It was announced today that the Cubs will be opting out of their contract with WGN after the 2014 season. WGN basically has 30 days to work out a deal with the Cubs that will keep 70 or so games on the station before the Cubs become "free agents" so to speak. No one should expect that to happen, though.
The fact is that since the Cubs and WGN last signed an agreement, which was to last until 2022, the landscape has changed significantly in terms of television rights around baseball. The 25 year, $7 billion contract the Dodgers agreed to for their TV rights is the high mark right now...and leaves the $20 million per season the Cubs are getting from WGN looking like chump change.
In total, with Comcast, the Cubs bring in about $60 million per season from TV rights. If the Dodgers start bringing in just under $300 million a season for their rights (and other teams following not too far behind), the Cubs had no choice but to opt out of their deal with WGN.
People seem to be up in arms about the likelihood that the Cubs may no longer be on WGN. I'm not sure why. Assuming that the Cubs either start their own station or do something with Comcast to broadcast all their games, the Cubs will still be available locally to everyone.
Nationally, WGN helped generate Cubs fans all over the country in the 80's. To a lesser degree, the Mets on WOR and the Braves on TBS achieved the same thing. WOR has ceased to being much of a superstation (and the Mets have since moved on too) and TBS gave up exclusively broadcasting Braves games years ago.
The truth is, baseball is readily available to fans out of market now weather it is online with MLB.TV, or on cable via ESPN, TBS or MLB Network...and there are package deals with many cable companys as well as Dish Network and DirecTV. Most teams now have some degree of national exposure.
If that wasn't enough to reduce the importance of having games on WGN, the fact is that WGN, as a superstation, is a disaster right now. With only 70 games a year on the station and those 70 games seemingly randomly placed on the schedule, along with no other programming on the WGN schedule to draw people to the station and lead them into Cubs broadcasts, the games on WGN just don't have the influence over national audiences that they once did.
In the 80's WGN was one of about a dozen cable channels available, and with TBS and WOR, one of the few places to see baseball everyday. Baseball is everywhere now. WGN is not helping the Cubs build a national fan base now like it did back then when they have to compete with all the other teams on a daily basis.
Tribune Company just recently emerged from bankruptcy and the company is in the process of splitting off its broadcasting division into a separate company. On top of that, WGN America is in a state of transition as they attempt to turn the station into something closer to what TBS has become. Whispers have been going around that the Cubs and Comcast may be in negotiations for an extended TV deal that would supersede their current deal resulting in something along the lines of 20 years and around $4 billion. For WGN to compete with that, they would have to give about $1.5 billion for their share of the games over the next 20 years. I don't see them being able to do that in the state of transition that exists at Tribune Company right now.
Why should the Cubs settle for less to be broadcast on a station that really doesn't have that much influence nationally anymore?
Unfortunately for many Cubs fans nationwide, we might have to accept the Cubs not being as accessible anymore...but it isn't really that big of a loss with the Cubs likely to be on national broadcasts at least 25 to 30 times a year anyway.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Monday, May 6, 2013
Sitting in my car 15 years ago today
Fifteen years ago today I got home from classes at noon and sat down to eat lunch in my apartment. I began listening to the Cubs game on the radio. Kerry Wood was pitching. About midway through the game, I had to leave for work...at 45 minute drive. I listened to every pitch. I pulled into the parking lot at work just as the 9th inning was about to begin. I sat in my car listening to the game completely unconcerned about being late for work.
The half inning took very little time to complete with Wood dominating a very good Astros lineup.
My heart was racing as Pat Hughes made the call on that final pitch to Derek Bell. It was over. I ran inside, saw the two other Cubs fans that I had worked with on the factory floor and told them that he did it. I was shaking with excitement.
For many Cubs fans, this was almost like the moon landing...you'll never forget what you were doing when it happened.
I got to see Kerry Wood pitch at Wrigley a few weeks later, still in the infant stages of that great and memorable Cubs season. The ballpark was packed that afternoon. The legend of Kerry Wood had begun a few weeks earlier and I wanted to see him first hand.
Happy 15 year anniversary of Kerry Wood's 20 strikeout game, perhaps the most dominating pitching performance in Major League history.
The half inning took very little time to complete with Wood dominating a very good Astros lineup.
My heart was racing as Pat Hughes made the call on that final pitch to Derek Bell. It was over. I ran inside, saw the two other Cubs fans that I had worked with on the factory floor and told them that he did it. I was shaking with excitement.
For many Cubs fans, this was almost like the moon landing...you'll never forget what you were doing when it happened.
I got to see Kerry Wood pitch at Wrigley a few weeks later, still in the infant stages of that great and memorable Cubs season. The ballpark was packed that afternoon. The legend of Kerry Wood had begun a few weeks earlier and I wanted to see him first hand.
Happy 15 year anniversary of Kerry Wood's 20 strikeout game, perhaps the most dominating pitching performance in Major League history.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Ricketts is making the wrong threat.
The Cubs released rendering and details about their proposed renovation or, in their words, restoration of Wrigley last night.
First off, the term restoration is about as stupid as saying Carlos Marmol is a good closer. It's not a restoration. If it was, they'd be tearing the lights down, removing the press box and putting bleachers back in the batters' eye area of center field.
It's not a restoration. It's a renovation...a renovation along the same lines of what was done with Fenway Park and Royals Stadium.
But that's not the point of this post.
Tom Ricketts today finally made a threat to move the team if they do not get their way as far as these renovations are concern.
What's the point?
No, I'm serious. At this time, what the hell is the point of threatening to move?
Is there something we don't know here?
Supposedly both Tom Tunney and City Hall have agreed to the changes. They don't need anything else. The rest of the "approval" process should, for the most part, be routine.
Why make the threat now? It would have been help for them if they had made it years ago. Now? Unless there is some process that we don't know about standing in the way, the threat is not only empty, but completely pointless.
They don't need to threaten to move. The Cubs are going to get their renovation.
The real question is when can they start their renovation. Time is quickly ticking for the Cubs to be able to start this renovation following this season.
The Cubs are in a situation where they need all parties involved to rubber stamp this thing so it can get started in short order.
The correct threat the Cubs should be making right now isn't to move the team permanently to some place like Rosemont. The threat should be to move the Cubs out of Wrigley for a season so they can complete the renovations by the date they want.
Ricketts should be threatening to move the team to U.S. Cellular Field or Miller Park for a season.
You want something that is taken seriously? That's it. You want something that will get the rooftop owners on board quickly? That's it. Slightly obstructed views will affect a small number of rooftops and will only have a marginal affect on their sales.
Temporarily relocating for season? You can bet a majority of those rooftops will go bankrupt if the team moves out of the stadium for a year. Most of them are in situations of narrow revenue margins already. No Cubs baseball at Wrigley for one season would be devastating
That will shut up just about all the critics of this renovation plan in very short order, and is much more effective than some bull crap threat to move the team to Rosemont.
First off, the term restoration is about as stupid as saying Carlos Marmol is a good closer. It's not a restoration. If it was, they'd be tearing the lights down, removing the press box and putting bleachers back in the batters' eye area of center field.
It's not a restoration. It's a renovation...a renovation along the same lines of what was done with Fenway Park and Royals Stadium.
But that's not the point of this post.
Tom Ricketts today finally made a threat to move the team if they do not get their way as far as these renovations are concern.
What's the point?
No, I'm serious. At this time, what the hell is the point of threatening to move?
Is there something we don't know here?
Supposedly both Tom Tunney and City Hall have agreed to the changes. They don't need anything else. The rest of the "approval" process should, for the most part, be routine.
Why make the threat now? It would have been help for them if they had made it years ago. Now? Unless there is some process that we don't know about standing in the way, the threat is not only empty, but completely pointless.
They don't need to threaten to move. The Cubs are going to get their renovation.
The real question is when can they start their renovation. Time is quickly ticking for the Cubs to be able to start this renovation following this season.
The Cubs are in a situation where they need all parties involved to rubber stamp this thing so it can get started in short order.
The correct threat the Cubs should be making right now isn't to move the team permanently to some place like Rosemont. The threat should be to move the Cubs out of Wrigley for a season so they can complete the renovations by the date they want.
Ricketts should be threatening to move the team to U.S. Cellular Field or Miller Park for a season.
You want something that is taken seriously? That's it. You want something that will get the rooftop owners on board quickly? That's it. Slightly obstructed views will affect a small number of rooftops and will only have a marginal affect on their sales.
Temporarily relocating for season? You can bet a majority of those rooftops will go bankrupt if the team moves out of the stadium for a year. Most of them are in situations of narrow revenue margins already. No Cubs baseball at Wrigley for one season would be devastating
That will shut up just about all the critics of this renovation plan in very short order, and is much more effective than some bull crap threat to move the team to Rosemont.
Friday, April 5, 2013
How much could the rooftops sue the Cubs for?
The rooftop owners are threatening to sue the Cubs over any renovation deal where their views of the ballpark may be obstructed.
I've stated before that the rooftop owners will do anything in their power to fight renovations of any kind.
The rooftop association released this statement today:
How much could the rooftops really sue the Cubs for?
Basically, a judge would have to decided how much monetarily the video board and any other advertisements would affect sales of rooftop seats.
