The Chicago Cubs' ownership has taken to bribing fans to attend games. First, it was the Best Buy Family Pak: 4 tickets, hot dogs and sodas for $80 (April/May dates only). Now it's the Bud Light Bleacher Series: Free t-shirt Mondays, $3 beer Tuesdays and dollar dog Wednesdays. Naturally, outrageous ticket prices still apply. No games blacked out, strangely enough.
There are two driving factors at work here. First, the Cubs are miserable with few if any marketable stars. They are 15-18 this season. Yes, that's only four games behind the division leaders, whom they host this week. But there's no reason to believe they will improve to the point of contending for the division crown. That is several years away and unlikely with this group of nobodies, save Starlin Castro.
The second factor is obvious: Cubs fans are beginning to realize the few advantages of paying top dollar to sit in an aging, decrepit dump of a ballpark for 3½ hours. Depsite the ownership's plans for some semblance of renovation, the fan experience at Wrigley Field isn't going to improve without a complete razing and reconstruction of the seating areas. That just isn't going to happen.
As attendance figures continue to deteriorate and fans either save their money or pursue other entertainment options (White Sox? Brewers?), Wrigley Field's reliability as a profit center for ownership decreases. Perhaps this is what it will take. Losing? It's too early to tell how much losing seasons bother this ownership. Decades of losing certainly didn't phase the previous two ownership groups. Yes, we congratulate the Tribune Co. for adding lights in 1988. But the Tribune never fought for the full 55-game night schedule the Cubs desperately need. Now, stuck with too many day games and a ballpark that is no longer a cash cow, perhaps the Ricketts are finally spurred to action. The next step: a retractable-roof ballpark, either near United Center on the West Side or Sears Centre in Hoffman Estates. No night-game limits. No frozen bats. No offense-killing wind. Just championship baseball.
Showing posts with label Chicago Cubs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chicago Cubs. Show all posts
Monday, May 9, 2011
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Please move out of Wrigley, Mr. Ricketts!
Mr. Tom Ricketts
Chairman, Chicago Cubs
1060 W Addison St
Chicago IL 60613-4397
Dear Mr. Ricketts:
I applaud your efforts to modernize Wrigley Field with a major renovation. Unfortunately, it’s lipstick on a pig if the ballpark’s two main impediments to winning are not addressed: the night game limit and the wind effect on fly balls. I suspect playing 30 night games per season instead of 55 costs the Cubs five to ten wins—a critical difference. As Steve Stone noted while discussing the wind in a USA Today article last year, the Cubs have won 50 home games only three times since 1945. The Cardinals have done it three times in the past decade. There’s a serious home-field disadvantage in Lakeview, and the wind’s unpredictability plays a major factor.
Assuming the night-game limit and wind effect remain unchanged, you have two choices. You could run the club much like the Tribune Co. did and make a lot of money. The Cubs would win 70-85 games per season in Wrigley Field and never win another pennant. Or you can build a 21st Century marvel—a Miller Park near United Center or Sears Centre—and bring a world championship home. As a lifelong Cubs fan like yourself, it pains me that the Cubs begin every season at a serious disadvantage due to the second-worst facility* in the majors for players and fans. Wrigley Field is pretty, but it’s worth noting the Cubs have never won a championship there. At first it was the wind’s fault. Now it’s night games too. Thank you for your June 7 reply to my letter last year. With regard to night games, you wrote you want the Cubs to be “good neighbors.” I concur. Good neighbors win championships.
Sincerely,
-----------------
*Oakland is worst.
Chairman, Chicago Cubs
1060 W Addison St
Chicago IL 60613-4397
Dear Mr. Ricketts:
I applaud your efforts to modernize Wrigley Field with a major renovation. Unfortunately, it’s lipstick on a pig if the ballpark’s two main impediments to winning are not addressed: the night game limit and the wind effect on fly balls. I suspect playing 30 night games per season instead of 55 costs the Cubs five to ten wins—a critical difference. As Steve Stone noted while discussing the wind in a USA Today article last year, the Cubs have won 50 home games only three times since 1945. The Cardinals have done it three times in the past decade. There’s a serious home-field disadvantage in Lakeview, and the wind’s unpredictability plays a major factor.
Assuming the night-game limit and wind effect remain unchanged, you have two choices. You could run the club much like the Tribune Co. did and make a lot of money. The Cubs would win 70-85 games per season in Wrigley Field and never win another pennant. Or you can build a 21st Century marvel—a Miller Park near United Center or Sears Centre—and bring a world championship home. As a lifelong Cubs fan like yourself, it pains me that the Cubs begin every season at a serious disadvantage due to the second-worst facility* in the majors for players and fans. Wrigley Field is pretty, but it’s worth noting the Cubs have never won a championship there. At first it was the wind’s fault. Now it’s night games too. Thank you for your June 7 reply to my letter last year. With regard to night games, you wrote you want the Cubs to be “good neighbors.” I concur. Good neighbors win championships.
Sincerely,
-----------------
*Oakland is worst.
Please help the Cubs, Mr. Selig
Mr. Allan H. “Bud” Selig
Major League Baseball
75 Ninth Ave, 5th Flr,
New York, NY 10011
Dear Mr. Selig:
During your remarkable tenure as baseball commissioner, you have persuaded nearly every home market to build a new ballpark for its team. Fans reap the benefits of modern amenities, comfortable seating areas and plentiful concessions. Players enjoy spacious locker rooms and indoor practice/workout facilities.
So why are the Cubs left behind?
Incredibly, the fourth-most popular team in baseball has the second-worst ballpark in baseball.* Due to its crippling limited night-game schedule and lack of premium seating areas, the Cubs don’t enjoy the revenue or exposure they deserve. Wrigley Field’s night-game shortage and devastating wind effect make a Cubs pennant almost impossible.
Imagine FOX’s World Series ratings if the Cubs were to participate. Every night would be like a Super Bowl. Sadly, the Cubs have almost no chance of reaching the Fall Classic so long as they remain in Wrigley Field. They need a Miller Park, near United Center (West Side) or Sears Centre (northwest suburbs), to compete fairly with their league rivals. With strong leadership from the commissioner’s office, the Cubs could leave Wrigley Field gracefully, allowing it to become the museum and shrine to baseball its neighbors and nostalgia fans desire. Meanwhile, the Cubs could turn to the business of winning championships.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Major League Baseball
75 Ninth Ave, 5th Flr,
New York, NY 10011
Dear Mr. Selig:
During your remarkable tenure as baseball commissioner, you have persuaded nearly every home market to build a new ballpark for its team. Fans reap the benefits of modern amenities, comfortable seating areas and plentiful concessions. Players enjoy spacious locker rooms and indoor practice/workout facilities.
So why are the Cubs left behind?
Incredibly, the fourth-most popular team in baseball has the second-worst ballpark in baseball.* Due to its crippling limited night-game schedule and lack of premium seating areas, the Cubs don’t enjoy the revenue or exposure they deserve. Wrigley Field’s night-game shortage and devastating wind effect make a Cubs pennant almost impossible.
Imagine FOX’s World Series ratings if the Cubs were to participate. Every night would be like a Super Bowl. Sadly, the Cubs have almost no chance of reaching the Fall Classic so long as they remain in Wrigley Field. They need a Miller Park, near United Center (West Side) or Sears Centre (northwest suburbs), to compete fairly with their league rivals. With strong leadership from the commissioner’s office, the Cubs could leave Wrigley Field gracefully, allowing it to become the museum and shrine to baseball its neighbors and nostalgia fans desire. Meanwhile, the Cubs could turn to the business of winning championships.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Fold some teams!
Mr. Tom Ricketts
Chicago Cubs
1060 W Addison St
Chicago IL 60613-4305
Dear Mr. Ricketts:
It is in the Chicago Cubs’ best interest for MLB to contract some of its lowest-revenue, luxury-tax taking, money-losing ballclubs. With the leadership of the Yankees’ front office, the Cubs could help form a ballclub group that would include the Mets, Red Sox, Phillies and Dodgers. These ballclubs could strongly advocate for MLB to contract in the next collective bargaining agreement negotiations. Pittsburgh and Kansas City should obviously be folded or converted to AAA ballclubs. Tampa Bay, Toronto, Oakland and Phoenix should not be overlooked. Fewer teams and fewer inferior players would strengthen competition and improve the overall product. For the Cubs, eliminating home dates with Pittsburgh (and travel thereto) would be significant progress. If the Cubs could also convince MLB to send Houston to the AL West in the resultant division shuffle, the schedule would improve dramatically.
Foisting supbar competition on fans isn’t fair. Subsidizing these ballclubs’ operations in perpetuity isn’t fair, either. It’s time for the Cubs to help Major League Baseball return to being truly major league.
Sincerely,
Chicago Cubs
1060 W Addison St
Chicago IL 60613-4305
Dear Mr. Ricketts:
It is in the Chicago Cubs’ best interest for MLB to contract some of its lowest-revenue, luxury-tax taking, money-losing ballclubs. With the leadership of the Yankees’ front office, the Cubs could help form a ballclub group that would include the Mets, Red Sox, Phillies and Dodgers. These ballclubs could strongly advocate for MLB to contract in the next collective bargaining agreement negotiations. Pittsburgh and Kansas City should obviously be folded or converted to AAA ballclubs. Tampa Bay, Toronto, Oakland and Phoenix should not be overlooked. Fewer teams and fewer inferior players would strengthen competition and improve the overall product. For the Cubs, eliminating home dates with Pittsburgh (and travel thereto) would be significant progress. If the Cubs could also convince MLB to send Houston to the AL West in the resultant division shuffle, the schedule would improve dramatically.
Foisting supbar competition on fans isn’t fair. Subsidizing these ballclubs’ operations in perpetuity isn’t fair, either. It’s time for the Cubs to help Major League Baseball return to being truly major league.
Sincerely,
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Whachootalkinbout, Ryno?
Hall of Fame second baseman and current Iowa Cubs manager Ryne Sandberg wants to manage the Chicago Cubs. The position is currently vacant for the 2011 season pending the front office's final decision.
