Chicagoist: Any Time is Good for Airing Grievances

spookhatespuppies

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:36:48 -0600

@quint: Place Wrigley in some neighborhood or suburb without all he bars and gameday atmosphere and you'd hear A LOT of griping about the state of the ballpark. People put up with the quirks for the baseball-theme park feel (and I say that as a good thing. As a White Sox fan I'll admit, it's a great place to see a game and every fan of baseball has to see it once before they die), but the concessions suck, the sight lines are rotten and often obscured, and the seats and aisles are designed for 1914 (re: The Era Before Fried Cheese) asses. Luckily they have that fat cable contract (but with Zell, who knows?) because any other owner would be whining for the skybox revenue. That said, I hope they don't rename it and sort of try to deal with what they have. It's pretty much the only good and decent thing about the Cubs. Now about those drunk, shirtless trust fund kids in the bleachers...

matty

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:00:33 -0600

What's so bad about brick-fired pizzas? Now that's a stupid gripe. Also, this WSox fan would be sad to see Wrigley's naming rights go somewhere else. I remember how mad i was when they renamed Comiskey, then again after they knocked the first one down it would never be the same.

mike_thoms

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:36:20 -0600

Even though I'm a Cubs fan, I have to say you never know what will happen with any team, ever. Before 2005 did anyone think the Sox would go all the way?

quint

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 06:04:50 -0600

The naming rights for the Cell improved the park because they had to improve it. Wrigley, beyond routine maintenance, needs no such improvements. No one is clamoring for them to shave off 8 rows of seats or paint the seats or anything else. They have the revenues already in place to keep up the park whereas the Sox didn't. That is a significant difference between the 2 situations. Besides, there is no guarantee that any additional revenue will be spent on payroll. It is more likely to go into whatever new owners' pockets. But in terms of baseball operations the Cubs already have the revenue streams in place to build a winning team year in and year out but the GM doesn't know how to do that. From a baseball standpoint the Cubs don;t need any more money and any new source of income will more than likely not show up on the field.

billymax85

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:38:52 -0600

Yeah, but there are a LOT of other reasons to avoid Soldier Field besides the bathroom awkwardness. Also, old Comiskey Park had some troughs and the Cell has normal urinals, but using the bathroom at the new ballpark is no big deal. And Hugh is right about the name thing. Call the ballpark what you want - I don't really care, despite the fact that the Comiskey name should have died with the old ballpark because Chuck Comiskey was a cheap scumbag. But no matter what you call the ballpark, the $68 million that came from selling the naming rights has done a LOT of good, and no Sox fan can deny that.

Hugh G Rection

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:52:24 -0600

This Sox fan could also care less but it's an interesting topic. I don't suspect Cubs fans would refer to by anything other than "Wrigley" much as many Sox fans still call US Cellular "Sox park" or "Comiskey." The bleachers are still "the bleachers" despite the fact that Budweiser purchased sponsorship of them a couple of years ago. I would hate to see the troughs go, though. They're quick and often funny in an awkward way.

Hugh G Rection

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:52:00 -0600

Thunderbelly

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:15:57 -0600

Troughs are a more efficient use of space. Twice as many can use them in the same space as urinals. They removed the trough from Soldier Field and look what a cluster f*ck using the bathroom there is now.

billymax85

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:24:58 -0600

I don't think Sox fans care one way or the other if naming rights to Wrigley Field are sold. I know I certainly don't. And intelligent Cubs fans (I like to think that's not an oxymoron) won't care either because they know the money will help improve the baseball experience at Wrigley. What's blasphemous about it? Really, Wrigley Field is and always was a giant ad for Wrigley's chewing gum. Nothing really sacred about that, is there? The idea that old ballparks shouldn't have ads because they're some sort of sacred space is crap. There have always been ads in ballparks in some form or other. Frankly, I think the naming rights to Wrigley Field should be sold. The Sox sold the naming rights of their ballpark to U.S. Cellular and the money was used quite well to make the park look and feel better. If Wrigley's naming rights were sold, the same could happen there ... maybe the money could be used to buy some real toilets for the men's bathrooms, instead of the current troughs.