My argument is that obstructed views would not affect the rooftop businesses significantly. The rooftops would, though, be majorly affected by the other renovations being done to the ballpark...as the Cubs add the amenities that only the rooftops currently provide. But putting that aside, we first need to look at how many rooftops would be significantly affected by the video board and any advertisements. In left field, only the Beyond The Ivy rooftop on, Waveland at the corner of Sheffield, would be horribly affected by a video board. I should add that this rooftop structure was built after the 2004 agreement the Cubs had with the rooftop owners. Perhaps one other rooftop in left field would be significantly affected by the board.
In right field, perhaps two rooftops will really be affected assuming the Cubs put them up in such a way that they would limit the obstruction.
So, we now say that 4 of the 17 rooftops are affected by the new signage, or for simplicity sake, we'll just say a quarter of them.
The rooftop owners currently take in an estimated $25 million a year. Over the span of 11 years, that is $275 million dollars. That's a ton of money.
But if the new signage only significantly affects 4 rooftops...we'll say this total only affects about a quarter of revenue involved...so that puts us at about $70 million total. I don't believe a judge could really say that the blockage will affect 100% of the revenues from those four rooftops. It seems reasonable to think that the rooftops will suffer a 50% reduction in revenue. That puts that total at $35 million.
$35 million...over 11 years.
That's a little over $3 million a year.
To put that in perspective, the Cubs currently get $4 million a year from the rooftops as part of their agreement.
If I'm the Cubs, the lawsuit probably wouldn't bother me too much. The only thing that could happen is it could delay when they could deploy the new video board.
I'm not a lawyer, a judge and no very little about these sort of things, but I'm just trying to use some logic here to get an idea of what is at stake. Please leave a comment if you have any different perspectives on this.
***************************
As an aside, I'm asking for any help from anyone who might have access to the text of the agreement between the rooftop owners and the Cubs.
The reason I ask about this is because a lot of things are being said about this agreement including the possibility that, as stated above, the agreement states that the Cubs may not alter the “uninterrupted sweep of the bleachers”...but with the added note of "without approval from the city."
If that is the case, the rooftop owners have little ground to stand on here.
This could very well be why Tom Tunney changed his tune and has basically turned his back on the rooftop owners.
I've stated before that the rooftop owners will do anything in their power to fight renovations of any kind.
The rooftop association released this statement today:
The apparent decision to allow the Chicago Cubs to block the views of some Wrigleyville Rooftops is in direct violation of the current 20-year agreement entered into by the Cubs and the Rooftop owners. While Rooftop owners support the concept of renovating Wrigley Field, exact plans for outfield signage have not been provided to these contractual partners.
The in-force contract negotiated by federal mediators which enumerates revenue sharing between the Cubs and their neighbors – along with the accompanying landmark ordinance – protects the “uninterrupted sweep of the bleachers” until at least 2024. Any construction that interrupts the Rooftop views will effectually drive them out of business and be challenged in a court of law.
How much could the rooftops really sue the Cubs for?
Basically, a judge would have to decided how much monetarily the video board and any other advertisements would affect sales of rooftop seats.
My argument is that obstructed views would not affect the rooftop businesses significantly. The rooftops would, though, be majorly affected by the other renovations being done to the ballpark...as the Cubs add the amenities that only the rooftops currently provide. But putting that aside, we first need to look at how many rooftops would be significantly affected by the video board and any advertisements. In left field, only the Beyond The Ivy rooftop on, Waveland at the corner of Sheffield, would be horribly affected by a video board. I should add that this rooftop structure was built after the 2004 agreement the Cubs had with the rooftop owners. Perhaps one other rooftop in left field would be significantly affected by the board.
In right field, perhaps two rooftops will really be affected assuming the Cubs put them up in such a way that they would limit the obstruction.
So, we now say that 4 of the 17 rooftops are affected by the new signage, or for simplicity sake, we'll just say a quarter of them.
The rooftop owners currently take in an estimated $25 million a year. Over the span of 11 years, that is $275 million dollars. That's a ton of money.
But if the new signage only significantly affects 4 rooftops...we'll say this total only affects about a quarter of revenue involved...so that puts us at about $70 million total. I don't believe a judge could really say that the blockage will affect 100% of the revenues from those four rooftops. It seems reasonable to think that the rooftops will suffer a 50% reduction in revenue. That puts that total at $35 million.
$35 million...over 11 years.
That's a little over $3 million a year.
To put that in perspective, the Cubs currently get $4 million a year from the rooftops as part of their agreement.
If I'm the Cubs, the lawsuit probably wouldn't bother me too much. The only thing that could happen is it could delay when they could deploy the new video board.
I'm not a lawyer, a judge and no very little about these sort of things, but I'm just trying to use some logic here to get an idea of what is at stake. Please leave a comment if you have any different perspectives on this.
***************************
As an aside, I'm asking for any help from anyone who might have access to the text of the agreement between the rooftop owners and the Cubs.
The reason I ask about this is because a lot of things are being said about this agreement including the possibility that, as stated above, the agreement states that the Cubs may not alter the “uninterrupted sweep of the bleachers”...but with the added note of "without approval from the city."
If that is the case, the rooftop owners have little ground to stand on here.
This could very well be why Tom Tunney changed his tune and has basically turned his back on the rooftop owners.
Might there be a video board this year?
Numerous sources are now reporting that the Cubs and the city have a deal for renovating Wrigley and it will be announced sometime in the next few days.
Obviously the Ricketts family has wanted to have a deal done in time for them to finalize plans for the initial stage of the renovation so that construction can start immediately after the season ends this year.
However, I have to wonder if it is possible that some items on their wish list might happen before the end of the season...in particular, the video board.
It isn't unprecedented that the Cubs make major renovations to Wrigley in the middle of the season. Some of you might recall that the announcement that lights would be installed a Wrigley Field happened early in the 1988 season and those lights were install while the Cubs were on road trips during that year, with the change having been completed by late July. Heck, the Toyota sign was installed mid-season too. Even in the early days of the ballpark, the center field scoreboard was not completed until mid way through the 1937 season.
Since the installation of the video board should have little effect on any of the existing structure of the ballpark, and interfere very little with the existing seats in the ballpark, it seems entirely possible that the Cubs may look to have it installed as the season is in progress. The logistics and the size of the project to install a video board can't be much more complicated than putting up the lights in the ballpark.
We won't ultimately know what the timeline is for any of the renovations until there is an official announcement made, but we do know that the first phase of the renovations is likely to target the player facilities which happens to be the most important aspect of this renovation. I would also assume that they will want to target any major revenue generating aspects of the renovation early on as well...which would include signage in the outfield and the video board.
Obviously the Ricketts family has wanted to have a deal done in time for them to finalize plans for the initial stage of the renovation so that construction can start immediately after the season ends this year.
However, I have to wonder if it is possible that some items on their wish list might happen before the end of the season...in particular, the video board.
It isn't unprecedented that the Cubs make major renovations to Wrigley in the middle of the season. Some of you might recall that the announcement that lights would be installed a Wrigley Field happened early in the 1988 season and those lights were install while the Cubs were on road trips during that year, with the change having been completed by late July. Heck, the Toyota sign was installed mid-season too. Even in the early days of the ballpark, the center field scoreboard was not completed until mid way through the 1937 season.
Since the installation of the video board should have little effect on any of the existing structure of the ballpark, and interfere very little with the existing seats in the ballpark, it seems entirely possible that the Cubs may look to have it installed as the season is in progress. The logistics and the size of the project to install a video board can't be much more complicated than putting up the lights in the ballpark.
We won't ultimately know what the timeline is for any of the renovations until there is an official announcement made, but we do know that the first phase of the renovations is likely to target the player facilities which happens to be the most important aspect of this renovation. I would also assume that they will want to target any major revenue generating aspects of the renovation early on as well...which would include signage in the outfield and the video board.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
To DH or not to DH...that is the question.
Cubs Den, which has become one of the better Cubs blogs out there over the last few years, brought up the question of what to do with Dan Vogelbach, who is quickly becoming one of the most exciting and anticipated of the Cubs prospects.
Vogelbach may be only a few years away from getting a shot at a big league roster. The problem is, for the Cubs, he plays first base, a position that is firmly in the more than capable hands of Anthony Rizzo.
So what do the Cubs do with him?
*********************************
Over the last few years, the noise about the National League adopting the DH has increased. I personally hate the DH. Yes, I like seeing pitchers hit. I don't know why. I like pitching and defense. I like boring baseball. I'm a dork too.
But, it's time for that to be moved aside. The NL needs to adopt the DH. It's time.
The National League is the only major baseball league in the world that still has pitchers hit. The DH is a rule that is not going to go away. For the National League to hold on to the rule of having pitchers hit accomplishes nothing. No league that has switched to the DH is ever going to go back to having pitchers hit and the National League is not proving that its style of baseball is immensely superior to the baseball played in leagues with the DH.
In fact, in Major League play, the National League teams are at a distinct disadvantage. While American League teams have a dedicated designated hitter on their roster, the National League teams must use a bench player to fulfill the role when the rule is in use during the season and in the World Series.
To that point, the truth is, Major League Baseball is not an organization divided into 2 distinct "leagues" anymore. The labels "American League" and "National League" are really nothing more than that...labels. The two "leagues" are really nothing more than conferences like in basketball, football or hockey. There is one major baseball league. Bud Selig has dismantled the two league system by introducing inter-league play, combining the umpires of both leagues into a single group and closing the two league offices.
The only thing left that really separates the two leagues is the rules set. No major sports league has different rule sets split between the different teams.
That's the most important part of this argument now...rule sets really should be consistent in all of Major League Baseball.
Do I like the DH? No. Do I like inter-league play? No. Do I like that both the National League and American League have been combined into a single entity? No.