We've heard from people who knew Ryne Sandberg personally that he is not that bright, to put it mildly. His comments on Cubs Insider Sunday morning seemed to confirm that he is not smart enough to manage at the major-league level. He believes Wrigley Field and the day-game schedule (only 30 home night games instead of 55, like all other teams) are to the Cubs' advantage despite their miserable record of mediocrity and 102 years without a title. After angrily typing out a letter to the manager of the Iowa Cubs, we settled on this toned-down version:
Sept. 15, 2010
Mr. Ryne Sandberg
Iowa Cubs
1 Line Dr
Des Moines IA 50309-4640
Dear Mr. Sandberg:
I found your comments on the Sept. 12 edition of Cubs Insider on WGN Radio grossly inaccurate and irresponsible. You mentioned Wrigley Field and day games as being advantages for the Chicago Cubs. Given the Cubs’ championship drought, I don’t understand that. How many World Series championships have the Cubs won in the night-game era (1939-present)? They have never won a championship while playing in Wrigley Field. In fact, the Cubs’ habit of winning pennants stopped abruptly right around the time their opponents shifted to a night-game schedule. Furthermore, since 1945, the Cubs have exceeded 50 wins per season in Wrigley Field just three times. The Cardinals have won 50 games per season more than three times just in the previous decade. So rather than being an advantage, it seems that the day-game schedule and Wrigley Field present real obstacles to winning.
For the Cubs to have a reasonable chance to win a championship, they need the ownership to make extensive upgrades to Wrigley Field’s seating and player facilities—similar to the K.C. Royals’ $250 million ballpark upgrade before this season. Most importantly, the ownership needs to persuade the alderman to allow the Cubs 55 night home games per season, seven nights a week—just like their opponents. Just like the Yankees, who are perennial contenders. In this endeavor, the Ricketts family will need public support from the players and coaching staff. Comments celebrating the day-game schedule that dooms the Cubs to mediocrity are not helpful.
Best wishes for the offseason.
Sincerely,
xxxxx
["Winning a pennant" means reaching the World Series but not winning it.]
We've heard from people who knew Ryne Sandberg personally that he is not that bright, to put it mildly. His comments on Cubs Insider Sunday morning seemed to confirm that he is not smart enough to manage at the major-league level. He believes Wrigley Field and the day-game schedule (only 30 home night games instead of 55, like all other teams) are to the Cubs' advantage despite their miserable record of mediocrity and 102 years without a title. After angrily typing out a letter to the manager of the Iowa Cubs, we settled on this toned-down version:
Sept. 15, 2010
Mr. Ryne Sandberg
Iowa Cubs
1 Line Dr
Des Moines IA 50309-4640
Dear Mr. Sandberg:
I found your comments on the Sept. 12 edition of Cubs Insider on WGN Radio grossly inaccurate and irresponsible. You mentioned Wrigley Field and day games as being advantages for the Chicago Cubs. Given the Cubs’ championship drought, I don’t understand that. How many World Series championships have the Cubs won in the night-game era (1939-present)? They have never won a championship while playing in Wrigley Field. In fact, the Cubs’ habit of winning pennants stopped abruptly right around the time their opponents shifted to a night-game schedule. Furthermore, since 1945, the Cubs have exceeded 50 wins per season in Wrigley Field just three times. The Cardinals have won 50 games per season more than three times just in the previous decade. So rather than being an advantage, it seems that the day-game schedule and Wrigley Field present real obstacles to winning.
For the Cubs to have a reasonable chance to win a championship, they need the ownership to make extensive upgrades to Wrigley Field’s seating and player facilities—similar to the K.C. Royals’ $250 million ballpark upgrade before this season. Most importantly, the ownership needs to persuade the alderman to allow the Cubs 55 night home games per season, seven nights a week—just like their opponents. Just like the Yankees, who are perennial contenders. In this endeavor, the Ricketts family will need public support from the players and coaching staff. Comments celebrating the day-game schedule that dooms the Cubs to mediocrity are not helpful.
Best wishes for the offseason.
Sincerely,
xxxxx
["Winning a pennant" means reaching the World Series but not winning it.]
Monday, September 6, 2010
Is there a plot to undermine Judaism?
I'm trying to think of the non-Jewish equivalent of non-kosher restaurants hosting Jewish holiday meals. First it was Pesach; this week it's Rosh Hashanah.
For those with reservations at non-kosher restaurants for the Rosh Hashanah prix fixe meal Wednesday evening, here's a better idea: Wrigley Field. First pitch, 7:05--just 13 minutes after candle-lighting.
Why is a Cub game a better idea? Because the connection to Judaism is the same: there is none. The difference is the Cubs don't pretend that their game is a Jewish event. By hosting Rosh Hashanah dinners, the non-kosher restaurants are sending a message: "We can do your holiday better than you can--treif kitchen be damned."
Don't let them get away with it!
Do these restaurants host lunch buffets for Muslims during Ramadan (when Muslims are prohibited from eating during daylight hours)? Of course not. Catholic meals with steak on Fridays during Lent? Just the opposite: restaurants, correctly and respectfully, offer fish-on-Friday menu specials during Lent.
So why insult Jews with non-kosher meals on two of the most important (and most observed, along with Yom Kippur) holidays of the year?
What's next--a singles dance/nightclub event on a Friday night?
Already on the calendar.
The annual Christmas Eve event will go on as scheduled despite Christmas Eve falling on Friday this year. Moving it up 24 hours to Thursday night wouldn't affect attendance; no one goes to work on Dec. 24 when it's a Friday.
Why are so many working so hard to turn Jews away from tradition?
For those with reservations at non-kosher restaurants for the Rosh Hashanah prix fixe meal Wednesday evening, here's a better idea: Wrigley Field. First pitch, 7:05--just 13 minutes after candle-lighting.
Why is a Cub game a better idea? Because the connection to Judaism is the same: there is none. The difference is the Cubs don't pretend that their game is a Jewish event. By hosting Rosh Hashanah dinners, the non-kosher restaurants are sending a message: "We can do your holiday better than you can--treif kitchen be damned."
Don't let them get away with it!
Do these restaurants host lunch buffets for Muslims during Ramadan (when Muslims are prohibited from eating during daylight hours)? Of course not. Catholic meals with steak on Fridays during Lent? Just the opposite: restaurants, correctly and respectfully, offer fish-on-Friday menu specials during Lent.
So why insult Jews with non-kosher meals on two of the most important (and most observed, along with Yom Kippur) holidays of the year?
What's next--a singles dance/nightclub event on a Friday night?
Already on the calendar.
The annual Christmas Eve event will go on as scheduled despite Christmas Eve falling on Friday this year. Moving it up 24 hours to Thursday night wouldn't affect attendance; no one goes to work on Dec. 24 when it's a Friday.
Why are so many working so hard to turn Jews away from tradition?
Sunday, September 5, 2010
A message from Tom Ricketts--I hope
Thank you for attending this press conference on short notice.
Owning the Cubs has been an absolute dream come true. After spending so many summer afternoons and evenings in the bleachers, I never could have imagined running the team I followed growing up. When I bought the Cubs form Tribune Co., I told Cubs fans worldwide my goak is a World Series championship, and for the Cubs to be a perennial National League power. Little did I know how difficult this challenge would turn out to be. I have decided to do whatever is necessary and possible to bring home aWorld Series championship. The night-game comproise, agreed to by the previous ownership group, is absolutely unworkable if the Cubs are to compete for a championship with any frequency. I have asked my friend Ald. Tom Tunney to submit to the full City council a bill rescnding the night-game limit, effective with the start of the 2011 season.
I have also asked the alderman to give fast-track approval to the extensive construction and renovation plans we have for the main grandstand, which will begin as soon as the Cubs play their final home game of the season. We hope to complete the renovation by Opening Day, 2011. We are confident that visiting Wrigley Field will be a much more enjoyable experience for Cubs fans once the main grandstand and concourses are rebuilt. It's absolutely essential that we have tom's full cooperation as we change the Cubs' 20th Century malaise to a 21st Century powerhouse. We will be unable to field a competitive team here in Lakeview without Tom's assistance.
As for the Cubs' on-field struggles this season, make no mistake: a tradition of losing is no longer acceptable here. When we arrived before the start of this season, we took on some very bad long-term contracts. We will no longer permit those contracts to interefer with our pursuit of a World Series championship. Players whom we believe are not contributing to our goals will be traded or released. There will be no exceptions.
We said at the beginning that this was Year One, not Year 102. Nothing has changed. Next year is a new opportunity, and we intend to take full advantage. Thank you very much.
Owning the Cubs has been an absolute dream come true. After spending so many summer afternoons and evenings in the bleachers, I never could have imagined running the team I followed growing up. When I bought the Cubs form Tribune Co., I told Cubs fans worldwide my goak is a World Series championship, and for the Cubs to be a perennial National League power. Little did I know how difficult this challenge would turn out to be. I have decided to do whatever is necessary and possible to bring home aWorld Series championship. The night-game comproise, agreed to by the previous ownership group, is absolutely unworkable if the Cubs are to compete for a championship with any frequency. I have asked my friend Ald. Tom Tunney to submit to the full City council a bill rescnding the night-game limit, effective with the start of the 2011 season.
I have also asked the alderman to give fast-track approval to the extensive construction and renovation plans we have for the main grandstand, which will begin as soon as the Cubs play their final home game of the season. We hope to complete the renovation by Opening Day, 2011. We are confident that visiting Wrigley Field will be a much more enjoyable experience for Cubs fans once the main grandstand and concourses are rebuilt. It's absolutely essential that we have tom's full cooperation as we change the Cubs' 20th Century malaise to a 21st Century powerhouse. We will be unable to field a competitive team here in Lakeview without Tom's assistance.
As for the Cubs' on-field struggles this season, make no mistake: a tradition of losing is no longer acceptable here. When we arrived before the start of this season, we took on some very bad long-term contracts. We will no longer permit those contracts to interefer with our pursuit of a World Series championship. Players whom we believe are not contributing to our goals will be traded or released. There will be no exceptions.
We said at the beginning that this was Year One, not Year 102. Nothing has changed. Next year is a new opportunity, and we intend to take full advantage. Thank you very much.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Can you handle rebuilding, Cubs fans?
