in that neighborhood.

Kroozah
04-23-2003, 01:15 AM
IMO I have been to some parks and I would say that Pac Bell has to be the best park I have been to. One thing that I hate to admit, that I have season ticket package at Pac Bell and have Giants garbe to boot. But I will always will be a Sox fan no matter what, its a sick thing we all have isn't it?


And the worst is Tropicana field, and food and team...and on and on we go, the whole thing was horrible, only good thing is they beat the Yankmees...

LuvSox
04-23-2003, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by TheBigHurt
HAVE you been drinking again? :D: :)

No. Well, maybe. I'm just fed up with the Cubbie rhetoric. Tired of all the ego-feeding they do.

hsnterprize
04-23-2003, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Those are my main gripes with the place. I realize the age of the place and the day games with the ivy makes the place a fan favorite, but if you take away the age, it isn't that great of a park. In fact the seats are downright uncomfortable. The bleachers are just benches for cripes sake. It's all about the hype, not the actual amenities. The weird part is there is so much bureaocracy with trying to improve Wrigley, that's its not even worth trying to "renovate". Too many people want a piece of the pie when it comes to the benefits of improving Wrigley, and this whole situation up there is nothing more than just a pain in the royal behind.

I disagree about this author's take on Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati. This writer must think the folks in Cincy were trying to creast their own "red" version of Wrigley or something. Reds' officials say they weren't trying to make a "retro" ballpark, but a modern-style place with plenty of Reds history all over the place. I tend to like the red seats, the "Crosley Gap" and all the other nooks and crannies of the place. It distinctively says, "This is Reds country.", and it's so much better than that ugly cookie-cutter they played in before this year.

Wsoxmike59
04-23-2003, 07:00 AM
I think a lot of the anti Wrigley sentiment here is due to the fact these moron cub fans bash our park because they've been led around by their nose by the know nothing media.

When Comiskey Park II opened in 1991 to rave reviews just about every team in the league wanted a new ballpark then.

Imitation is the best form of flattery, and all the ballparks that opened since 1992 have copied and improved upon the Comiskey design.

These moron cub fans that bash our park are idiots. I call them on it too. I say what is it that you don't like about it....the wide aisles and concourses?? Great sightlines in the lower deck, unobstructed views, good food and concessions.......etc???

The new Comiskey reminds me of 3 ballparks in existence in the Major Leagues today. Kansas City's Kaufmann stadium, Dodger Stadium in L.A., and Yankee Stadium in NY.

I ask the cub fans that bash our park, now what's wrong with those parks??? Nothing.

jortafan
04-23-2003, 07:28 AM
Actually, I found his list most interesting because Cellular Field was NOT ranked as the worst of the stadiums built and opened in the 1990s. Such a thought would be heresy to Mariotti and his ilk, but it acknowledges that the building is in the same league as Jacobs Field and Comerica Park, and a step up from Turner Field in Atlanta, although not quite up there with the building in Baltimore.

hsnterprize
04-23-2003, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Wsoxmike59
I think a lot of the anti Wrigley sentiment here is due to the fact these moron cub fans bash our park because they've been led around by their nose by the know nothing media.

When Comiskey Park II opened in 1991 to rave reviews just about every team in the league wanted a new ballpark then.

Imitation is the best form of flattery, and all the ballparks that opened since 1992 have copied and improved upon the Comiskey design.

These moron cub fans that bash our park are idiots. I call them on it too. I say what is it that you don't like about it....the wide aisles and concourses?? Great sightlines in the lower deck, unobstructed views, good food and concessions.......etc???

The new Comiskey reminds me of 3 ballparks in existence in the Major Leagues today. Kansas City's Kaufmann stadium, Dodger Stadium in L.A., and Yankee Stadium in NY.

I ask the cub fans that bash our park, now what's wrong with those parks??? Nothing. Ummm...lemme ask you a question about your thoughts...why was Oriole Park at Camden Yards (OP@CY) given such fanfare when it opened? Of course, when the new Comiskey opened, there wasn't anything like it our there, so there was a lot of fanfare about it. But, when OP@CY came up, the new Comiskey was virtually forgotten about because it wasn't a "retro" ballpark. In fact, it's been documented over and over again that there was no original intent to even put the new ballpark on the property it's on now until Mayor Daley forces the Sox to put the ballpark where it is. Not to mention, there was also no real intent to make the ballpark have any relics of the Old Comiskey Park until the location was settled. If you look at books in bookstores about ballparks, you'll find tons of writing about places like Wrigley, OP@CY, The Ballpark in Arlington (TX), Coors Field, and other "retro" ballparks. With the new Comiskey, you'll be lucky if you find a couple of paragraphs and big pictures to fill the space. With the current renovations, U.S. Cellular Field is shedding it's "bland" and "boring" image. But it took a while for the ballpark and Sox ownership to get to this point.