Unfortunately for me, it is to the point where I, and everyone who agrees with me, must accept that those three things are not going to change. As a result, it is time for the NL to adopt the DH.
And when that happens, the Cubs will have a place on their roster for Dan Vogelbach.
Vogelbach may be only a few years away from getting a shot at a big league roster. The problem is, for the Cubs, he plays first base, a position that is firmly in the more than capable hands of Anthony Rizzo.
So what do the Cubs do with him?
*********************************
Over the last few years, the noise about the National League adopting the DH has increased. I personally hate the DH. Yes, I like seeing pitchers hit. I don't know why. I like pitching and defense. I like boring baseball. I'm a dork too.
But, it's time for that to be moved aside. The NL needs to adopt the DH. It's time.
The National League is the only major baseball league in the world that still has pitchers hit. The DH is a rule that is not going to go away. For the National League to hold on to the rule of having pitchers hit accomplishes nothing. No league that has switched to the DH is ever going to go back to having pitchers hit and the National League is not proving that its style of baseball is immensely superior to the baseball played in leagues with the DH.
In fact, in Major League play, the National League teams are at a distinct disadvantage. While American League teams have a dedicated designated hitter on their roster, the National League teams must use a bench player to fulfill the role when the rule is in use during the season and in the World Series.
To that point, the truth is, Major League Baseball is not an organization divided into 2 distinct "leagues" anymore. The labels "American League" and "National League" are really nothing more than that...labels. The two "leagues" are really nothing more than conferences like in basketball, football or hockey. There is one major baseball league. Bud Selig has dismantled the two league system by introducing inter-league play, combining the umpires of both leagues into a single group and closing the two league offices.
The only thing left that really separates the two leagues is the rules set. No major sports league has different rule sets split between the different teams.
That's the most important part of this argument now...rule sets really should be consistent in all of Major League Baseball.
Do I like the DH? No. Do I like inter-league play? No. Do I like that both the National League and American League have been combined into a single entity? No.
Unfortunately for me, it is to the point where I, and everyone who agrees with me, must accept that those three things are not going to change. As a result, it is time for the NL to adopt the DH.
And when that happens, the Cubs will have a place on their roster for Dan Vogelbach.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
CBS Chicago: Wrigley Renovation deal possible by opening day
Jay Levine of CBS Chicago is reporting that progress has been made in the Wrigley Field renovation negotiations....enough progress that an announcement of a deal could be made by opening day or shortly after.
We all know the primary issues involved here....signage...video boards...night games...concerts...street festivals...parking.
The report from indicated that the Cubs intend to construct a parking structure near the ballpark, which I can assume is on the large Grace St. lot which they own and already use for parking. (I've suggested in the past that they should consider putting a parking garage on that site. That lot has been under utilized for years.)
The other aspects of the agreement will probably not leak out until an official announcement is made, but we can assume that more advertising, night games and a new video board are all in Wrigley's near future.
I do expect that the Cubs will get pretty much everything they have been asking for here, and the news of a potential parking structure on Grace St. is a big plus that could create another revenue stream for the team bringing in, I would estimate, $2 to $3 million a year.
I also expect that the Cubs might look to nix the current rooftop deal where the building owners give the Cubs 17% of their revenue. The revenue is not enough to really make much of a deference for the team. This would be compensation for potential obstructions that a video board and advertising will create as well as keeping the rooftops from having any actual agreement with the team that could limit what they could do to the ballpark in the future.
While I'm much more in favor of the team building a new ballpark altogether, having the status-quo linger on for another 1 or 2 years is much worse, so this is good news.
We all know the primary issues involved here....signage...video boards...night games...concerts...street festivals...parking.
The report from indicated that the Cubs intend to construct a parking structure near the ballpark, which I can assume is on the large Grace St. lot which they own and already use for parking. (I've suggested in the past that they should consider putting a parking garage on that site. That lot has been under utilized for years.)
The other aspects of the agreement will probably not leak out until an official announcement is made, but we can assume that more advertising, night games and a new video board are all in Wrigley's near future.
I do expect that the Cubs will get pretty much everything they have been asking for here, and the news of a potential parking structure on Grace St. is a big plus that could create another revenue stream for the team bringing in, I would estimate, $2 to $3 million a year.
I also expect that the Cubs might look to nix the current rooftop deal where the building owners give the Cubs 17% of their revenue. The revenue is not enough to really make much of a deference for the team. This would be compensation for potential obstructions that a video board and advertising will create as well as keeping the rooftops from having any actual agreement with the team that could limit what they could do to the ballpark in the future.
While I'm much more in favor of the team building a new ballpark altogether, having the status-quo linger on for another 1 or 2 years is much worse, so this is good news.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Video Board
Today in the Tribune, it was reported that the Cubs have every intention of putting up a video board at Wrigley Field.
Tom Tunney suggested (and then retracted the suggestion) last week that the Cubs should move the center field scoreboard and put a video board in center field and make it "as big as they want".
The Tribune report stated that the Cubs want to put a video board up in either left or right field leaving the center field scoreboard in place.
I personally think having both scoreboards is kinda silly...but thinking about it, I believeTunney's idea has some merit.
Supposedly the Cubs want a minimum of a 6000 square foot video board. While this would be almost 3 times the size of the current center field scoreboard, it is actually considerably smaller than many of the other video boards put up around baseball over the last few years including Yankee Stadium, Miller Park, and Minute Maid park (which are all close to 10,000 square feet).
A lot of questions come up in relation to this...but it seems entirely possible that this could be done without hindering the rooftop views significantly. I'd be curious as to how a structure of this size would affect the wind patterns at Wrigley.
Anyway...having some fun, here are a couple of quick renderings I did...one with the old scoreboard moved and the other with a video board in left field. These aren't quite to scale...but my calculations should be pretty close.
Enjoy.
Monday, March 25, 2013
A difference in fan bases: Cubs vs. Bears
Last week, the Bears cut ties with Brian Urlacher. Urlacher had been a constant face of the franchise for the past 13 seasons. He felt he could still contribute. The Bears felt, even if he could contribute, it wasn't in their best interest to keep him around. (Yes, the Bears did make a low-ball offer, but it was more of an insult than an offer.)
One thing that struck me about the situation with Urlacher...a majority of the fans felt it was the right move to let Urlacher go. Only a small minority of people were up in arms about the future Hall of Famer potentially playing in another uniform...or even just retiring. The Bears are transitioning to a new system. They have a new coach and defensive coordinator. It felt like it was a good time for a fresh start and Urlacher probably didn't fit in to the plans.
Ok...now let me transport you back to 14 month ago.
The Cubs had just completed an overhaul of their on-field and off-field management personnel. Theo Epstein took over and Dale Sveum was named manager. The Cubs introduce an almost entirely new coaching staff in the process. In those early days of January, Jed Hoyer and Theo Epstein were in the process of putting together the Cubs roster and one name continued to be brought up in relation to that...Kerry Wood.
Wood was coming off of a decent season as a setup man having signed with the Cubs for practically free as he desperately wanted to rejoin the Cubs. Questions posed to Hoyer and Epstein about Kerry Wood's situation were answered with some of the similar phrases that we recently heard from Bears GM Phil Emery and coach Marc Trestman...he's the heart of this franchise...he has been a great leader...has something to offer...love to see him retire with this team...they're in discussions to bring him back.
The Cubs decided to bring back Wood.
So why did the Cubs bring back Wood and the Bears decided not to bring back Urlacher while both teams were in such similar situations?
Well, it can be said that it was different with football...Urlacher was (and probably still will be) a starter...the Bears are still trying to field a competitive team next year while the Cubs were completely rebuilding...
In the end, though, it really seems to me that the only reason the Cubs brought Kerry Wood back last year was because the fans demanded it. Wood served very little purpose being on a roster that was being completely rebuilt last year...and after only a month, even Wood realized he had no place on that team and retired.
Bears fans decided that Brian Urlacher, a future Hall-of-Fame inductee, was not needed on their team and were able to accept him either retiring or playing for another team.
Cubs fans felt that Kerry Wood, a player who never lived up to the hype that surrounded his early career, must return.
Please take a minute and have that soak in a bit.
Can you imagine the situation if Bears fans had demanded Urlacher return? They'd have a broken down middle linebacker giving up big plays in the middle of the field hurting their team. Yet Cubs fans demanded the Cubs sending an on-the-verge-of-his-arm-flying-off Kerry Wood to the mound every 3 days to promptly give up a lead.
If the Cubs are to actually break this cycle of losing, it is thinking like this that needs to stop. The fans can be partly to blame for the state this team is in. We, as fans, need to start looking at the big picture. Tradition... sentimental feelings...these are things that distract from what should be our ultimate goal...winning the World Series. And those feeling shouldn't be moved to the side only when we talk about players. It also applies to the place where the team plays as well.
One thing that struck me about the situation with Urlacher...a majority of the fans felt it was the right move to let Urlacher go. Only a small minority of people were up in arms about the future Hall of Famer potentially playing in another uniform...or even just retiring. The Bears are transitioning to a new system. They have a new coach and defensive coordinator. It felt like it was a good time for a fresh start and Urlacher probably didn't fit in to the plans.
Ok...now let me transport you back to 14 month ago.
The Cubs had just completed an overhaul of their on-field and off-field management personnel. Theo Epstein took over and Dale Sveum was named manager. The Cubs introduce an almost entirely new coaching staff in the process. In those early days of January, Jed Hoyer and Theo Epstein were in the process of putting together the Cubs roster and one name continued to be brought up in relation to that...Kerry Wood.