The Chicago Cubs' current record is atrocious. It is good for fourth or fifth place in the NL Central, 11½ games behind the division-leading St. Louis Cardinals. They are officially playing out the string.
Why not rebuild? The Cubs have been afraid of suffering at the gate during a rebuilding period, especially if that takes more than one year. With one-third of Cubs home games played during the business day, that concern is certainly understandable. But doing little or nothing should not be an option, either. Is ownership's goal to make a profit with a mostly full ballpark? Or is it to win a World Series? Writing from the desk of a lifelong Cubs fan, it had better be the latter.
Rebuilding is a challenge. Fans need to keep the faith. To see how it works, one only need look as far as Philadelphia and Detroit. The Phillies, recently so bad they were the Sillies, won the World Series in 2008 and lost the Series in 2009 to the Yankees. The Tigers were horrible in the early 2000's but won the pennant in 2006. They lost the World Series to the Cardinals.
Cubs fans more accustomed to 95-loss seasons than division championships would consider a pennant-winning season a huge accomplishment--a first for most fans. A World Series championship--the first since 1908--would make a lifetime of devotion worthwhile for millions of Cubs fans.
The 2006 season embarrassed Cubs management. The Cubs lost 96 games, and thousands of empty seats at Wrigley Field appearing on Cubs tv broadcasts shocked the front office. To make matters worse, White Sox tv ratings surpassed the Cubs' ratings. The Cubs had been Chicago's tv darlings for decades.
The Cubs' management sprang to action. It hired manager Lou Piniella, and the Cubs cruised to two straight division crowns. Unfortunately, the Cubs extended their postseason losing streak to nine games and their postseason record in California to a very sad 0-7.
Without a serious ownership commitment to rebuilding as well as a full night-game schedule, I'm afraid this is what we have to look forward to: a division championship once or twice a decade. That's it. Forget World Series glory. It's up to you, Mr. Ricketts. You're The Man. Make it happen.
Why not rebuild? The Cubs have been afraid of suffering at the gate during a rebuilding period, especially if that takes more than one year. With one-third of Cubs home games played during the business day, that concern is certainly understandable. But doing little or nothing should not be an option, either. Is ownership's goal to make a profit with a mostly full ballpark? Or is it to win a World Series? Writing from the desk of a lifelong Cubs fan, it had better be the latter.
Rebuilding is a challenge. Fans need to keep the faith. To see how it works, one only need look as far as Philadelphia and Detroit. The Phillies, recently so bad they were the Sillies, won the World Series in 2008 and lost the Series in 2009 to the Yankees. The Tigers were horrible in the early 2000's but won the pennant in 2006. They lost the World Series to the Cardinals.
Cubs fans more accustomed to 95-loss seasons than division championships would consider a pennant-winning season a huge accomplishment--a first for most fans. A World Series championship--the first since 1908--would make a lifetime of devotion worthwhile for millions of Cubs fans.
The 2006 season embarrassed Cubs management. The Cubs lost 96 games, and thousands of empty seats at Wrigley Field appearing on Cubs tv broadcasts shocked the front office. To make matters worse, White Sox tv ratings surpassed the Cubs' ratings. The Cubs had been Chicago's tv darlings for decades.
The Cubs' management sprang to action. It hired manager Lou Piniella, and the Cubs cruised to two straight division crowns. Unfortunately, the Cubs extended their postseason losing streak to nine games and their postseason record in California to a very sad 0-7.
Without a serious ownership commitment to rebuilding as well as a full night-game schedule, I'm afraid this is what we have to look forward to: a division championship once or twice a decade. That's it. Forget World Series glory. It's up to you, Mr. Ricketts. You're The Man. Make it happen.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Wrigley costs the Cubs wins, Mr. Ricketts
Let me first note how gracious it was of Mr. Ricketts to respond personally to my letter. As Mr. Ricketts noted in his response, there are many demands on his time due to his position as owner of a Major League Baseball club.
My first point was to suggest a major renovation of Wrigley Field's main grandstand, which I believe has fallen into disrepair. Mr. Ricketts assured me it is perfectly safe. I'm sure he is right. But that solves barely half the problem. The Cubs currently charge top-tier prices (highest in the National League) for a third-rate fan experience. Any baseball fan fortunate enough to visit one of the 24 Major League ballparks built in the last 20 years notices significant differences right away: wide concourses, ample concessions and gift shoppes, clear sight-lines, and fan-friendly scoreboards and video boards. Also, from the owner's standpoint, Wrigley Field cannot produce revenue streams from luxury suites, club levels and VIP seating that other clubs enjoy. Wrigley looks and feels like a 96-year-old ballpark ill-equipped to handle large crowds 81 times a year. Only a major renovation with a rebuilt grandstand, I believe, will bring the Cubs to their rivals' level. Mr. Ricketts seems to think otherwise.
My second point is more serious and more pressing because I believe it affects the Cubs' on-field performance. I humbly suggested to Mr. Ricketts that he lobby the Cubs' alderman for more night games. Bigger crowds, higher television ratings, more television revenue, and fans being able to see games without leaving work early are all benefits of an expanded night-game schedule. The Cubs are also at a competitive disadvantage from playing 45 percent fewer home night games than their rivals. Whether it's five consecutive matinée starts (June 30 - July 4, 2010) or too many night games followed by day games, the players' rhythm is thrown off by their matinée-heavy home schedule. If the shortage of home night games costs the Cubs five wins a year, that's too many. I think it's a lot more. The new ownership group should be doing everything within its power to bring a World Series championship to Wrigley Field. I understand Mr. Ricketts wants to be a "good neighbor," as he put it. But that should not be his first priority. His first priority should be a World Series championship.
Furthermore, it seems the alderman and Hizzoner Da Mare have raised the community concerns regarding night games to mythological levels. Is the whole community against night games? Or is it the Little Old Lady at Addison and Southport? I would love to see a poll of the community; the Cubs might be pleasantly surprised. I attended a community meeting in November, 2003 regarding a proposed increase in night games. Despite the opposition's strong organization--by then it had been functioning for more than 20 years--attendees were overwhelmingly in favor of more night games. "Why stop at 30?" one man asked to resounding cheers. The Cubs have been in the neighborhood since 1916 and have hosted night games since 1988. A whole generation of children--the usual reason given for night-game restrictions--has grown up with night baseball in Lakeview. The Cubs' owners in the 1980's made a grave mistake agreeing to night game limits, and that is now restraining the Cubs' ability to win games.
Forcing fans, especially season ticket-holders, to miss work to attend games is elitist. The White Sox play three games during the business day this season (other than Opening Day, a traditional matinée). The Cubs play 27. Would a fan making a game-day decision prefer a game in the afternoon heat or an evening start with a breeze blowing in off the lake? Through 27 home dates (June 12), the Chicago Tribune reports Cubs' attendance is down 1233 fans from 2009, which the Tribune estimates is a $1.2 million hit to the Cubs' bottom line. That's serious cash, especially when one considers the Cubs are holding the three worst contracts in Major League Baseball: Carlos Zambrano, Aramis Ramirez and Alfonso Soriano. The Cubs cannot afford to wait for the current 30 night-game agreement to expire after the 2018 season. Despite Mr. Ricketts' desire to be "good neighbors," the Cubs need to act sooner rather than later. The one constant difference between the Cubs and the 26 teams that have won pennants since 1945 is night baseball. Yes, the Cubs' ownership was cheap and negligent for decades. Yes, the Cubs have had terrible luck. But the Cubs always play with a significant disadvantage because when other teams were busy installing lights and moving to a majority night-game schedule, the Wrigleys stuck it out. Cubs fans are still paying for that 65-year-old mistake.
Remember that banner some Cubs fans paraded through Wrigley Field in 1984? "39 Years of Suffering is Over," it said, referring to the pennant drought.
No, it isn't. And now it's 65 years. 102 years if one is counting championships.
My first point was to suggest a major renovation of Wrigley Field's main grandstand, which I believe has fallen into disrepair. Mr. Ricketts assured me it is perfectly safe. I'm sure he is right. But that solves barely half the problem. The Cubs currently charge top-tier prices (highest in the National League) for a third-rate fan experience. Any baseball fan fortunate enough to visit one of the 24 Major League ballparks built in the last 20 years notices significant differences right away: wide concourses, ample concessions and gift shoppes, clear sight-lines, and fan-friendly scoreboards and video boards. Also, from the owner's standpoint, Wrigley Field cannot produce revenue streams from luxury suites, club levels and VIP seating that other clubs enjoy. Wrigley looks and feels like a 96-year-old ballpark ill-equipped to handle large crowds 81 times a year. Only a major renovation with a rebuilt grandstand, I believe, will bring the Cubs to their rivals' level. Mr. Ricketts seems to think otherwise.
My second point is more serious and more pressing because I believe it affects the Cubs' on-field performance. I humbly suggested to Mr. Ricketts that he lobby the Cubs' alderman for more night games. Bigger crowds, higher television ratings, more television revenue, and fans being able to see games without leaving work early are all benefits of an expanded night-game schedule. The Cubs are also at a competitive disadvantage from playing 45 percent fewer home night games than their rivals. Whether it's five consecutive matinée starts (June 30 - July 4, 2010) or too many night games followed by day games, the players' rhythm is thrown off by their matinée-heavy home schedule. If the shortage of home night games costs the Cubs five wins a year, that's too many. I think it's a lot more. The new ownership group should be doing everything within its power to bring a World Series championship to Wrigley Field. I understand Mr. Ricketts wants to be a "good neighbor," as he put it. But that should not be his first priority. His first priority should be a World Series championship.
Furthermore, it seems the alderman and Hizzoner Da Mare have raised the community concerns regarding night games to mythological levels. Is the whole community against night games? Or is it the Little Old Lady at Addison and Southport? I would love to see a poll of the community; the Cubs might be pleasantly surprised. I attended a community meeting in November, 2003 regarding a proposed increase in night games. Despite the opposition's strong organization--by then it had been functioning for more than 20 years--attendees were overwhelmingly in favor of more night games. "Why stop at 30?" one man asked to resounding cheers. The Cubs have been in the neighborhood since 1916 and have hosted night games since 1988. A whole generation of children--the usual reason given for night-game restrictions--has grown up with night baseball in Lakeview. The Cubs' owners in the 1980's made a grave mistake agreeing to night game limits, and that is now restraining the Cubs' ability to win games.