In fact, every new ballpark that has opened through the 90's, whether a major league park or minor league park, has some OP@CY influence in it, whether if it's in the middle of the downtown part of the city, or you can see the city's skyline or something like it from your seats, the assymetrical fencing, or simple a classic look with all the nooks and crannies of a modern ballpark. I agree with you that U.S. Cellular Field does have the similarities of Dodger Stadium, Yankee Stadium, and Kauffman Stadium, but there was a lot of poor and cheap design with that place, and it's only now that the ballpark is getting some much needed improvements. Of course, it's messed up when Cub fans constantly ridiculed our place, but when the national media either puts the place down or ignores it, there's a problem. And as much as I can rip the national press for its treatment of U.S. Cellular Field, there are some criticisms I've agreed with (i.e., the upper deck steepness, the blandness of the place, no atmosphere, etc.) for some time. Even with all the positives you outlined, such as wider, brighter, and cleaner concourses, unobstructed views, great food, etc., there were too many things about that place there were just too plain compared to places like OP@CY. Whether you and other Sox fans like it or not, the Sox wouldn't be renovating the ballpark if it weren't for the constant complaining about it over the past 12 years.

dougs78
04-23-2003, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by jortafan
Actually, I found his list most interesting because Cellular Field was NOT ranked as the worst of the stadiums built and opened in the 1990s. Such a thought would be heresy to Mariotti and his ilk, but it acknowledges that the building is in the same league as Jacobs Field and Comerica Park, and a step up from Turner Field in Atlanta, although not quite up there with the building in Baltimore.

I think that Jacob's Field and Comiskey may be in the same ballbark, but really the Jake is better in many ways. I really like that stadium. I think the real point to be made is that Comiskey is not really among the best ballparks, but its certainly average at the very least.


Also, having been to Shea, Hump dome and L'estad Olympique, I might have to agree that Shea is the worst. That place is horrible. Hump dome is pretty bad since the seats down the lines are faced for football games and so you end up looking at the Centerfield scoreboard instead of back toward the plate.

Dan H
04-23-2003, 09:26 AM
Wrigley is a good ballpark because of its intimacy, but it is still overrated. The concourses are too small, and the place can't handle the crowds it gets. Also, if you get a lower deck seat that is under the upper deck, you will lose sight of many a fly ball. I've been to about 10 major league parks outside of Chicago, and there is no way Wrigley will ever rank #1 in my book. And Miller Park is actually a bad place to watch a game. Candlestick was a great looking park, but in a horrible location. I have issues with Comiskey II, but I do like the wide ramps and the ability to walk around the whole park. Enough of Wrigley already. The propaganda is sickening.

jortafan
04-23-2003, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by hsnterprize
In fact, it's been documented over and over again that there was no original intent to even put the new ballpark on the property it's on now until Mayor Daley forces the Sox to put the ballpark where it is.

I'm going to assume you're too young to remember firsthand, but Harold Washington was still mayor when local officials reached a deal to keep the new park at 35th and Wentworth, and Eugene Sawyer was mayor when the Legislature did its midnight dealings that approved the state financing.

Rich Daley had nothing to do with this.

Harold was the one who vehemently believed that the White Sox should remain on the South Side, and preferably in a neighborhood of easy access to African-American fans. He would view much of the sniping that takes place now about the Sox' neighborhood as being snobby, if not racist.

But you are right that the Sox would have left the city altogether, if they could have had their way.

Hangar18
04-23-2003, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
That's pretty much where I stand, I love Wrigley but it isn't perfect at all. The lower level (200) just sucks, and so does the parking. But I love where the park is situated, love the brick walls, the ivy, and the scoreboard. My heart races every time I get close to that park, even during offseason nights bar-hopping in that neighborhood.