Wood was coming off of a decent season as a setup man having signed with the Cubs for practically free as he desperately wanted to rejoin the Cubs. Questions posed to Hoyer and Epstein about Kerry Wood's situation were answered with some of the similar phrases that we recently heard from Bears GM Phil Emery and coach Marc Trestman...he's the heart of this franchise...he has been a great leader...has something to offer...love to see him retire with this team...they're in discussions to bring him back.
The Cubs decided to bring back Wood.
So why did the Cubs bring back Wood and the Bears decided not to bring back Urlacher while both teams were in such similar situations?
Well, it can be said that it was different with football...Urlacher was (and probably still will be) a starter...the Bears are still trying to field a competitive team next year while the Cubs were completely rebuilding...
In the end, though, it really seems to me that the only reason the Cubs brought Kerry Wood back last year was because the fans demanded it. Wood served very little purpose being on a roster that was being completely rebuilt last year...and after only a month, even Wood realized he had no place on that team and retired.
Bears fans decided that Brian Urlacher, a future Hall-of-Fame inductee, was not needed on their team and were able to accept him either retiring or playing for another team.
Cubs fans felt that Kerry Wood, a player who never lived up to the hype that surrounded his early career, must return.
Please take a minute and have that soak in a bit.
Can you imagine the situation if Bears fans had demanded Urlacher return? They'd have a broken down middle linebacker giving up big plays in the middle of the field hurting their team. Yet Cubs fans demanded the Cubs sending an on-the-verge-of-his-arm-flying-off Kerry Wood to the mound every 3 days to promptly give up a lead.
If the Cubs are to actually break this cycle of losing, it is thinking like this that needs to stop. The fans can be partly to blame for the state this team is in. We, as fans, need to start looking at the big picture. Tradition... sentimental feelings...these are things that distract from what should be our ultimate goal...winning the World Series. And those feeling shouldn't be moved to the side only when we talk about players. It also applies to the place where the team plays as well.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Would Bud Selig let the Cubs replace Wrigley?
This headline is more of an attention grabber more than anything.
The last few days, after about a month of silence, Wrigley Field renovation talk has spiked yet again.
First, two days ago, the Cubs announce that if they get approval to do what they want with the ballpark, as part of the hotel complex they plan to build across the street, they plan to put in a very large fitness center. I guess that is also something that is needed in Wrigleyville. Whatever...
This resulted in a couple of reactions from other parties involved here. First, according to the Sun-Times, Mayor Rahm Emanuel was not too pleased with the Cubs announcement, as it would appear the Cubs are trying to sweeten the pot here by bribing the people of Wrigleyville who don't own rooftops...using bully tactics against their enemies.
The other reaction came from the Alderman of Waveland and Sheffield Avenues, Tom Tunney who has now pretty much planted him self down in opposition to any renovation plan that blocks the views of the rooftops which he represents.
Today, the mayor met with Tom Ricketts and Tunney in an attempt to move closer to getting a resolution to this problem.
I personally didn't think it would take this long, but it is obvious that after there was no proposal brought before the city council a few weeks ago to increase the number of night games, it seems that Tunney and the rooftop owners are going to play every single card they have to prevent the Cubs from creating the revenue from advertisements that they want.
I've said this before...and I'm going to say it again...IT'S NOT WORTH IT!
Move.
Build a new stadium.
If no agreement is reached by opening day, which many people believe is required to be able to start the renovations on time after this coming season is over, the Ricketts family should wake up, stop being fans for a little while and dump this love they have for this crumbling 100 year old rat infested structure and look for sites to build a new ballpark.
The biggest mistake the fan-owners made when they bought this team was to say outright that the Cubs would continue to play at Wrigley Field no matter what. That should have been their biggest bargaining chip when renovation time came. This isn't the same as the White Sox saying that they would move to Florida if they didn't get a new ballpark. The Cubs are the ones with the money here and they are the ones who will be financing whatever it is that happens here. They'll stay in Chicago.
Would they lose some tourists and some fair weather fans in the process? Yeah...probably...but if the Cubs put a winning team on the field, that won't matter. Besides, fuck the tourists. The Cubs shouldn't be focused on running a historical monument. If the city want's to keep the ballpark as a historical monument, then the Ricketts should sell the place to them, take the money, build a new stadium and let the city give tours of the 100 year old monument of failure as it crumbles to the ground.
Believe it or not, there are a number of decent sites within the city that could adequately handle a new Cubs stadium...and almost an infinite number of sites available in the suburbs. If the Rickettses want to be allowed to run there business as they see fit, then they should move somewhere that they are allowed to do that.
The Yankees tore down the most storied ballpark in baseball history. The Cubs very well can leave Wrigley too.
******************
Ok...with all that said, the Cubs aren't going to move because the Ricketts family is stupid when it comes to this matter. I still think they'll get a large portion of what they want. They have already made a ton of investments in the areas around the ballpark and own a number of properties in Wrigleyville other than the ballpark. Dumping Wrigley and all the other properties they own and moving somewhere else would result in a dramatic loss on their investments. On top of that, Bud Selig would probably step in and require an agreement be reached for the Cubs to stay at Wrigley for the "good of baseball".
That being said, if they had threatened to move, they likely could have gotten a lot more than they have...including some amount of public financing, more night games, the triangle building and all the advertisements they want. That strategy worked wonderfully when they wanted a new spring training facility...just ask Mesa how that worked out?
Please continue to watch this issue over the next couple weeks. A deal is still likely to come before opening day. I just hope that any compromise made is to the Cubs advantage.
The last few days, after about a month of silence, Wrigley Field renovation talk has spiked yet again.
First, two days ago, the Cubs announce that if they get approval to do what they want with the ballpark, as part of the hotel complex they plan to build across the street, they plan to put in a very large fitness center. I guess that is also something that is needed in Wrigleyville. Whatever...
This resulted in a couple of reactions from other parties involved here. First, according to the Sun-Times, Mayor Rahm Emanuel was not too pleased with the Cubs announcement, as it would appear the Cubs are trying to sweeten the pot here by bribing the people of Wrigleyville who don't own rooftops...using bully tactics against their enemies.
The other reaction came from the Alderman of Waveland and Sheffield Avenues, Tom Tunney who has now pretty much planted him self down in opposition to any renovation plan that blocks the views of the rooftops which he represents.
Today, the mayor met with Tom Ricketts and Tunney in an attempt to move closer to getting a resolution to this problem.
I personally didn't think it would take this long, but it is obvious that after there was no proposal brought before the city council a few weeks ago to increase the number of night games, it seems that Tunney and the rooftop owners are going to play every single card they have to prevent the Cubs from creating the revenue from advertisements that they want.
I've said this before...and I'm going to say it again...IT'S NOT WORTH IT!
Move.
Build a new stadium.
If no agreement is reached by opening day, which many people believe is required to be able to start the renovations on time after this coming season is over, the Ricketts family should wake up, stop being fans for a little while and dump this love they have for this crumbling 100 year old rat infested structure and look for sites to build a new ballpark.
The biggest mistake the fan-owners made when they bought this team was to say outright that the Cubs would continue to play at Wrigley Field no matter what. That should have been their biggest bargaining chip when renovation time came. This isn't the same as the White Sox saying that they would move to Florida if they didn't get a new ballpark. The Cubs are the ones with the money here and they are the ones who will be financing whatever it is that happens here. They'll stay in Chicago.
Would they lose some tourists and some fair weather fans in the process? Yeah...probably...but if the Cubs put a winning team on the field, that won't matter. Besides, fuck the tourists. The Cubs shouldn't be focused on running a historical monument. If the city want's to keep the ballpark as a historical monument, then the Ricketts should sell the place to them, take the money, build a new stadium and let the city give tours of the 100 year old monument of failure as it crumbles to the ground.
Believe it or not, there are a number of decent sites within the city that could adequately handle a new Cubs stadium...and almost an infinite number of sites available in the suburbs. If the Rickettses want to be allowed to run there business as they see fit, then they should move somewhere that they are allowed to do that.
The Yankees tore down the most storied ballpark in baseball history. The Cubs very well can leave Wrigley too.
******************
Ok...with all that said, the Cubs aren't going to move because the Ricketts family is stupid when it comes to this matter. I still think they'll get a large portion of what they want. They have already made a ton of investments in the areas around the ballpark and own a number of properties in Wrigleyville other than the ballpark. Dumping Wrigley and all the other properties they own and moving somewhere else would result in a dramatic loss on their investments. On top of that, Bud Selig would probably step in and require an agreement be reached for the Cubs to stay at Wrigley for the "good of baseball".
That being said, if they had threatened to move, they likely could have gotten a lot more than they have...including some amount of public financing, more night games, the triangle building and all the advertisements they want. That strategy worked wonderfully when they wanted a new spring training facility...just ask Mesa how that worked out?
Please continue to watch this issue over the next couple weeks. A deal is still likely to come before opening day. I just hope that any compromise made is to the Cubs advantage.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Rooftop owners swing...but I think they missed.
Because the product that will be put on the field really is no interest to anyone right now, all attention has been put on the Wrigley Field renovation plans.
So the rooftops owners want LED boards on their buildings instead advertising inside of Wrigley that could potentially obstruct some of their views of the playing surface inside the ballpark.
I can actually give some serious problems to what is being proposed here.