Forcing fans, especially season ticket-holders, to miss work to attend games is elitist. The White Sox play three games during the business day this season (other than Opening Day, a traditional matinée). The Cubs play 27. Would a fan making a game-day decision prefer a game in the afternoon heat or an evening start with a breeze blowing in off the lake? Through 27 home dates (June 12), the Chicago Tribune reports Cubs' attendance is down 1233 fans from 2009, which the Tribune estimates is a $1.2 million hit to the Cubs' bottom line. That's serious cash, especially when one considers the Cubs are holding the three worst contracts in Major League Baseball: Carlos Zambrano, Aramis Ramirez and Alfonso Soriano. The Cubs cannot afford to wait for the current 30 night-game agreement to expire after the 2018 season. Despite Mr. Ricketts' desire to be "good neighbors," the Cubs need to act sooner rather than later. The one constant difference between the Cubs and the 26 teams that have won pennants since 1945 is night baseball. Yes, the Cubs' ownership was cheap and negligent for decades. Yes, the Cubs have had terrible luck. But the Cubs always play with a significant disadvantage because when other teams were busy installing lights and moving to a majority night-game schedule, the Wrigleys stuck it out. Cubs fans are still paying for that 65-year-old mistake.
Remember that banner some Cubs fans paraded through Wrigley Field in 1984? "39 Years of Suffering is Over," it said, referring to the pennant drought.
No, it isn't. And now it's 65 years. 102 years if one is counting championships.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Mr. Ricketts writes back
On Feb. 12, I wrote a letter to Tom Ricketts, the new owner of the Chicago Cubs. In this letter, I suggested the Cubs need a complete ballpark renovation and a full night-game schedule to compete on even terms with their rivals. On June 7, Mr. Ricketts wrote back. Here is his letter:
As you can imagine, the past year has been a busy one for the Ricketts Family. Words cannot describe how excited we all are to finally be a part of this great franchise. Because of all the activities involved with taking ownership of the Cubs, I have been unable to answer my personal mail as quickly as I would have liked. Now that the season is well under way, replying to this mail has become my next priority.
I read with great interest your suggestions on improving Wrigley Field. After meeting with various structural engineers, we have been assured that Wrigley has 'good bones.' It is our goal to reinvest the profits back into the stadium to preserve the Wrigley experience for the next generation. We have already begun some of these upgrades such as improved restrooms, a batting tunnel arcade, a new and expanded weight room, kitchen and nutrition center as well as a players' lounge. But, because it is a 100-year-old park, it will take time to implement all the changes that are desired.
At the current time, there are no plans to add more night games to our schedule. We want to be good neighbors and part of the community so we need to be respectful of the neighborhood we 'live' in. However, we have not ruled out possibly adding more night games in the future.
Thank you so much for taking the time to write. It is always a pleasure to hear from a fellow Cub fan.
Sincerely,
[signed: Tom]
Tom Ricketts
Chairman
As you can imagine, the past year has been a busy one for the Ricketts Family. Words cannot describe how excited we all are to finally be a part of this great franchise. Because of all the activities involved with taking ownership of the Cubs, I have been unable to answer my personal mail as quickly as I would have liked. Now that the season is well under way, replying to this mail has become my next priority.
I read with great interest your suggestions on improving Wrigley Field. After meeting with various structural engineers, we have been assured that Wrigley has 'good bones.' It is our goal to reinvest the profits back into the stadium to preserve the Wrigley experience for the next generation. We have already begun some of these upgrades such as improved restrooms, a batting tunnel arcade, a new and expanded weight room, kitchen and nutrition center as well as a players' lounge. But, because it is a 100-year-old park, it will take time to implement all the changes that are desired.
At the current time, there are no plans to add more night games to our schedule. We want to be good neighbors and part of the community so we need to be respectful of the neighborhood we 'live' in. However, we have not ruled out possibly adding more night games in the future.
Thank you so much for taking the time to write. It is always a pleasure to hear from a fellow Cub fan.
Sincerely,
[signed: Tom]
Tom Ricketts
Chairman
Monday, June 21, 2010
Is it time for Ron Santo to go?
I had planned on questioning Ron Santo's intelligence on this page after reading that he said "rock scientist" instead of rocket scientist and "slime flu" instead of swine flu. If he really isn't familiar with the common American phrase "rocket scientist" and didn't peruse 2009's top news stories to learn what swine flu is, maybe he shouldn't be broadcasting Cubs games. On the other hand, this has been his job for 20 years. He turned 70 years old this year.
In a June 21 story, Chicago Tribune Sports reporter Dave Van Dyck wrote that Ron Santo will be cutting back on his travel schedule in 2011. He will most likely keep to a 300-mile travel radius, working Cubs games in Milwaukee, Cincinnati and St. Louis in addition to home games. The Tribune also printed two online postings from readers urging Santo to retire. Whether to keep him on or push him out was a topic on at least two different sports radio shows on June 21.
What is the issue? I was about to say that due to poor health, old age or low intelligence, Santo's contributions to the radio broadcast rarely rise above simple cheering good news for the Cubs or loudly lamenting the Cubs' woes. Apparently his delivery hasn't changed much in 20 years, so I'm afraid it's the latter. Most announcers, play-by-play and color, prepare for each game (or at least each series) by studying the opponent. There is no evidence Santo takes the time to do this. Most color commentators provide intelligence and wisdom to the game and valuable insight from their on-field experiences. Santo played Major League Baseball for about 15 years, but it's difficult to tell from listening to him during Cubs games.
I would suggest the Cubs move Santo to a weekly radio show in which he talks about the Cubs. But that would require intelligent thought and discussion on his part. So such a show is most likely over his head.
In a June 21 story, Chicago Tribune Sports reporter Dave Van Dyck wrote that Ron Santo will be cutting back on his travel schedule in 2011. He will most likely keep to a 300-mile travel radius, working Cubs games in Milwaukee, Cincinnati and St. Louis in addition to home games. The Tribune also printed two online postings from readers urging Santo to retire. Whether to keep him on or push him out was a topic on at least two different sports radio shows on June 21.
What is the issue? I was about to say that due to poor health, old age or low intelligence, Santo's contributions to the radio broadcast rarely rise above simple cheering good news for the Cubs or loudly lamenting the Cubs' woes. Apparently his delivery hasn't changed much in 20 years, so I'm afraid it's the latter. Most announcers, play-by-play and color, prepare for each game (or at least each series) by studying the opponent. There is no evidence Santo takes the time to do this. Most color commentators provide intelligence and wisdom to the game and valuable insight from their on-field experiences. Santo played Major League Baseball for about 15 years, but it's difficult to tell from listening to him during Cubs games.
I would suggest the Cubs move Santo to a weekly radio show in which he talks about the Cubs. But that would require intelligent thought and discussion on his part. So such a show is most likely over his head.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
No silent defenders of that dump Wrigley Field
A friendly warning to those who might dare criticize that miserable, pathetic, dilapidated, decrepit, sorry excuse for a ballpark Wrigley Field: bring an umbrella. And old clothes. And be ready to duck the tomatoes.
That dump Wrigley Field certainly has its defenders who have made their feelings known to me, quite a few of whom are young Jewish women. "Charming." Of course it is. So is a park bench in a downpour. Nice to look at--not so nice to sit in and take in a game. Around the league, the only ballparks that approach Wrigley Field in terms of "worst ballpark experience" are Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum (1966) and Fenway Park (1916). Alameda County's taxpayers built the Coliseum as a bipurpose facility for baseball and football. Apparently the Oakland Raiders' return in 1995 and the Coliseum's subsequent remodeling for football ruined it for baseball. Like that overcrowded bandbox Wrigley Field, Fenway Park looks nice on tv and is full of history, but it's a terrible place to watch a ballgame.
Part of the blame for the sad state of Wrigley Field, which should have been imploded years ago, falls directly on the Cubs' miserable ownership. Decades of neglect from the Wrigley family and then Tribune Co. contributed to the Cubs remaining in a ballpark best suited for baseball in the 1930's and 1940's, when it was just a few decades old and still on the cutting edge of ballpark technology and architecture. If Chicago had followed the lead of major National League cities such as Atlanta, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Cincinnati in the 1960's, it would have built a bipurpose baseball-football facility for the Cubs and Bears. Instead, the Bears moved from Wrigley Field to a college athletic stadium--Soldier Field--and the Cubs stayed put. P.K. Wrigley never bothered to install lights despite all his fellow owners doing so. Why didn't Major League Baseball force the Cubs to start playing home games at night? So sad that they are now stuck in a serious competitive disadvantage due to playing 45 percent fewer night games than their rival clubs.
So neither the Wrigley family nor Tribune Co. followed their fellow owners in friendly blackmail with their civic hosts: threaten to leave if the taxpayers don't come up with a new ballpark. The Wrigleys sat quietly by (never having enough money to run the team well after the 1930's, anyway) while their colleagues built new stadiums in the 1950's and 1960's. The Tribune Co. enjoyed the revenue from the renewed popularity of "retro" Wrigley Field in the 1990's and 2000's (while fielding truly awful Cubs teams) while other cities indulged their baseball teams again with new ballparks.
Now the Cubs are doubly cursed: they aren't allowed to play enough night games in an aging, decrepit ballpark the city is ready to condemn. An urban legend says the Wrigleys bought lighting equipment in 1941, and then the U.S. went to war, so the Wrigleys donated the equipment to the war effort. And they did nothing about lights from 1945 until they sold the club in 1981! To make matters worse, the new owners at that time, the Tribune Co., compromised with the city and the Cubs' neighbors, agreeing to very strict, untenable night game limits: 18 night games per season beginning in 1989, and 30 night games per season beginning in 2004 and continuing today. Other teams play 55 home games at night. The Cubs wear themselves out in the summer sun every season, meaning they need to be much stronger than their rivals to reach the playoffs. It's not a coincidence they haven't won the pennant since 1945, when most teams were still playing no night games or very few night games. It's a severe competitive disadvantage.