Theres no way I rank that park #1. thats the problem, the media fell in love with the place and kept telling people its the best (iraqi info minister) that soon enough, Everyone thinks it must be So, and now the cubs are so gosh darn popular, because of that overrated park. I will say this, it is more fun going TO the game, as opposed to WATCHING the actual game.
the Bars, the Nightlife, the Crowds, you cant help but have fun.
Getting inside though is another thing, and of course, watching the damn game is beside the point. This is why I dont agree with him making this the #1 park. Ridiculous judgement from a guy that lives/reports in Chicago. Ive been there. That park sucks, not enough bathrooms, sightlines are awful, Seats are very uncomfortable, the Food is some of the worst in baseball, the lines for Everything from bathrooms, to beer, to food are ridiculous and you miss most of the game anyway. But Just because your stadium has the most bars near your stadium, making hot chicks with nothing to do want to come by and have a drink, That Does Not a #1 Stadium Make. Can you imagine if the Sox Decided to build a few bars and restaurants across the street from the park and TRIED to apply one of these major RULES of Urban Planning (how to create foot traffic)? Thats the only thing club wrigley has on us.

LetsGoSox_1
04-23-2003, 11:40 AM
I agree that U.S. Cellular Field is a very comfortable and enjoyable place to WATCH A BASEBALL GAME, but if people are only looking for a ballpark that has main attractions other than the team on the field or going just for the park itself, The Cell does not seem to deliver with the average out of towner. I love going to The Cell, because im a Sox fan like all of you. I think the food is good, the views are clear, the concourses are nice, and I enjoy watching my team play. But for out of towners, Wrigley is the place to go, because of it's ivy, brick walls, classic image, etc. I really do disagree that Wrigley is the best ballpark in America as I think Pac Bell Park or maybe Camden Yards takes that award. Wrigley looks beautiful to many people on the outside, but as many have stated before, it is uncomfortable to watch a ballgame in many of it's seats, the food is bad, and the views are obscured and not satisfactory.

whitesoxwilkes
04-23-2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Dan H
And Miller Park is actually a bad place to watch a game.

How can you say that? Great sightlines at the "Keg."

Hullett_Fan
04-23-2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by whitesoxwilkes
How can you say that? Great sightlines at the "Keg."


I agree. I like Miller Park a lot. IMO, I feel a lot closer to the field there than at either Chicago park. I can't wait to head up there for a game in June. Fun atmosphere too.

In some ways it's even better than Comiskey. I was wishing we had a retractable roof on opening day! :D:

DrCrawdad
04-23-2003, 01:03 PM
Sullivan pens a love of Wrigley article, but did you see the column where he said the Hundley-for-Grudzielanek/Karros to Brock-for-Broglio?

Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio remains the most infamous trade in Cubs history, the one that gets mentioned in almost every barroom debate over the worst trades in baseball history.

Though four other players were involved in the Cubs-Cardinals deal, the lyrical sound of Brock-for-Broglio remains fresh in everyone's memories nearly 39 years after it took place.

Grudzielanek for Hundley doesn't quite trip off the tongue like Brock-for-Broglio, and neither player will enter the Hall of Fame without a ticket. But the trade that brought Mark Grudzielanek and Eric Karros to the Cubs for catcher Todd Hundley and Chad Hermansen is the early-season favorite for steal of the year...

Here is what a few Cub fans have said about the article:

From that point....well, any intelligent analysis of the Grudzielanek
situation requires a healthy dose of skepticism, and there was none to be
found in this article. Comparing this to the Brock trade, where the Cubs
gave up a future star player AT AGE 25, is absurd on its face. There is
absolutely no way on God's Green Earth that anyone will look back on this
trade and compare it to Brock for Broglio. He didn't have to go this far to
find nice things to say about Grudzielanek.

I was also amused about the Benito Santiago comparison. While Santiago's
2002 season was a surprise, it wasn't a huge surprise. Santiago had a
handful of seasons in the past where he did as well as he did in 2002.
Grudzielanek has never hit this well in his entire career as he has hit so
far, and he came close only once (1999). Grudzielanek's career high
Equivalent Average from 1999 (.281) is similar to that of players like Vance
Law (1988) and Jose Hernandez (2002). This is not someone to get hugely
excited about even if he matches his career best.


...it also was a marketing piece...

All this is a bit absurd. The unquestionable fact is that the Cubs gave
up less than nothing for two players, each of whom could be had by 29
other teams for less than nothing. Incidentally, originally I liked
the Grudzielanek acquisition since I saw him as a useful reserve. The
problem was that he and Martinez duplicate values.

Am I misremembering, or has Grudz had a number of fast starts in his
career?