First, the LED boards, where they are proposed to be located, will somewhat obstructed. Part of the reason for putting up advertising is so people will actually see the advertisements. Placing these LED advertisement boards off the facade of these rooftops will result in advertising that will be seen by parts of the stadium, but isn't likely to be seen very much on TV, which is actually the larger audience that advertisers are trying to reach. (Why do you think they put that board off the brick wall behind home plate or on the doors of the outfield walls?)
Second, LED boards are bright and annoying...and the Cubs already have a number of them, with more likely to be on the way with the renovation (which doesn't include the outfield advertising the team is requesting). They also will not have the same dramatic impact that a static advertisement has such as the Toyota sign.
A third issue I had with this proposal was with the video board they proposed to put on on what we have known as the Budweiser, Horseshoe Casino, or most recently, United Airlines building. The Cubs should put up a video board, and I've even thought that building would be an ideal spot for it...but when I tried to create rendering of what that might look like, it turned out bad...really bad. First off, the board is too far back from the main ballpark to make a dramatic impact. Second, the video board would be too small...in fact, I don't think there are any primary video boards in Major League baseball right now that would be as small as that one would be. If you are going to do something that dramatic, do it right. I've said for a while that I thought the Cubs were likely in negotiations with some of the building owners over the possibility of put in a video board, but anything beyond that no. The video board the rooftops are proposing just won't work.
Look, I sympathize (barely) with the rooftop owners on this. They have invested heavily in their buildings and are scared that their businesses will be hurt. At the same time, many of these people have made a ton of money by stealing a product for years. Some of them went into this with the expectation that they should be able to make money here, and they are justified to try to protect that business.
At the same time, the rooftops contribute virtually nothing to help the Cubs win on the field. (The percentage of revenues they give the Cubs is chump change.) The presentation given here basically did nothing more than show that if there is advertising put in Wrigley, they think they deserve a piece of the revenues it generates, but they have failed to demonstrate how that would benefit the Cubs.
At this point, the Cubs seem to be digging in their cleats on the idea that they want to keep the advertising inside the ballpark. I don't blame them. This way they can control the actual advertising that goes up and they will likely do a better job to help keep the advertising set up in such a way that it blends in with the rest of the ballpark (like the Underarmour, Toyota, Target and Tervis adverts). Remember, they had some real issues with the Horseshoe Casino sign, which led to the Toyota sign being put up.
One final point I'd like to make about this is that the Cubs have made deal after deal after deal with the rooftop owners, and while the Cubs usually get their way, it isn't without a ton of fighting in the process. Every deal made with the rooftop owners and the neighborhood in general has resulted in the Cubs being restricted in being able to do something else in the future. While the Cubs tend to be able to get around these issues (expanding the bleachers, more night games, adding the Toyota sign), it has taken a lot more time and energy for them to actually achieve these items which are actually pretty important to the financial competitiveness of the franchise. That energy would be better placed in with the on field product.
I didn't want the Cubs to renovate Wrigley. My reasons are different from many others who think the ballpark should be left alone. I didn't want to renovate the place because I think the team should move and build a new stadium somewhere else altogether.
But...if the team stays (ok, they aren't leaving...but still), I've felt that they should get to do whatever they want to the place. The truth is, the neighborhood and the rooftops aren't going to suffer because of it. In fact, just like all the other changes to the ballpark over the last 30 years, they will benefit from it just like the Cubs will.
The rooftop owners are seen as one of the final hurdles to getting this plan moving forward and their stalling tactic basically revolves around the Cubs' wish to put up advertising in the outfield. We can assume the advertising would be similar to the Toyota sign that is currently out there.
Today the rooftop owners had their say...holding a press conference and giving their vision for the renovations.
They made a nice little video to demonstrate how they would like to partner with the team to try to maximize the advertising around the ballpark.
So the rooftops owners want LED boards on their buildings instead advertising inside of Wrigley that could potentially obstruct some of their views of the playing surface inside the ballpark.
I can actually give some serious problems to what is being proposed here.
First, the LED boards, where they are proposed to be located, will somewhat obstructed. Part of the reason for putting up advertising is so people will actually see the advertisements. Placing these LED advertisement boards off the facade of these rooftops will result in advertising that will be seen by parts of the stadium, but isn't likely to be seen very much on TV, which is actually the larger audience that advertisers are trying to reach. (Why do you think they put that board off the brick wall behind home plate or on the doors of the outfield walls?)
Second, LED boards are bright and annoying...and the Cubs already have a number of them, with more likely to be on the way with the renovation (which doesn't include the outfield advertising the team is requesting). They also will not have the same dramatic impact that a static advertisement has such as the Toyota sign.
A third issue I had with this proposal was with the video board they proposed to put on on what we have known as the Budweiser, Horseshoe Casino, or most recently, United Airlines building. The Cubs should put up a video board, and I've even thought that building would be an ideal spot for it...but when I tried to create rendering of what that might look like, it turned out bad...really bad. First off, the board is too far back from the main ballpark to make a dramatic impact. Second, the video board would be too small...in fact, I don't think there are any primary video boards in Major League baseball right now that would be as small as that one would be. If you are going to do something that dramatic, do it right. I've said for a while that I thought the Cubs were likely in negotiations with some of the building owners over the possibility of put in a video board, but anything beyond that no. The video board the rooftops are proposing just won't work.
Look, I sympathize (barely) with the rooftop owners on this. They have invested heavily in their buildings and are scared that their businesses will be hurt. At the same time, many of these people have made a ton of money by stealing a product for years. Some of them went into this with the expectation that they should be able to make money here, and they are justified to try to protect that business.
At the same time, the rooftops contribute virtually nothing to help the Cubs win on the field. (The percentage of revenues they give the Cubs is chump change.) The presentation given here basically did nothing more than show that if there is advertising put in Wrigley, they think they deserve a piece of the revenues it generates, but they have failed to demonstrate how that would benefit the Cubs.
At this point, the Cubs seem to be digging in their cleats on the idea that they want to keep the advertising inside the ballpark. I don't blame them. This way they can control the actual advertising that goes up and they will likely do a better job to help keep the advertising set up in such a way that it blends in with the rest of the ballpark (like the Underarmour, Toyota, Target and Tervis adverts). Remember, they had some real issues with the Horseshoe Casino sign, which led to the Toyota sign being put up.
One final point I'd like to make about this is that the Cubs have made deal after deal after deal with the rooftop owners, and while the Cubs usually get their way, it isn't without a ton of fighting in the process. Every deal made with the rooftop owners and the neighborhood in general has resulted in the Cubs being restricted in being able to do something else in the future. While the Cubs tend to be able to get around these issues (expanding the bleachers, more night games, adding the Toyota sign), it has taken a lot more time and energy for them to actually achieve these items which are actually pretty important to the financial competitiveness of the franchise. That energy would be better placed in with the on field product.
I didn't want the Cubs to renovate Wrigley. My reasons are different from many others who think the ballpark should be left alone. I didn't want to renovate the place because I think the team should move and build a new stadium somewhere else altogether.
But...if the team stays (ok, they aren't leaving...but still), I've felt that they should get to do whatever they want to the place. The truth is, the neighborhood and the rooftops aren't going to suffer because of it. In fact, just like all the other changes to the ballpark over the last 30 years, they will benefit from it just like the Cubs will.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
The Cubs will get what they want
The renovation of Wrigley Field has taken front and center this week as the Cubs quickly approach spring training (much to the disappointment of Scott Hairston, who is supposedly on the verge of being signed by the team).
It seems that Rahm Emanuel is on board with the current plan that the Cubs have put forward where the team picks up the entire tab for the Wrigley Field renovations in return for the city easing, or even completely removing, the restrictions put on the ballpark.
That really leaves Tom Tunney and the rooftop owners as the only obstacles in the way from having this renovation plan move forward finally.
I've been on record in the past saying "fuck the rooftops" and I still stand by this. Tom Tunney isn't any better as the Sun Times likes to point out...
But for as much noise as the rooftop owners make, along with the alderman they have in their pocket, they don't very often get there way when it comes to dealing with the Cubs. Over the past several years, the Cubs have successfully lobbied to:
It seems that Rahm Emanuel is on board with the current plan that the Cubs have put forward where the team picks up the entire tab for the Wrigley Field renovations in return for the city easing, or even completely removing, the restrictions put on the ballpark.
That really leaves Tom Tunney and the rooftop owners as the only obstacles in the way from having this renovation plan move forward finally.
I've been on record in the past saying "fuck the rooftops" and I still stand by this. Tom Tunney isn't any better as the Sun Times likes to point out...
So far, the rooftops have adopted a hard line, emboldened by local Ald. Tom Tunney (44th), who has received at least $171,356 in direct campaign contributions from rooftop club owners and another $15,675 to the alderman’s 44th Ward Democratic Organization.
But for as much noise as the rooftop owners make, along with the alderman they have in their pocket, they don't very often get there way when it comes to dealing with the Cubs. Over the past several years, the Cubs have successfully lobbied to:
- Add more night games
- Expand the bleachers
- Hold concerts
- Put up advertising
- Get a percentage of the rooftop revenues
While the rooftops aren't doing anything more than stealing a product, the truth is, the Cubs have pretty much had their way with them for the last decade, and that isn't likely to change with the current plans.
The Cubs are asking for more night games, more advertising, more concerts, and more street festivals on the already closed off Sheffield Avenue.
The Cubs are going to get their way here for two reasons. First, the Cubs are more important to the city than the rooftop owners. Second, the shortsighted rooftop owners will actually benefit from all this.