New owner Tom Ricketts announced very modest plans to renovate his ballpark, but he isn't even replacing the troughs in the men's restrooms. He wants the Cubs to host the All-Star Game in 2014, but he isn't planning any serious upgrades, and he isn't interested in changing the night-game schedule. I guess he isn't serious about a world championship, either.
That dump Wrigley Field certainly has its defenders who have made their feelings known to me, quite a few of whom are young Jewish women. "Charming." Of course it is. So is a park bench in a downpour. Nice to look at--not so nice to sit in and take in a game. Around the league, the only ballparks that approach Wrigley Field in terms of "worst ballpark experience" are Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum (1966) and Fenway Park (1916). Alameda County's taxpayers built the Coliseum as a bipurpose facility for baseball and football. Apparently the Oakland Raiders' return in 1995 and the Coliseum's subsequent remodeling for football ruined it for baseball. Like that overcrowded bandbox Wrigley Field, Fenway Park looks nice on tv and is full of history, but it's a terrible place to watch a ballgame.
Part of the blame for the sad state of Wrigley Field, which should have been imploded years ago, falls directly on the Cubs' miserable ownership. Decades of neglect from the Wrigley family and then Tribune Co. contributed to the Cubs remaining in a ballpark best suited for baseball in the 1930's and 1940's, when it was just a few decades old and still on the cutting edge of ballpark technology and architecture. If Chicago had followed the lead of major National League cities such as Atlanta, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Cincinnati in the 1960's, it would have built a bipurpose baseball-football facility for the Cubs and Bears. Instead, the Bears moved from Wrigley Field to a college athletic stadium--Soldier Field--and the Cubs stayed put. P.K. Wrigley never bothered to install lights despite all his fellow owners doing so. Why didn't Major League Baseball force the Cubs to start playing home games at night? So sad that they are now stuck in a serious competitive disadvantage due to playing 45 percent fewer night games than their rival clubs.
So neither the Wrigley family nor Tribune Co. followed their fellow owners in friendly blackmail with their civic hosts: threaten to leave if the taxpayers don't come up with a new ballpark. The Wrigleys sat quietly by (never having enough money to run the team well after the 1930's, anyway) while their colleagues built new stadiums in the 1950's and 1960's. The Tribune Co. enjoyed the revenue from the renewed popularity of "retro" Wrigley Field in the 1990's and 2000's (while fielding truly awful Cubs teams) while other cities indulged their baseball teams again with new ballparks.
Now the Cubs are doubly cursed: they aren't allowed to play enough night games in an aging, decrepit ballpark the city is ready to condemn. An urban legend says the Wrigleys bought lighting equipment in 1941, and then the U.S. went to war, so the Wrigleys donated the equipment to the war effort. And they did nothing about lights from 1945 until they sold the club in 1981! To make matters worse, the new owners at that time, the Tribune Co., compromised with the city and the Cubs' neighbors, agreeing to very strict, untenable night game limits: 18 night games per season beginning in 1989, and 30 night games per season beginning in 2004 and continuing today. Other teams play 55 home games at night. The Cubs wear themselves out in the summer sun every season, meaning they need to be much stronger than their rivals to reach the playoffs. It's not a coincidence they haven't won the pennant since 1945, when most teams were still playing no night games or very few night games. It's a severe competitive disadvantage.
New owner Tom Ricketts announced very modest plans to renovate his ballpark, but he isn't even replacing the troughs in the men's restrooms. He wants the Cubs to host the All-Star Game in 2014, but he isn't planning any serious upgrades, and he isn't interested in changing the night-game schedule. I guess he isn't serious about a world championship, either.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
From the new Cubs' ownership: more of the same
During last weekend's Cubs convention at the Chicago Hilton Towers, new Cubs owner Tom Ricketts put an end to any optimism in my mind that he is serious about winning.
No Friday night games. No video board.
The video board (often referred to by Sony's trade name, JumboTron) is a side issue. It's a nice amenity for fans who want to see replays or see themselves on Kiss Cam. More importantly for the club, it's an opportunity to sell video ads (commercials) during inning breaks. It would be another revenue stream for the Cubs, who sorely need more of them.
Playing Friday night games (which I would be unable to attend) is a competition issue. Every team has 13 Friday home games. Unless one of those is Opening Day, every other club in Major League Baseball plays those games at night. Playing at home at 1:20 Friday afternoon puts the Cubs at a significant competitive disadvantage. Whether they are returning home after a Thursday road game or playing after a rare Thursday night home game, playing a Friday matinée drives players absolutely crazy. They are exhausted, and they could use an extra six hours off. Instead, they're back at the ballpark. Why can't they play on Friday nights?
Parking, say neighborhood whiners. How can parking be an issue on Fridays? Neighborhood residents are entitled to resident parking permits that allow them to park in the night-game zone, a large area surrounding Wrigley Field that extends one-half or one mile beyond the ballpark. For non-residents, it's a 5pm-10pm tow zone on night-game dates. So what's the issue?
The Cubs have an informal agreement (not in writing) with the neighborhood not to schedule Friday or Saturday night games. Saturday nights are less of an issue due to MLB's current contract with Fox Sports. Fox's Saturday afternoon broadcasts force teams to schedule their games according to the network's wishes, meaning start times of 12:05 or 3:15 CDT. But Friday night is a real problem and will continue to hamper the Cubs' championship hopes.
The larger issue, of course, is the number of night games the Cubs can play. All other Major League Baseball clubs play about 55 of their 81 home games at night. By Chicago ordinance, the Cubs are limited to 30 (through 2018). This is a tremendous competitive disadvantage that the previous ownership stupidly agreed to: first in 1988, when the lights were under construction; and then again in 2003, when the Cubs revised and renewed their agreement with the city. Neighborhood stalwarts who have lived there since the 1970's (no night games) insist on enforcing the night game limit, which I like to call the "no-pennant" law. The Cubs have been playing night games for 22 seasons now. An entire generation of Wrigley Field's neighbors have grown accustomed to the night games, and I suspect most would enthusiastically support a full complement of 55 night games, including Friday and Saturday nights.
The Pittsburgh Pirates last won a World Series championship in 1979. The Bucs have now suffered 17 consecutive losing seasons. The Kansas City Royals last won a World Series championship in 1985 and have not been to the playoffs since then. The Royals are perennial bottom-feeders in the American League. The Cubs' owners can afford better records than the Pirates and Royals, but I fear their futility in securing pennants and world championships won't be much different.
The team's new owners, the Ricketts family, is proud of its new Chief Hospitality Officer position. If I were Tom Ricketts, I would quickly install a new Neighborhood Liaison Officer, charged with securing a full night-game schedule from Ald. Tom Tunney (44th) as well as permission for a complete renovation of the main grandstand. Obviously, Mr. Ricketts and I don't see eye-to-eye on the team's priorities. The team should have just one priority: winning a World Series. The previous two ownership groups (Wrigley family, then Tribune Co.) were either indifferent to that goal or financially unable to deliver. The Ricketts can certainly afford to bring a World Series to long-suffering Cubs fans. Whether they care enough is another story.
No Friday night games. No video board.
The video board (often referred to by Sony's trade name, JumboTron) is a side issue. It's a nice amenity for fans who want to see replays or see themselves on Kiss Cam. More importantly for the club, it's an opportunity to sell video ads (commercials) during inning breaks. It would be another revenue stream for the Cubs, who sorely need more of them.
Playing Friday night games (which I would be unable to attend) is a competition issue. Every team has 13 Friday home games. Unless one of those is Opening Day, every other club in Major League Baseball plays those games at night. Playing at home at 1:20 Friday afternoon puts the Cubs at a significant competitive disadvantage. Whether they are returning home after a Thursday road game or playing after a rare Thursday night home game, playing a Friday matinée drives players absolutely crazy. They are exhausted, and they could use an extra six hours off. Instead, they're back at the ballpark. Why can't they play on Friday nights?
Parking, say neighborhood whiners. How can parking be an issue on Fridays? Neighborhood residents are entitled to resident parking permits that allow them to park in the night-game zone, a large area surrounding Wrigley Field that extends one-half or one mile beyond the ballpark. For non-residents, it's a 5pm-10pm tow zone on night-game dates. So what's the issue?
The Cubs have an informal agreement (not in writing) with the neighborhood not to schedule Friday or Saturday night games. Saturday nights are less of an issue due to MLB's current contract with Fox Sports. Fox's Saturday afternoon broadcasts force teams to schedule their games according to the network's wishes, meaning start times of 12:05 or 3:15 CDT. But Friday night is a real problem and will continue to hamper the Cubs' championship hopes.
The larger issue, of course, is the number of night games the Cubs can play. All other Major League Baseball clubs play about 55 of their 81 home games at night. By Chicago ordinance, the Cubs are limited to 30 (through 2018). This is a tremendous competitive disadvantage that the previous ownership stupidly agreed to: first in 1988, when the lights were under construction; and then again in 2003, when the Cubs revised and renewed their agreement with the city. Neighborhood stalwarts who have lived there since the 1970's (no night games) insist on enforcing the night game limit, which I like to call the "no-pennant" law. The Cubs have been playing night games for 22 seasons now. An entire generation of Wrigley Field's neighbors have grown accustomed to the night games, and I suspect most would enthusiastically support a full complement of 55 night games, including Friday and Saturday nights.
The Pittsburgh Pirates last won a World Series championship in 1979. The Bucs have now suffered 17 consecutive losing seasons. The Kansas City Royals last won a World Series championship in 1985 and have not been to the playoffs since then. The Royals are perennial bottom-feeders in the American League. The Cubs' owners can afford better records than the Pirates and Royals, but I fear their futility in securing pennants and world championships won't be much different.
The team's new owners, the Ricketts family, is proud of its new Chief Hospitality Officer position. If I were Tom Ricketts, I would quickly install a new Neighborhood Liaison Officer, charged with securing a full night-game schedule from Ald. Tom Tunney (44th) as well as permission for a complete renovation of the main grandstand. Obviously, Mr. Ricketts and I don't see eye-to-eye on the team's priorities. The team should have just one priority: winning a World Series. The previous two ownership groups (Wrigley family, then Tribune Co.) were either indifferent to that goal or financially unable to deliver. The Ricketts can certainly afford to bring a World Series to long-suffering Cubs fans. Whether they care enough is another story.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Wanted: a Cubs owner who cares
Could the Chicago Cubs buy a decent owner?