Foulke You
04-23-2003, 01:06 PM
As long as Fenway Park still stands, it remains the greatest classic ballpark in the game. Great sightlines for an old park as long as you aren't seated near "Pesky's Pole" or the support beams, fun neighborhood immediately outside the park that is less trendy/yuppyish than Wrigley (Boston Beer Works...mmmm...beer), and surprisingly the park empties out pretty quickly considering it's old design. Last year after the White Sox won the rubber match in Fenway (remember that gem Garland pitched last year? Ah the memories) they were shutting the lights off 15-20 minutes after the conclusion of the game and the security guards were shooing us out. Wrigley takes 15 minutes just to get to the concourse after a game. The hot dogs were average at best, maybe I'm just spoiled by Comiskey food? The seats are comfortable for an old park, the staff is friendly, and (surprise!) you can actually talk baseball with the fans seated around you and swap Yankee hating stories. Not seeing one floppy hat in the stands alone makes it a better park than Wrigley. The scoreboard is quite informative and sorry Cub fans, the jumbotron does nothing to ruin the ambiance of the park. Took the tour of the field, I stood in the shadow of the green monster on the warning track, and sat in the same dugout that Ted Williams did. The place just screams baseball history and deserves #1 status.

"The Cell" is my sentimental favorite (hey, the White Sox play there) and I really like the new renovations. The park is starting to look fantastic and I'm really looking forward to the upper deck renovation and HR porch in the coming years.

I also disagreed with Miller Park's low status, I thought it is a nice park. The place is much better with the dome open though. I still like "The Cell" better but it certainly deserved higher ranking than it got.

BTW, Shea deserves to be higher than Olympic, Metrodome, and Tropicana simply because it is grass and outside.

doublem23
04-23-2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
I think Fenway is the best and I really like PNC Park.

What? Fenway Park is utterly horrible, too.

Foulke You
04-23-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
What? Fenway Park is utterly horrible, too.

Surely you meant for that to be in teal? See my previous post for my thoughts of Fenway.

doublem23
04-23-2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
Surely you meant for that to be in teal? See my previous post for my thoughts of Fenway.

Fenway was easily as bad as Wrigley... Stupid fans, where I was sitting, I had terrible sitelines (My seats didn't even face the infield), and overall, just a horrible place to watch baseball.

trimbo
04-23-2003, 01:41 PM
I'm a Giants hater, but I can freely admit that Pac Bell is the best. Views of the field are good, and there's that wall you can just hang out on if you want to catch Bonds' HRs. Really fan friendly... there are gated areas where you can watch 3 innings for free at ground level in RF. Nice view of SF bay from the top deck, which is probably as steep as the Cell (yet no one complains for some reason), and it get can get pretty windy up there. PacBell has really great play areas for kids as well , and mmm... garlic fries. The park seems kind of flimsy though, like it's not built to last.

Best part of Pac Bell is that they've kept the low-end ticket prices reasonable even though they could charge a lot more. Somehow, California clubs have kept the price of bleacher seats manageable (SF = $11, Dodgers = $6, Oakland = $8)

Foulke You
04-23-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Fenway was easily as bad as Wrigley... Stupid fans, where I was sitting, I had terrible sitelines (My seats didn't even face the infield), and overall, just a horrible place to watch baseball.

Well, I was there for the whole White Sox series last year and sat in 3 different parts of the park (Pesky's pole, infield box, and Left Field Grandstand) and had a great time. I agree that the sightlines in the RF grandstand past Pesky's pole aren't the greatest (perhaps this is where you sat?) but other than that, a very enjoyable place to watch a game. However, you are entitled to your opinions.

dllrbll7
04-23-2003, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by trimbo

Best part of Pac Bell is that they've kept the low-end ticket prices reasonable even though they could charge a lot more. Somehow, California clubs have kept the price of bleacher seats manageable (SF = $11, Dodgers = $6, Oakland = $8)

I guess the idea that bleachers should be cheap hasnt blown this way because the sox are at $22

hsnterprize
04-24-2003, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by jortafan
I'm going to assume you're too young to remember firsthand, but Harold Washington was still mayor when local officials reached a deal to keep the new park at 35th and Wentworth, and Eugene Sawyer was mayor when the Legislature did its midnight dealings that approved the state financing.

Rich Daley had nothing to do with this.

Harold was the one who vehemently believed that the White Sox should remain on the South Side, and preferably in a neighborhood of easy access to African-American fans. He would view much of the sniping that takes place now about the Sox' neighborhood as being snobby, if not racist.

But you are right that the Sox would have left the city altogether, if they could have had their way. I confess I thought it was Daley that was in the workings in this case. I was in the Army when all of the "goings-on" were happening, and was in Fort Bragg the year the new Comiskey opened up.