More night games, particularly on week nights, are going to boost revenues for the rooftops as more of the corporate clientele would prefer to go to these games at nights. More concerts...more events for the rooftops to sell tickets too. More advertising? Quite frankly, the Cubs will likely ask some of the rooftops to actually erect the advertising on their building, allowing the owners to take a large percentage of the revenue. The only thing that might hurt the rooftop owners is the Sheffield festivals, which might take away some of the concession sales the rooftops take in (but not significantly, since most of the rooftop tickets include all the food and drink you can ingest).
An agreement is going to get done and going to get done quickly...most likely before opening day.
All we have to worry about then is how extensive this renovation is actually going to be.
Monday, January 21, 2013
What we know and don’t know about the Wrigley renovations
This past weekend, the Ricketts family released another round of pretty drawings giving fans an idea of what might happen during a massive renovation of Wrigley Field.
The presentation coincided with an announcement that the Cubs are not going to look for public financing of part of the renovations and that the Ricketts family will finance the renovations through their own funds.
Their current cost estimate for the renovations? $300 million.
That’s important. $300 million.
That is a cost reduction of between 33% and 50% over previous estimates. Did rebuilding the ballpark suddenly get cheaper? Instead of concrete, are they going to use wood? Instead of a new clubhouse, are they going to use RV trailers? No.
The Cubs released 20 some odd renderings over the weekend. Did anyone notice what was missing from those renderings?
There is no triangle building.
Earlier renovations plans revolved around a $200 to $300 million renovation of the existing ballpark and $200 to $300 million in investment in the area surrounding the park including the triangle building. The deal was that if the city and state would sell the bonds to help the Cubs finance the renovation of the ballpark, the Cubs would contribute at least that equal amount in the areas around the ballpark.
A couple weeks ago the Cubs held a meeting for the people of the Wrigleyville neighborhood to discuss the team’s plans for the area. As most of us heard, the team plans to put up a hotel on the site of the McDonalds on Clark St (on an acre lot the Ricketts family bought about one year ago). We also know that they talked about a more permanent ice rink, outdoor movies and a farmers market…all which, we assume, would be done on the triangle parcel next to the ballpark.
For years we were told that building the “triangle building” was critical to a successful renovation project. That appears to no longer be the case. What has changed? Well, quite simply, the Ricketts family is using other Cubs owned properties around the area to achieve this. The McDonalds property will house a boutique hotel, which is a somewhat vague term. We know that a McDonalds will be incorporated into the property, but other shops, bars and restaurants will likely be added as well. While a hotel wasn’t part of the Triangle building plans, the restaurants and shops were.
The other big thing the triangle building was supposed to include was offices for the Cubs increasing front office staff. The office space problem appears to have been remedied a year ago when the Cubs renovated a building at the corner of Clark and Waveland and moved the front office personnel into it.
One last thing the triangle building was supposed to provide was parking…mostly for VIPs, players, executive management and media. While parking availability for fans has always been a problem at Wrigley (and will likely continue to be), the Cubs own a significant amount of land to accommodate the said people. In fact, most people would be surprised to know that the Cubs own a number of parking lots around the ballpark, including a very large vacant lot on Grace St.
 |
| The blue highlighted regions show areas around Wrigley that the Cubs own or use regularly on game day. |
Now on to the nitty gritty of the renovations.
The most important part of the renovations, in my opinion, is going to be the player facilities which are currently the worst in baseball. The renderings shown below show an expanded clubhouse, batting cages, a weight room, a new media room, trainer facilities, a players’ lounge, coaches’ offices and so on. While the layout will definitely bring the Cubs facilities up to a major league quality, what is being show to us right on is far from being the best facility in baseball. The Ricketts family stated that they intended to have the best facilities for its players…and that appears to be what they are doing with the new spring training site in Mesa and their academy in the Dominican Republic. Unfortunately, based on these renderings, the Wrigley facilities, where a player will spend a majority of the season, will not achieve this goal for the Ricketts family.
 |
| The new clubhouse has everything a baseball player could have dreamed of...15 years ago. |
 |
| Sorry, but this concourse isn't any wider than what they have now. |
 |
| A note: The roof over the upper deck and the one over the back of the lower deck are finally to be replaced. These are currently the original roofs on the ballpark and are still made out of wood. |
The changes to the upper deck appear to be much more radical. The team appears ready to expand upon the “patio” idea they created back in 1989 when they added the present day press box. Added patios will be built on top of the original lower deck roof which will allow for expanded concession and other amenities. What this does is allow the Cubs to expand the upper deck bathroom facilities, which are even more lacking than the lower deck facilities. It also appears that a new press box will be constructed creating sorely need space for the broadcasters and media members. The upper deck also appears to be getting a “club”, perhaps similar to the current PNC club on the luxury box level of park.
 |
| Moving most of the upper deck concessions onto the lower deck roof creates more room for expanded bathrooms. |
Most of this seems good. But what is missing?
Well, reports state that the Cubs are going to gut and replace the entire lower deck seating bowl. What does that mean exactly? Well, there is the obvious replacing of the structural concrete and the actual replacement of the seats as well. Similar replacements will be done to the upper deck.
Personally, I think this is where the Cubs need to be careful about what they do. The biggest problems Wrigley has, from a fan experience point of view, are with the cramped, uncomfortable seating conditions. The seats are narrow, the aisles can only fit a single person, the leg room for a seat really is only enough for a person under 5’6”. Nothing in any statement or drawing has indicated that the team intends to fix some of these problems. If they are replacing the seating bowl entirely, these problems really need to be considered too.
Wrigley Field was designed to cram 40,000 people into it, but was really set up to only hold 15,000 people in on a daily basis. When the stadium was built, a sellout was a very rare occasion and not the norm as we see today. Comfort for 40,000 people was not taken into consideration.
Successfully finding a way to fix this inherent problem with the ballpark is actually a pretty important issue, believe it or not…and there is actually pretty good example of this for the Cubs to learn from.
For years the Cubs have said that they want to use the renovation of Fenway Park as a guide on how to accomplish the renovations at Wrigley…and it appears that is exactly what they are going to do. The Fenway Park renovations were concluded a few years ago to rave reviews from players and fans alike.
But as the Red Sox have started to struggle in the standings, some grumbles about the old ballpark have started to resurface again. The Fenway renovations added concessions, increased capacity, installed new restaurants and added new video boards along with other fan friendly amenities. They didn’t, however, address some of the major problems with the existing seating bowl including cramped seating, poor sightlines, and obstructed views. In fact, when I last was Fenway Park (which was before the renovations), I considered it to be the least comfortable ballpark I’ve ever been in and it appears little has been done to change that opinion.
Now with these major renovations complete, there are many people calling for the Boston ownership group to start looking at doing something about these remaining problems at Fenway. To resolve these problems is not going to be easy if they choose to undertake them (and ownership has said nothing of the sort anyway). One of the biggest problems Fenway has had in its 100 years of existence has been its small size and thus its small capacity. Many of the renovations done to the ballpark over the last decade have revolved around adding as many new seats at possible to increase this capacity, and they have successfully done so. In the last couple decades, Fenway's capacity has increased by over 5,000 seats...and those are 5,000 very comfortable seats. To resolve the comfort problems with the rematining 32,000 seats would likely require the Red Sox to reduce the seating capacity of the park by a rather significant amount.
That brings us back to the Cubs. Wrigley suffers from many of these same problems. Seats are almost as uncomfortable and cramped. There are a ton of obstructed views throughout the ballpark. While the sightlines at Wrigley are not nearly as bad as they are at Fenway, particularly in the lower deck, the upper deck seats do suffer from problems with this, particularly in the outfield corners.
For fans, many of these proposed renovations will receive rave reviews when initially completed. I suspect, unless something is done about fan comfort in the main seating bowl, not long after the renovations are complete, grumbles will quickly return like have started at Fenway. It's not a solution that can be solved easily because any solution would likely require a reduction in capacity of the ballpark. In fact, many of the renovations being discussed, especially in the upper deck and in the outfield, will probably result in a reduction in the number of seats.
 |
| Look for new LED boards in center and left field to go along with new patio seating in those locations. |
The Ricketts family seems upset over the fact they were not able to move forward on any renovations this past off season...so I would expect any plan that they have to begin immediately after this year is over...if not a little sooner. We'll see.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Papa Ricketts wants me to pay $20 for a hot dog.
I'm writing this post mainly because it is about something that is happening right across the street from where I work.
About 2 years ago, a restaurant opened in the commercial property across the street from my office building in Middleton, Wisconsin (near Madison).
This commercial area, named Greenway Station, is home to some rather upscale retailers and restaurants. The restaurant's name was "Bison Jack's". They sold bison dogs...basically hot dogs made out of leaner, healthier bison meat.
I never have eaten there, but I did walk into the place to see what they had to offer on time. Since I wasn't in the mood for hot dogs, I took note of the place, and then ate somewhere else down the street. They did offer other items (a burger, side dishes), but their menus at the front of the store really only showed hot dogs.
The hot dogs ranged in price from about $6 to $8. The pictures on the menus looked really good...fully loaded dogs...Chicago style, New York style, Wisconsin style...for the most part, it seemed like a decent price.
Anyway, I discovered that "Bison Jack's" is owned by Joe Ricketts. Yes...that Joe Ricketts. The father of the 4 kids who own and run the Cubs. As you probably know, the Cubs also sell bison dogs at Cubs games.