The Wrigley family managed to field competitive teams in the 1930’s and 1940’s, winning the National League pennant several times. But the Wrigleys didn’t have the passion or the finances to compete with the big boys in New York or Los Angeles. Gee, they couldn’t even compete with the little boys in St. Louis or Cincinnati. The Cardinals and Reds have won 13 World Series championships between them since the Cubs won a pair in 1907 and 1908. The small-market river towns 275 and 300 miles away? How embarrassing.
It’s probably better that the Tribune Co. didn’t build a new ballpark in the early 1980’s after its 1981 purchase because that ballpark would now be obsolete. Still, failing to insist on a full night-game schedule is costing the Cubs dearly, in my opinion, both at the box office and on the field. The ballpark is worse than ever. (Seriously.) The Cubs were never financially competitive, and the team’s popularity with the fans may have induced laziness on the part of the ownership to be aggressive with front office and on-field talent. Some Cubs teams in the 1990’s and 2000’s were quite awful.
Now we have a new ownership, and after some initial optimism, I fear more of the same. I was excited that the Ricketts family wanted to renovate Wrigley Field extensively in preparation for its centennial year and the 2014 All-Star Game. Then I read the men’s restrooms will continue to be a public health hazard—no renovations are planned. I also read the Ricketts want to play 50 night games a year, up from the current schedule, limited by Chicago law, to 30 night games and none on Friday or Saturday. (Other teams typically play 55 night games at home.) But the Ricketts have not held meetings with Ald. Tom Tunney (44th) or with neighborhood groups to discuss the issue. Despite the standing law (which expires after the 2018 season, I believe), Ald. Tunney could amend the law to allow more night games. He would probably receive City Council approval since Council protocol is to allow aldermen to set policy in their own wards.
The Ricketts’ inaction at baseball’s recent winter meetings in Indianapolis was a serious tactical error. The Cubs missed out on upgrading any number of positions where they are desperately vulnerable. Milton Bradley will probably be playing Monopoly or Uno on the Cubs’ bench this season since the Cubs’ general manager was unable to deal him.
The biggest shock to Cubs fans, especially those who have seen the Cubs play in March, is the Ricketts may move the Cubs’ spring training facility from Mesa, Ariz. to Naples, Fla. Everything I have read about spring training in Florida (the Grapefruit League) is that it is crowded and kitschy with awful traffic. Add the arrogant Yankees and Red Sox fans to the mix, and it makes for misery in Alligator Alley. The Cubs and their fans were right at home in Arizona’s Cactus League, which now includes the White Sox (who moved from Sarasota) and the Dodgers (from Dodgertown/Vero Beach, duh) sharing space in Glendale.
The late Ron Luciano was the American League’s most famous umpire in the 1970’s. He was a fan favorite and wrote a best-selling book, which is a great snapshot of the era: The Umpire Strikes Back. He wrote that every off-season, he would beg his American League bosses to send him to Florida for spring training. Every year, they would send him to Arizona—which was exactly what he wanted. Ha! Very smart man.
As an aside, a Cubs move to Southwest Florida would fundamentally change the relationship Chicagoans have with Arizona. The Grand Canyon State becomes less desirable as a winter destination. The second-home market and spring-break vacations in the Phoenix area would never be the same without the Cubs in town. Unlike replacing Wrigley Field (great idea), leaving Arizona would be a sad end to a great tradition.
The Wrigley family managed to field competitive teams in the 1930’s and 1940’s, winning the National League pennant several times. But the Wrigleys didn’t have the passion or the finances to compete with the big boys in New York or Los Angeles. Gee, they couldn’t even compete with the little boys in St. Louis or Cincinnati. The Cardinals and Reds have won 13 World Series championships between them since the Cubs won a pair in 1907 and 1908. The small-market river towns 275 and 300 miles away? How embarrassing.
It’s probably better that the Tribune Co. didn’t build a new ballpark in the early 1980’s after its 1981 purchase because that ballpark would now be obsolete. Still, failing to insist on a full night-game schedule is costing the Cubs dearly, in my opinion, both at the box office and on the field. The ballpark is worse than ever. (Seriously.) The Cubs were never financially competitive, and the team’s popularity with the fans may have induced laziness on the part of the ownership to be aggressive with front office and on-field talent. Some Cubs teams in the 1990’s and 2000’s were quite awful.
Now we have a new ownership, and after some initial optimism, I fear more of the same. I was excited that the Ricketts family wanted to renovate Wrigley Field extensively in preparation for its centennial year and the 2014 All-Star Game. Then I read the men’s restrooms will continue to be a public health hazard—no renovations are planned. I also read the Ricketts want to play 50 night games a year, up from the current schedule, limited by Chicago law, to 30 night games and none on Friday or Saturday. (Other teams typically play 55 night games at home.) But the Ricketts have not held meetings with Ald. Tom Tunney (44th) or with neighborhood groups to discuss the issue. Despite the standing law (which expires after the 2018 season, I believe), Ald. Tunney could amend the law to allow more night games. He would probably receive City Council approval since Council protocol is to allow aldermen to set policy in their own wards.
The Ricketts’ inaction at baseball’s recent winter meetings in Indianapolis was a serious tactical error. The Cubs missed out on upgrading any number of positions where they are desperately vulnerable. Milton Bradley will probably be playing Monopoly or Uno on the Cubs’ bench this season since the Cubs’ general manager was unable to deal him.
The biggest shock to Cubs fans, especially those who have seen the Cubs play in March, is the Ricketts may move the Cubs’ spring training facility from Mesa, Ariz. to Naples, Fla. Everything I have read about spring training in Florida (the Grapefruit League) is that it is crowded and kitschy with awful traffic. Add the arrogant Yankees and Red Sox fans to the mix, and it makes for misery in Alligator Alley. The Cubs and their fans were right at home in Arizona’s Cactus League, which now includes the White Sox (who moved from Sarasota) and the Dodgers (from Dodgertown/Vero Beach, duh) sharing space in Glendale.
The late Ron Luciano was the American League’s most famous umpire in the 1970’s. He was a fan favorite and wrote a best-selling book, which is a great snapshot of the era: The Umpire Strikes Back. He wrote that every off-season, he would beg his American League bosses to send him to Florida for spring training. Every year, they would send him to Arizona—which was exactly what he wanted. Ha! Very smart man.
As an aside, a Cubs move to Southwest Florida would fundamentally change the relationship Chicagoans have with Arizona. The Grand Canyon State becomes less desirable as a winter destination. The second-home market and spring-break vacations in the Phoenix area would never be the same without the Cubs in town. Unlike replacing Wrigley Field (great idea), leaving Arizona would be a sad end to a great tradition.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Mr. Ricketts: Demand 55 night games at Wrigley
As the Ricketts family takes control of the Chicago Cubs, an ownership era comes to a close (1981-2009). A new one begins, and the owner has a large stack in his in-box already. Among the issues that confront him: what to do about that dump Wrigley Field.
A Sun-Times article said the new owner has a plan for a $250 million renovation for the main grandstand that would be complete in time for the renovated ballpark to host the 2012 All-Star Game. (I believe the next two are scheduled for Phoenix and Anaheim.)
My suggestion for the owner is to call a meeting with Ald. Tom Tunney (44th--the ballpark's ward) and Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley. As calmly as possible, Ricketts should explain to Ald. Tunney and Mayor Daley he will not put one dime into the ballpark unless the night game restrictions are lifted. There are two restrictions: the number of night games per season (30) and the days of week (Monday through Thursday only, with exceptions permitted for ESPN Sunday Night Baseball). I believe very strongly these restrictions wear the Cubs down in the heat of the summer and are actively keeping them from pursuing a world championship. I also believe very strongly a majority of Wrigley residents favor more night games. The neighbors who originally forced the restrictions on the Cubs when the Cubs installed Wrigley's lights in 1988 have had 22 seasons to make peace with night games. It's high time the Cubs' home schedule look like its rivals' home schedules.
I wouldn't object to a gradual lifting of the game limit, by five games per season. But the Friday/Saturday night ban must be lifted immediately, in time for the 2010 season. If the alderman and mayor refuse, that's fine. The Ricketts can afford to build a 21st-Century replica of Wrigley Field in the northwest suburbs. Then the mayor would need to figure out how to replace that missing geyser of tax revenue the Cubs produce: property taxes, entertainment taxes (tickets), excise taxes (beer, hard liquor), and sales taxes (tickets, concessions). There's even a parking tax when the Cubs operate their night-game parking lot at Lane Tech.
With its fantastic new scoreboard and new upper deck, Wrigley Field was state-of-the-art in 1938. Now it's an aging dump with abhorrent restrooms and substandard facilities and amenities. If the Ricketts can renovate the ballpark and make it look new, more power to them. If not, it's time to move on.
A Sun-Times article said the new owner has a plan for a $250 million renovation for the main grandstand that would be complete in time for the renovated ballpark to host the 2012 All-Star Game. (I believe the next two are scheduled for Phoenix and Anaheim.)
My suggestion for the owner is to call a meeting with Ald. Tom Tunney (44th--the ballpark's ward) and Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley. As calmly as possible, Ricketts should explain to Ald. Tunney and Mayor Daley he will not put one dime into the ballpark unless the night game restrictions are lifted. There are two restrictions: the number of night games per season (30) and the days of week (Monday through Thursday only, with exceptions permitted for ESPN Sunday Night Baseball). I believe very strongly these restrictions wear the Cubs down in the heat of the summer and are actively keeping them from pursuing a world championship. I also believe very strongly a majority of Wrigley residents favor more night games. The neighbors who originally forced the restrictions on the Cubs when the Cubs installed Wrigley's lights in 1988 have had 22 seasons to make peace with night games. It's high time the Cubs' home schedule look like its rivals' home schedules.
