PDA

View Full Version : Ueberroth: '84 World Series Would Have Been At Comiskey


eriqjaffe
11-07-2007, 10:19 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/591759,CST-SPT-cubnews07.article

I'm only posting this because of its' tangential relation to the Sox. Carry on with the Torii Hunter threads!

Hitmen77
11-07-2007, 11:27 AM
The idea that the Cubs may not be able to host WS games at Wrigley in '84 is old news. I recall this came up at the time. I seem to remember that Dallas Green said that the Cubs would opt to play World Series games in St. Louis instead of Comiskey because they were not familiar with Comiskey and felt playing there would have given the AL team a certain advantage there.

Why would Ueberroth invoke this "best interest" clause to keep the Cubs from moving out of Wrigley when the league didn't stop the Tigers and White Sox from moving out of their historic ballparks? Could the league really block that sort of stadium move within the same metro area?

What is noteworthy is that people tend to forget that the Cubs were threatening to move to Schaumburg in the mid-80s because of the lights issue (the Tribune owned land in Schaumburg at the WGN radio transmitter site). That indicates that it wasn't all that long ago that Wrigley wasn't the total cash cow that it is now.

downstairs
11-07-2007, 11:36 AM
Could the league really block that sort of stadium move within the same metro area?

What people forget- with our current weak commish- is that the league can do whatever it wants. The "best interests of baseball" clause allows this.

Bud could have just suspended Barry Bonds indefinately if he wanted, and the record would have never fallen. And, yes, they can block any move they want.

Oblong
11-07-2007, 12:11 PM
I think it was a Roeper column that I read where this isn't true. There was a Michael Jackson concert planned well in advance during the WS week at Comiskey and it wouldn't have been moved for this.

doogiec
11-07-2007, 01:25 PM
Roeper definitely debunked that, he interviewed people who were involved in setting up the Jackson concert.

MLB had officially announced how they would handle a World Series at Wrigley, it wasn't any secret.

In 1984, the LCS was only five games. That meant the World Series was scheduled for Tu, Wed, Fri, Sat, Sun and the following Tu and Wed. The Cubs would have had home field advantage under the rotation followed back then. The network had a fit about the possibility of four weekday afternoon games. MLB decided that if the Cubs won the pennant, they would give up home field advantage to the AL Champs, therefore playing day games at Wrigley Fri, Sat and Sun which the network was agreeable to doing.

This has led to another Cub fan myth, that they only lost to the Padres that year because home field advantage was "stolen" from them as they did not have lights. I've actually seen that printed by sportswriters. The NL East was never scheduled to have home field that year, the only way the Cubs would have lost home field was if they advanced to the World Series.

WhiteSox5187
11-07-2007, 01:29 PM
Truth be told the '83 World Series shoulda been held at Comiskey too...:angry::angry:

Brian26
11-07-2007, 07:59 PM
Roeper definitely debunked that, he interviewed people who were involved in setting up the Jackson concert.

MLB had officially announced how they would handle a World Series at Wrigley, it wasn't any secret.

In 1984, the LCS was only five games. That meant the World Series was scheduled for Tu, Wed, Fri, Sat, Sun and the following Tu and Wed. The Cubs would have had home field advantage under the rotation followed back then. The network had a fit about the possibility of four weekday afternoon games. MLB decided that if the Cubs won the pennant, they would give up home field advantage to the AL Champs, therefore playing day games at Wrigley Fri, Sat and Sun which the network was agreeable to doing.

This has led to another Cub fan myth, that they only lost to the Padres that year because home field advantage was "stolen" from them as they did not have lights. I've actually seen that printed by sportswriters. The NL East was never scheduled to have home field that year, the only way the Cubs would have lost home field was if they advanced to the World Series.

Excellent post. Well-thought out, articulate and factually correct.

pdr
11-07-2007, 08:31 PM
'94 World Series Would Have Been At Comiskey

Fixed it for you.:whiner:

TommyJohn
11-07-2007, 08:39 PM
Roeper definitely debunked that, he interviewed people who were involved in setting up the Jackson concert.

MLB had officially announced how they would handle a World Series at Wrigley, it wasn't any secret.

In 1984, the LCS was only five games. That meant the World Series was scheduled for Tu, Wed, Fri, Sat, Sun and the following Tu and Wed. The Cubs would have had home field advantage under the rotation followed back then. The network had a fit about the possibility of four weekday afternoon games. MLB decided that if the Cubs won the pennant, they would give up home field advantage to the AL Champs, therefore playing day games at Wrigley Fri, Sat and Sun which the network was agreeable to doing.

This has led to another Cub fan myth, that they only lost to the Padres that year because home field advantage was "stolen" from them as they did not have lights. I've actually seen that printed by sportswriters. The NL East was never scheduled to have home field that year, the only way the Cubs would have lost home field was if they advanced to the World Series.



I just wish sportswriters had bothered to look that up before printing
Emperor Pete's rewrite of history. I don't know where Ueberroth got
his story from, but a quick check into news accounts from 1984 just
blows his story away. The 1984 World Series was NOT scheduled for
Comiskey Park.

pagansoxfan
11-07-2007, 09:02 PM
I can tell you for a fact, the flubs were THIS close to moving to of all places, picturesque Griffith, IN, during the 80's. The town had offered to buy the Griffith Golf Center, and turn it over to them for cheap. It would've been some type of partnership between the town and the flubs. Thank goddess it never happened! We had friends who were on the town board at the time, and were told it would have been the mother of all sweetheart deals.

DumpJerry
11-07-2007, 10:03 PM
That's not the only baseball bombshell that Ueberroth dropped related to the protracted battle over lights at Wrigley Field.
The former commissioner also revealed that he invoked his all-powerful ''best interests of baseball'' clause to block the Tribune Co. from demolishing Wrigley Field.
''The decision had been made internally to ... take it down and move to a suburb,'' he said. ''And I just -- the best interests of baseball. I didn't permit it. You cannot do that
Woah! This is the bombshell of the story!

Daver
11-07-2007, 10:09 PM
What people forget- with our current weak commish- is that the league can do whatever it wants. The "best interests of baseball" clause allows this.

Bud could have just suspended Barry Bonds indefinately if he wanted, and the record would have never fallen. And, yes, they can block any move they want.

No he can't, he has to be able to justify his actions to an NLRB arbiter. That losing a collusion case thing can be a real kick in the ass.