Today, on a local Madison new site, I came across this story:
Steep Price Hike at Bison Jacks
The price of the hot dogs at Bison Jack's has jumped to $20 according to this story.
Maybe the drought took its toll on the bison supplies this year.
Maybe inflation is to blame.
Given Papa Ricketts's $10 million campaign to try to oust Barack Obama from the White House, you have to wonder if this is some sort of overreaction to Obamacare or the such. The timing for all this is just strange. Not long after the election...shortly before major Obamacare provisions go into effect. Likely tax increases on the wealthy starting in less than a month...and so on.
I'm not going to make this a political debate...
No one really knows what is going on. Here are some quotes from the story:
Bison dogs cost only $5 or $6 at Wrigley. Maybe they will jack the price up to $20 there too.
The main consensus is that the store will go out of business soon. Many restaurants have struggled in this commercial property...likely because the rents are so high, but that's just speculation. Not good for a business that planned to open 2 more locations in the Madison area, and they start to open restaurants all over the country.
What does this have to do with anything? Well, technically Joe Ricketts owns the Cubs. The kids are the trustees in charge of the team. Nothing here probably affects the Cubs, but it seems to me that this family may not be the business savvy group that their fortune would lead us to believe. The failed attempts at getting financing for a Wrigley Field rehab have pretty much been the Ricketts's fault. They botched up the initial attempt by poor marketing and bad strategy. The botched up their second attempt because daddy was acting all political. I feel as if most other owners would have had a deal in place by now.
In the mean time, I think I might have to go across the street for lunch today and see what a $20 hot dog tastes like.
About 2 years ago, a restaurant opened in the commercial property across the street from my office building in Middleton, Wisconsin (near Madison).
This commercial area, named Greenway Station, is home to some rather upscale retailers and restaurants. The restaurant's name was "Bison Jack's". They sold bison dogs...basically hot dogs made out of leaner, healthier bison meat.
I never have eaten there, but I did walk into the place to see what they had to offer on time. Since I wasn't in the mood for hot dogs, I took note of the place, and then ate somewhere else down the street. They did offer other items (a burger, side dishes), but their menus at the front of the store really only showed hot dogs.
The hot dogs ranged in price from about $6 to $8. The pictures on the menus looked really good...fully loaded dogs...Chicago style, New York style, Wisconsin style...for the most part, it seemed like a decent price.
Anyway, I discovered that "Bison Jack's" is owned by Joe Ricketts. Yes...that Joe Ricketts. The father of the 4 kids who own and run the Cubs. As you probably know, the Cubs also sell bison dogs at Cubs games.
Today, on a local Madison new site, I came across this story:
Steep Price Hike at Bison Jacks
The price of the hot dogs at Bison Jack's has jumped to $20 according to this story.
Maybe the drought took its toll on the bison supplies this year.
Maybe inflation is to blame.
Given Papa Ricketts's $10 million campaign to try to oust Barack Obama from the White House, you have to wonder if this is some sort of overreaction to Obamacare or the such. The timing for all this is just strange. Not long after the election...shortly before major Obamacare provisions go into effect. Likely tax increases on the wealthy starting in less than a month...and so on.
I'm not going to make this a political debate...
No one really knows what is going on. Here are some quotes from the story:
“It’s a long drawn out story,” the manager said.
Asked whether the $20 menu items were a strange publicity stunt, he said, “I have no idea what is going on at all.”
An employee said he wasn’t sure why the prices were hiked. “It’s just a home office decision,” he said.
Asked why a hot dog would cost $20, he said, “Yep, they’re expensive.” Asked why they are so expensive, he replied, “They’re bison.”
Bison dogs cost only $5 or $6 at Wrigley. Maybe they will jack the price up to $20 there too.
The main consensus is that the store will go out of business soon. Many restaurants have struggled in this commercial property...likely because the rents are so high, but that's just speculation. Not good for a business that planned to open 2 more locations in the Madison area, and they start to open restaurants all over the country.
What does this have to do with anything? Well, technically Joe Ricketts owns the Cubs. The kids are the trustees in charge of the team. Nothing here probably affects the Cubs, but it seems to me that this family may not be the business savvy group that their fortune would lead us to believe. The failed attempts at getting financing for a Wrigley Field rehab have pretty much been the Ricketts's fault. They botched up the initial attempt by poor marketing and bad strategy. The botched up their second attempt because daddy was acting all political. I feel as if most other owners would have had a deal in place by now.
In the mean time, I think I might have to go across the street for lunch today and see what a $20 hot dog tastes like.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Please...a non-Cub to replace Brenly
I haven't written here for a while mainly because I felt I didn't have anything to say that someone else hasn't already said. But today, I have something to say.
If you haven't heard, Bob Brenly has decided to leave the Cubs broadcast booth. The odds right now are that he's going to move into the booth for the Diamondbacks, whom have been trying to lure him for the last few weeks since it was announced that Mark Grace and Daron Sutton were not returning there.
So now the speculation begins as to who will replace Brenly. I liked Bob. In fact, I'm pretty crushed he's leaving. I'm doubt the Cubs will be able to find a person quite as good as him to be Len Kasper's new partner.
I'm not sure exactly who I'd like to see replace Brenly. A lot of people think Mark Grace could return. That doesn't seem very likely given Grace's legal problems right now. Dan Plesac maybe. Todd Hollandsworth perhaps. Of course there is Kerry Wood who is lurking around Wrigley Field every waking hour hoping the Cubs give him some significant new role.
None of those names really appeals to me.
One thing I'm looking for in a new color commentator...I want a non-Cub in that role. Bob Brenly was an outsider and was great as he brought a wonderful perspective coming off of a job where he won a World Series. Yes, he was part of the Cubs' broadcast team back in the early 90's on the radio, but he was still an outsider. He never played or coached for this organization. He never got caught up in the losing ways of the Cubs.
So simply, I want a guy to come in here who has an idea of what it's like to win. Someone who can tell us, as Bob often did, what the Cubs are doing wrong. I want a guy that isn't so close to the team that he feels like he is unable to give sharp criticism of any of the players or coaches.
I don't want a piss-drunk Mark Grace. I don't want a holier than thou Dan Plesac. I don't want a sleep inducing Todd Hollandsworth. And I definitely don't want Kerry Wood who'll injure his shoulder while holding a microphone.
I want a non-Cub.
If you haven't heard, Bob Brenly has decided to leave the Cubs broadcast booth. The odds right now are that he's going to move into the booth for the Diamondbacks, whom have been trying to lure him for the last few weeks since it was announced that Mark Grace and Daron Sutton were not returning there.
So now the speculation begins as to who will replace Brenly. I liked Bob. In fact, I'm pretty crushed he's leaving. I'm doubt the Cubs will be able to find a person quite as good as him to be Len Kasper's new partner.
I'm not sure exactly who I'd like to see replace Brenly. A lot of people think Mark Grace could return. That doesn't seem very likely given Grace's legal problems right now. Dan Plesac maybe. Todd Hollandsworth perhaps. Of course there is Kerry Wood who is lurking around Wrigley Field every waking hour hoping the Cubs give him some significant new role.
None of those names really appeals to me.
One thing I'm looking for in a new color commentator...I want a non-Cub in that role. Bob Brenly was an outsider and was great as he brought a wonderful perspective coming off of a job where he won a World Series. Yes, he was part of the Cubs' broadcast team back in the early 90's on the radio, but he was still an outsider. He never played or coached for this organization. He never got caught up in the losing ways of the Cubs.
So simply, I want a guy to come in here who has an idea of what it's like to win. Someone who can tell us, as Bob often did, what the Cubs are doing wrong. I want a guy that isn't so close to the team that he feels like he is unable to give sharp criticism of any of the players or coaches.
I don't want a piss-drunk Mark Grace. I don't want a holier than thou Dan Plesac. I don't want a sleep inducing Todd Hollandsworth. And I definitely don't want Kerry Wood who'll injure his shoulder while holding a microphone.
I want a non-Cub.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Why Rizzo is a big deal.
Is the hype overblown?
Yes.
Is the media coverage over the top?
Yes.
Are expectations completely unreasonable?
Yes.
Rizzo isn't even a top 10 prospect.
But for the Cubs, Rizzo is actually a big deal.
Why?
Rizzo is really potentially the first impact player that the Cubs have recalled that is one of "Theo's guys".
He was drafted by Theo Epstein and he spent a majority of his minor league career in Theo's system in Boston.
This is not a Jim Hendry free swinging, undisciplined, fundamentally unsound guy. This isn't Starlin Castro or even Brett Jackson (whom many think is a better prospect). Rizzo is supposed to be a player who was taught how to play the game, as Theo puts it, "The Cubbie Way." Yes, players like Jackson and Castro were developed by the old Cubs system, but that was a system that pretty produced nothing for the better part of a decade.
So this is important because this is supposed to give us a preview of things to come. It's going to be a few years before we see another Theo guy come up from the minor leagues.
So enjoy.
Yes.
Is the media coverage over the top?
Yes.
Are expectations completely unreasonable?
Yes.
Rizzo isn't even a top 10 prospect.
But for the Cubs, Rizzo is actually a big deal.
Why?
Rizzo is really potentially the first impact player that the Cubs have recalled that is one of "Theo's guys".
He was drafted by Theo Epstein and he spent a majority of his minor league career in Theo's system in Boston.