I wouldn't object to a gradual lifting of the game limit, by five games per season. But the Friday/Saturday night ban must be lifted immediately, in time for the 2010 season. If the alderman and mayor refuse, that's fine. The Ricketts can afford to build a 21st-Century replica of Wrigley Field in the northwest suburbs. Then the mayor would need to figure out how to replace that missing geyser of tax revenue the Cubs produce: property taxes, entertainment taxes (tickets), excise taxes (beer, hard liquor), and sales taxes (tickets, concessions). There's even a parking tax when the Cubs operate their night-game parking lot at Lane Tech.
With its fantastic new scoreboard and new upper deck, Wrigley Field was state-of-the-art in 1938. Now it's an aging dump with abhorrent restrooms and substandard facilities and amenities. If the Ricketts can renovate the ballpark and make it look new, more power to them. If not, it's time to move on.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Cubs end final Houston visit with loss
The Cubs were 5-3 at Minute Maid Park in Houston this year.
This is the Houston Astros' tenth season in Minute Maid Park. They played their last season in the Astrodome in 1999. I remember a radio station announcer (now-defunct FM100--the current occupant, 100.3, formerly Love FM, isn't much better) calling the Astrodome a "Chamber of Horrors" for the Cubs. Very true. I think the Cubs' overall record in the Astrodome (1966 or so - 1999) was about .333. Until 1994, the Astros were in the other division, so the Cubs only had to visit twice a year. The latter half of the '90's must have been tough, though. At least the Cubs were competitive in 1998.
Why do the Cubs perform so well in Minute Maid Park? It was designed to be an updated version of that dump Wrigley Field--with a roof. It has natural grass instead of the Astrodome's artificial turf (invented for the building and named for the team). Its field dimensions aren't astronomical. And the roof isn't the same color as the baseball, DUH. Furthermore, the Astros only close the roof for rain and first-pitch temperatures over 80 degrees. So when it's nice out, the ballpark even more closely resembles Wrigley Field.
It's easy to see why the Cubs were so hopelessly out of their element dealing with artificial turf/carpeting on the road from the 1960's (when it was invented for the Astrodome) through the early 90's, when teams began ripping it up and replacing it with grass. The Cubs actually played more than half their road games at night, on Astroturf. (They still play more than half their road games at night, which is why their matinée-heavy schedule continues to be a competitive disadvantage.) Here are the Cubs' National League rivals during this period, with a "T" next to the team name for Astroturf.
NL East (the Cubs' division) NL West
New York Cincinnati - T
Pittsburgh - T Houston - T
Philadelphia - T Atlanta
St. Louis - T San Diego
Montreal - T (indoors at some point) San Francisco
Los Angeles
Why were Atlanta and Cincinnati in the "West" while the Gateway to the West was in the East? Yeah, really. Montreal played in Olympic Stadium, and the city eventually closed the exposed roof.
This year, the Cubs' only games on artificial turf are indoors at Minneapolis, an interleague series. If that series were to recur next year, when the Twins move outdoors to Freeze Your Ass Off Ballpark, it would be on grass. So one positive outcome of all those taxpayer-financed new ballparks is that artificial turf is no longer a factor in Major League Baseball. And for that, Cubs fans say, "Thank you."
This is the Houston Astros' tenth season in Minute Maid Park. They played their last season in the Astrodome in 1999. I remember a radio station announcer (now-defunct FM100--the current occupant, 100.3, formerly Love FM, isn't much better) calling the Astrodome a "Chamber of Horrors" for the Cubs. Very true. I think the Cubs' overall record in the Astrodome (1966 or so - 1999) was about .333. Until 1994, the Astros were in the other division, so the Cubs only had to visit twice a year. The latter half of the '90's must have been tough, though. At least the Cubs were competitive in 1998.
Why do the Cubs perform so well in Minute Maid Park? It was designed to be an updated version of that dump Wrigley Field--with a roof. It has natural grass instead of the Astrodome's artificial turf (invented for the building and named for the team). Its field dimensions aren't astronomical. And the roof isn't the same color as the baseball, DUH. Furthermore, the Astros only close the roof for rain and first-pitch temperatures over 80 degrees. So when it's nice out, the ballpark even more closely resembles Wrigley Field.
It's easy to see why the Cubs were so hopelessly out of their element dealing with artificial turf/carpeting on the road from the 1960's (when it was invented for the Astrodome) through the early 90's, when teams began ripping it up and replacing it with grass. The Cubs actually played more than half their road games at night, on Astroturf. (They still play more than half their road games at night, which is why their matinée-heavy schedule continues to be a competitive disadvantage.) Here are the Cubs' National League rivals during this period, with a "T" next to the team name for Astroturf.
NL East (the Cubs' division) NL West
New York Cincinnati - T
Pittsburgh - T Houston - T
Philadelphia - T Atlanta
St. Louis - T San Diego
Montreal - T (indoors at some point) San Francisco
Los Angeles
Why were Atlanta and Cincinnati in the "West" while the Gateway to the West was in the East? Yeah, really. Montreal played in Olympic Stadium, and the city eventually closed the exposed roof.
This year, the Cubs' only games on artificial turf are indoors at Minneapolis, an interleague series. If that series were to recur next year, when the Twins move outdoors to Freeze Your Ass Off Ballpark, it would be on grass. So one positive outcome of all those taxpayer-financed new ballparks is that artificial turf is no longer a factor in Major League Baseball. And for that, Cubs fans say, "Thank you."
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Wrigley Field: A Losing Proposition
I've poked fun at Wrigley Field a few times on my Twitter feed, giving various reasons why I can't stand the ancient ballpark. Here's the full list, subject to additions:
Why I Can't Stand Wrigley Field
1. Not enough night games
2. No Friday or Saturday night games
3. Uncomfortable hard metal seats
4. Unconventional and confusing seat-numbering format
5. Inconvenient and insufficient concession stands
6. Crowded concourses ill-equipped to handle 40,000 fans
7. Disgusting men's rooms--the troughs are infamous
8. No gift shoppe
9. Inadequate out-of-town scoreboard that cannot show all games of a full MLB schedule
10. The scoreboard does not show the game's current score; addition of the linescore is required
11. The scoreboard does not have a video board with which to show replays
12. The scoreboard does not show the team's lineups
13. The scoreboard does not show official scoring for a play in which the scoring is in question other than "H" or "E" (it actually could be both)
14. Most main-level seats between the bases are obstructed-view seats due to the retrofitted suites hanging overhead
15. The public address systems plays "YMCA," possibly the worst song ever, during the first pitching change
16. Unfriendly ushers - I've had several unpleasant experiences
17. The ballpark is decrepit and structurally unsound
The night-game restrictions hit the Cubs very hard financially and competitively. This is most evident for Friday home games. The Cubs play 13 Friday afternoon home games. All other teams play at least 10 of their 13 Friday home games at night. This means all through the hot summer, the Cubs are stuck playing under the hot sun on Fridays. (Saturdays, too, but that's true of many teams due to the Fox television contract with MLB.) The limited number of night games makes attending games for day-shift workers (two-thirds of the workforce) that much more difficult. On weekends, they compete with tourists and families for seats. The television revenue also suffers with fewer daytime viewers. And I didn't even mention the ridiculous parking situation. Speaking of No. 17, the Cubs are very lucky a concrete block hasn't fallen and seriously injured an innocent fan sitting in his seat or walking on the concourse. If the Cubs want to stay in Lakeview, that's fine--they can raze the main structure (leaving the northeast corner--the bleacher section--largely intact) and rebuild it to modern specifications. That would mean two levels of skyboxes, a club level, a gift shoppe, dozens of concession stands, and a VIP seating area near home plate. It would also include wide, climate-controlled concourses, comfortable lounges away from the seating area, and a seat-numbering system that makes sense.
Many Cub fans don't realize how much they are missing by attending games in a ballpark nearly 100 years old. They find out when they cross town to U.S. Cellular Field or take road trips to see the Cubs in Milwaukee, Cincinnati or St. Louis. Teams in those cities play in ballparks built in this decade, and it shows.
It's not cost-effective for the Cubs to spend $100 million or more (without taxpayer help, I hope) to renovate and rebuild "that dump Wrigley Field," as I like to call it, if the night game restrictions continue. The Cubs' new ownership, the Ricketts family, must issue an ultimatum to Mayor Daley, Ald. Tom Tunney (44th), and the anti-Cubs minority in Lakeview: we schedule our games whenever the hell we want, or we're leaving town. I'm sure there are still available parcels of land in the northwest suburbs along the Jane Addams Tollway (I-90) corridor where the Cubs could build a new ballpark with a retractable roof. Inside, it would look a lot like Wrigley Field with a modern twist and 21st Century amenities. It would lack "charm," of course, "charm" being a euphemism for "aging dump." With a new ballpark near their season-ticket base in the northwest suburbs, the Cubs would be able to maximize revenue with parking, stadium advertising (including the video board), and a night-game schedule that resembles that of other teams--about 55 night games per season.* The ballpark would be the crown jewel of the northwest suburbs, joining Allstate Arena, Sears Centre and the Grand Victoria Casino as major entertainment options along I-90.
While the sale of the ballclub seems to be mired in financing difficulties, this is an opportune time for the Ricketts family to make its plans known, in no uncertain terms, for the future of Wrigley Field. The longer renovation waits, the greater the risk of a ticketholder, employee or player being seriously injured by falling concrete or debris. The current situation--not enough night games, and a ballpark in desperate need of repair--hurts the ballclub's value. Mayor Daley and Ald. Tunney need to assure the Ricketts family that their investment will be a sound one. Ballpark renovation should be permitted to begin at the conclusion of the 2009 season. The Friday/Saturday night-game ban should be lifted in time for the 2010 season, and the number of night games should be increased to the point that the Cubs are playing 55 regular-season home games at night by 2012.
*The Cubs currently play just 30 night games at home, a considerable difference of 45 percent compared to other teams and a serious competitive/financial disadvantage.
Why I Can't Stand Wrigley Field
1. Not enough night games
2. No Friday or Saturday night games
3. Uncomfortable hard metal seats
4. Unconventional and confusing seat-numbering format
5. Inconvenient and insufficient concession stands
6. Crowded concourses ill-equipped to handle 40,000 fans
7. Disgusting men's rooms--the troughs are infamous
8. No gift shoppe
9. Inadequate out-of-town scoreboard that cannot show all games of a full MLB schedule
10. The scoreboard does not show the game's current score; addition of the linescore is required
11. The scoreboard does not have a video board with which to show replays
12. The scoreboard does not show the team's lineups
13. The scoreboard does not show official scoring for a play in which the scoring is in question other than "H" or "E" (it actually could be both)
14. Most main-level seats between the bases are obstructed-view seats due to the retrofitted suites hanging overhead
15. The public address systems plays "YMCA," possibly the worst song ever, during the first pitching change
16. Unfriendly ushers - I've had several unpleasant experiences
17. The ballpark is decrepit and structurally unsound
The night-game restrictions hit the Cubs very hard financially and competitively. This is most evident for Friday home games. The Cubs play 13 Friday afternoon home games. All other teams play at least 10 of their 13 Friday home games at night. This means all through the hot summer, the Cubs are stuck playing under the hot sun on Fridays. (Saturdays, too, but that's true of many teams due to the Fox television contract with MLB.) The limited number of night games makes attending games for day-shift workers (two-thirds of the workforce) that much more difficult. On weekends, they compete with tourists and families for seats. The television revenue also suffers with fewer daytime viewers. And I didn't even mention the ridiculous parking situation. Speaking of No. 17, the Cubs are very lucky a concrete block hasn't fallen and seriously injured an innocent fan sitting in his seat or walking on the concourse. If the Cubs want to stay in Lakeview, that's fine--they can raze the main structure (leaving the northeast corner--the bleacher section--largely intact) and rebuild it to modern specifications. That would mean two levels of skyboxes, a club level, a gift shoppe, dozens of concession stands, and a VIP seating area near home plate. It would also include wide, climate-controlled concourses, comfortable lounges away from the seating area, and a seat-numbering system that makes sense.
Many Cub fans don't realize how much they are missing by attending games in a ballpark nearly 100 years old. They find out when they cross town to U.S. Cellular Field or take road trips to see the Cubs in Milwaukee, Cincinnati or St. Louis. Teams in those cities play in ballparks built in this decade, and it shows.
It's not cost-effective for the Cubs to spend $100 million or more (without taxpayer help, I hope) to renovate and rebuild "that dump Wrigley Field," as I like to call it, if the night game restrictions continue. The Cubs' new ownership, the Ricketts family, must issue an ultimatum to Mayor Daley, Ald. Tom Tunney (44th), and the anti-Cubs minority in Lakeview: we schedule our games whenever the hell we want, or we're leaving town. I'm sure there are still available parcels of land in the northwest suburbs along the Jane Addams Tollway (I-90) corridor where the Cubs could build a new ballpark with a retractable roof. Inside, it would look a lot like Wrigley Field with a modern twist and 21st Century amenities. It would lack "charm," of course, "charm" being a euphemism for "aging dump." With a new ballpark near their season-ticket base in the northwest suburbs, the Cubs would be able to maximize revenue with parking, stadium advertising (including the video board), and a night-game schedule that resembles that of other teams--about 55 night games per season.* The ballpark would be the crown jewel of the northwest suburbs, joining Allstate Arena, Sears Centre and the Grand Victoria Casino as major entertainment options along I-90.
While the sale of the ballclub seems to be mired in financing difficulties, this is an opportune time for the Ricketts family to make its plans known, in no uncertain terms, for the future of Wrigley Field. The longer renovation waits, the greater the risk of a ticketholder, employee or player being seriously injured by falling concrete or debris. The current situation--not enough night games, and a ballpark in desperate need of repair--hurts the ballclub's value. Mayor Daley and Ald. Tunney need to assure the Ricketts family that their investment will be a sound one. Ballpark renovation should be permitted to begin at the conclusion of the 2009 season. The Friday/Saturday night-game ban should be lifted in time for the 2010 season, and the number of night games should be increased to the point that the Cubs are playing 55 regular-season home games at night by 2012.
*The Cubs currently play just 30 night games at home, a considerable difference of 45 percent compared to other teams and a serious competitive/financial disadvantage.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Reed Johnson robs Prince Fielder
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2009_04_12_chnmlb_milmlb_1&mode=wrap
I was hoping to embed this clip, but mlb.com is so, so far behind the times. It's almost as though the website makes it intentionally difficult for fans to find and watch highlights. Granted, nhl.com is no fun, either. But at least I know where to go, and each clip shows every goal with the announcer. With mlb.com, there's a highlights voiceover.
That is one spectacular catch. It's replayed three times in the clip. I still can't believe it. It's like that Mets catch in the 2006 NLCS Game 7 against the Cardinals at Shea Stadium.
I was hoping to embed this clip, but mlb.com is so, so far behind the times. It's almost as though the website makes it intentionally difficult for fans to find and watch highlights. Granted, nhl.com is no fun, either. But at least I know where to go, and each clip shows every goal with the announcer. With mlb.com, there's a highlights voiceover.
That is one spectacular catch. It's replayed three times in the clip. I still can't believe it. It's like that Mets catch in the 2006 NLCS Game 7 against the Cardinals at Shea Stadium.
Monday, April 6, 2009
$1.5 billion and no roof?
I don't understand how the New York Yankees spent $1.5 billion to build new Yankee Stadium and couldn't manage to include a retractable roof with all that money. Comiskey Park (opened 1991, no roof) cost Illinois taxpayers $175 million. Milwaukee's Miller Park (opened 2001, retractable roof that barely works) cost southeastern Wisconsin taxpayers $400 million. In Bronx, all that money and no roof? Inexplicable.
The average price of a Yankees game ticket rose 75% in one off-season from $41.40 to $72.97, tops in baseball. The most expensive ticket in baseball had for a long time been in Boston, due to its smallest stadium in baseball, extremely popular team (200-game sellout streak) and its desire to compete head-to-head with its wealthy New York rival. The average Red Sox ticket is $48.80. After my numerous request to the Cubs to raise ticket prices so their payroll could be competitive, the Cubs' average ticket price is third, at $47.75. And other than seeing the team itself, I think Cubs fans pay for a substandard experience. As I've noted numerous times, the restrooms are disgusting, the concourses are cramped, the seats are uncomfortable and have terrible views, there is no video/replay board, the scoreboard is a joke, concessions are few and far between, and there's no gift shoppe. And there are too many day games. And the upper deck is unsafe. And it takes forever to leave--because of the narrow concourses that were never designed to hold 38,000 fans. Wrigley Field is a national treasure, and maybe it should just hold minor-league exhibitions while the Cubs build a 21st-Century replica with retractable roof in Hoffman Estates.
The Mets replaced their 70's-era dump, Shea Stadium, with a new ballpark. (Yankee Stadium looked like it was from the 1970's as the team completely renovated it in the middle of that decade.) I suspect the revenue streams from those new ballparks in Bronx and Queens will end up making Fenway Park, Wrigley Field and Dodger Stadium obsolete.
The average price of a Yankees game ticket rose 75% in one off-season from $41.40 to $72.97, tops in baseball. The most expensive ticket in baseball had for a long time been in Boston, due to its smallest stadium in baseball, extremely popular team (200-game sellout streak) and its desire to compete head-to-head with its wealthy New York rival. The average Red Sox ticket is $48.80. After my numerous request to the Cubs to raise ticket prices so their payroll could be competitive, the Cubs' average ticket price is third, at $47.75. And other than seeing the team itself, I think Cubs fans pay for a substandard experience. As I've noted numerous times, the restrooms are disgusting, the concourses are cramped, the seats are uncomfortable and have terrible views, there is no video/replay board, the scoreboard is a joke, concessions are few and far between, and there's no gift shoppe. And there are too many day games. And the upper deck is unsafe. And it takes forever to leave--because of the narrow concourses that were never designed to hold 38,000 fans. Wrigley Field is a national treasure, and maybe it should just hold minor-league exhibitions while the Cubs build a 21st-Century replica with retractable roof in Hoffman Estates.
The Mets replaced their 70's-era dump, Shea Stadium, with a new ballpark. (Yankee Stadium looked like it was from the 1970's as the team completely renovated it in the middle of that decade.) I suspect the revenue streams from those new ballparks in Bronx and Queens will end up making Fenway Park, Wrigley Field and Dodger Stadium obsolete.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
My letter in Chicago Tribune re: Wrigley Field
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/print/chi-0305vpzonecitybriefsmar05,0,751161.story
Cubs' neighbors
Typical whining residents in Lakeview: They move in and then start complaining about their neighbors, the Cubs and concerts held in Wrigley Field. The Cubs schedule concerts to compensate for lost revenue due to the night-game limits forced upon them by the city. The Cubs don't schedule night games on Saturdays due to neighborhood resistance. That's also true for Friday nights, and the Cubs can only schedule 30 night games per season. Their rivals schedule about 55 night games.
The Cubs' obstacles to a pennant now include their neighbors, along with the Dodgers and Astros. With the new ownership, the limits on the Cubs' night-game schedule must come to an end. Their future in Lakeview depends on it, and it's time their neighbors recognized this isn't the Cubs of the 1970s anymore. Their goal is a World Series championship, and that cannot be accomplished with their schedule so different from that of their rivals.
—Kenneth Salkover, Chicago
Cubs' neighbors
Typical whining residents in Lakeview: They move in and then start complaining about their neighbors, the Cubs and concerts held in Wrigley Field. The Cubs schedule concerts to compensate for lost revenue due to the night-game limits forced upon them by the city. The Cubs don't schedule night games on Saturdays due to neighborhood resistance. That's also true for Friday nights, and the Cubs can only schedule 30 night games per season. Their rivals schedule about 55 night games.
The Cubs' obstacles to a pennant now include their neighbors, along with the Dodgers and Astros. With the new ownership, the limits on the Cubs' night-game schedule must come to an end. Their future in Lakeview depends on it, and it's time their neighbors recognized this isn't the Cubs of the 1970s anymore. Their goal is a World Series championship, and that cannot be accomplished with their schedule so different from that of their rivals.
—Kenneth Salkover, Chicago
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