This is not a Jim Hendry free swinging, undisciplined, fundamentally unsound guy. This isn't Starlin Castro or even Brett Jackson (whom many think is a better prospect). Rizzo is supposed to be a player who was taught how to play the game, as Theo puts it, "The Cubbie Way." Yes, players like Jackson and Castro were developed by the old Cubs system, but that was a system that pretty produced nothing for the better part of a decade.
So this is important because this is supposed to give us a preview of things to come. It's going to be a few years before we see another Theo guy come up from the minor leagues.
So enjoy.
The official timeline for tonight's festivities at Wrigley
As you all probably know, tonight Anthony Rizzo makes his Cubs debut.
As we all know, the future Hall-of-Famer's arrival has caused Cubs-nation to be giddy with excitement.
For those lucky few who are able to go to the game tonight, I have obtained the official timeline for the Rizzo debut celebration. Please read carefully so you know when and where to be so you don't miss any of the festivities marking this joyous occasion.
*****************
OFFICIAL RIZZO DAY SCHEDULE OF EVENTS:
3:00 pm: Beginning of the parade on Clark St. featuring the Jesse White tumbers, the Lakeview High School marching band, the VFW, Santa Clause, and concluding with Anthony Rizzo's escort into Wrigley Field.
4:00 pm: Statue unveiling at the corner of Sheffield and Addison. The Santo and William statues have been moved underneath the "L" track to make room for the 45 foot tall statue of the new first baseman.
4:30 pm: Mayor Rahm Emanuel officially declares today "Anthony Rizzo Day" in Chicago and unveils that Sheffield Ave. will be officially renamed "Rizzo Way".
5:00 pm: Anthony Rizzo gives a speech at the corner of Addison and Clark as his spot on the Wrigley Field Walk-of-Fame is unveiled.
At this point, all festivities are moved inside the park:
5:15 pm: Rawlings presents Rizzo with his first Gold Glove award.
5:30 pm: Ceremony in which Rizzo's number 44 is retired. His number will be flown on top of the center field scoreboard instead on one of the foul poles.
5:37 pm: Dick Ruthven is taken into custody as he runs on the field and tries to interrupt the retiring of "his" number.
6:00 pm: The ceremonial first batting practice for Anthony Rizzo, with President Barack Obama throwing the ceremonial first batting practice pitch.
6:15 pm: The official transfer of power as Byran LaHair hands over the first baseman's glove to Anthony Rizzo.
6:30 pm: A moment of silence for all the service men and women who have died in battle so Anthony Rizzo could play for the Cubs.
6:45 pm: Commissioner Bud Selig comes down on the field to announce that each year, June 26th will be celebrated throughout baseball as Anthony Rizzo Day, and all players on all teams will wear his number 44 in tribute.
6:55 pm: Anthony Rizzo throws out the ceremonial first pitch with Yogi Berra behind the plate to catch.
7:00 pm: Anthony Rizzo sings the national anthem, accompanied by Adele.
7:05 pm: First pitch.
**********************
Please plan your day accordingly.
As we all know, the future Hall-of-Famer's arrival has caused Cubs-nation to be giddy with excitement.
For those lucky few who are able to go to the game tonight, I have obtained the official timeline for the Rizzo debut celebration. Please read carefully so you know when and where to be so you don't miss any of the festivities marking this joyous occasion.
*****************
OFFICIAL RIZZO DAY SCHEDULE OF EVENTS:
3:00 pm: Beginning of the parade on Clark St. featuring the Jesse White tumbers, the Lakeview High School marching band, the VFW, Santa Clause, and concluding with Anthony Rizzo's escort into Wrigley Field.
4:00 pm: Statue unveiling at the corner of Sheffield and Addison. The Santo and William statues have been moved underneath the "L" track to make room for the 45 foot tall statue of the new first baseman.
4:30 pm: Mayor Rahm Emanuel officially declares today "Anthony Rizzo Day" in Chicago and unveils that Sheffield Ave. will be officially renamed "Rizzo Way".
5:00 pm: Anthony Rizzo gives a speech at the corner of Addison and Clark as his spot on the Wrigley Field Walk-of-Fame is unveiled.
At this point, all festivities are moved inside the park:
5:15 pm: Rawlings presents Rizzo with his first Gold Glove award.
5:30 pm: Ceremony in which Rizzo's number 44 is retired. His number will be flown on top of the center field scoreboard instead on one of the foul poles.
5:37 pm: Dick Ruthven is taken into custody as he runs on the field and tries to interrupt the retiring of "his" number.
6:00 pm: The ceremonial first batting practice for Anthony Rizzo, with President Barack Obama throwing the ceremonial first batting practice pitch.
6:15 pm: The official transfer of power as Byran LaHair hands over the first baseman's glove to Anthony Rizzo.
6:30 pm: A moment of silence for all the service men and women who have died in battle so Anthony Rizzo could play for the Cubs.
6:45 pm: Commissioner Bud Selig comes down on the field to announce that each year, June 26th will be celebrated throughout baseball as Anthony Rizzo Day, and all players on all teams will wear his number 44 in tribute.
6:55 pm: Anthony Rizzo throws out the ceremonial first pitch with Yogi Berra behind the plate to catch.
7:00 pm: Anthony Rizzo sings the national anthem, accompanied by Adele.
7:05 pm: First pitch.
**********************
Please plan your day accordingly.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Multiple sources: Anthony Rizzo promoted...irrational exuberance invades Wrigleyville
Future Hall-of-Famer and Cubs legend, Anthony Rizzo was pulled from this afternoon's Iowa Cubs game after the 3rd inning.
It is assumed he will be starting at 1st base for tomorrow's game against the Mets.
So let the irrational exuberance begin.
It is assumed he will be starting at 1st base for tomorrow's game against the Mets.
So let the irrational exuberance begin.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Cubs thought of the day 6-22-12: Rizzo Day
According to numerous accounts, today is the day that, if they choose, the Cubs could call up Anthony Rizzo and be guaranteed that he will be under team control for one extra year.
Alas the Cubs have not promoted the 22 year old today. While every indication is that Rizzo will be promoted soon, the Cubs really shouldn't (still) be in any rush to promote him.
First off, the extra year of team control is important financially, but a more important "Rizzo" deadline for the Cubs is coming in a couple more weeks. If they hold off a little longer, the Cubs may be able to guarantee that Rizzo isn't able to get Super 2 status which would allow him to enter arbitration a year early.
My guess right now is that the Cubs will not promote Rizzo for another month. The date I'm guessing right now is July 20th when the Cubs travel to St. Louis.
A couple reason's I've chosen that date...
First, it's on the road. I feel, with all the fan and media hoopla around Rizzo, having his Cubs debut be on the road is probably the best thing for the kid.
Second, it doesn't rob Rizzo of playing in the AAA All-Star game. While the AAA All-Star game isn't quite the event that the MLB All-Star game is, it is still a nice award for a very good season to this point.
I've heard arguments that the Cubs are likely to promote him soon to boost fan interest. I don't see that happening either. Most of the moves made this year have had nothing to do with fan interest and I don't see Jed and Theo being influenced by any business aspect to this situation.
Besides that, I don't see Rizzo boosting fan interest significantly anyway. This isn't Stephen Strasburg, Bryce Harper or even Mike Trout. Rizzo is a very good prospect, but he isn't a game changer. The only way Rizzo becomes a draw at Wrigley is if he puts on an amazing first month or two after he is called up or he strikes out 20 guys in a game. Neither of these things is likely. In the end, Rizzo can only be a draw if he does something unbelievable, and even if he does, the affect on attendance won't be immediate when he is promoted.
Alas the Cubs have not promoted the 22 year old today. While every indication is that Rizzo will be promoted soon, the Cubs really shouldn't (still) be in any rush to promote him.
First off, the extra year of team control is important financially, but a more important "Rizzo" deadline for the Cubs is coming in a couple more weeks. If they hold off a little longer, the Cubs may be able to guarantee that Rizzo isn't able to get Super 2 status which would allow him to enter arbitration a year early.
My guess right now is that the Cubs will not promote Rizzo for another month. The date I'm guessing right now is July 20th when the Cubs travel to St. Louis.
A couple reason's I've chosen that date...
First, it's on the road. I feel, with all the fan and media hoopla around Rizzo, having his Cubs debut be on the road is probably the best thing for the kid.
Second, it doesn't rob Rizzo of playing in the AAA All-Star game. While the AAA All-Star game isn't quite the event that the MLB All-Star game is, it is still a nice award for a very good season to this point.
I've heard arguments that the Cubs are likely to promote him soon to boost fan interest. I don't see that happening either. Most of the moves made this year have had nothing to do with fan interest and I don't see Jed and Theo being influenced by any business aspect to this situation.
Besides that, I don't see Rizzo boosting fan interest significantly anyway. This isn't Stephen Strasburg, Bryce Harper or even Mike Trout. Rizzo is a very good prospect, but he isn't a game changer. The only way Rizzo becomes a draw at Wrigley is if he puts on an amazing first month or two after he is called up or he strikes out 20 guys in a game. Neither of these things is likely. In the end, Rizzo can only be a draw if he does something unbelievable, and even if he does, the affect on attendance won't be immediate when he is promoted.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Cubs thought of the day 6-20-12: Unpopular rivalry
The Cubs are concluding their 3 game series at the Cell against the White Sox tonight...and for the third straight game, the attendance has been less than impressive.
In fact, all 6 games against the White Sox this year have had rather unimpressive attendance numbers.
So as Major League Baseball looks to make adjustments to the schedule in 2013 to accommodate the Astros' move to the AL West, I have to ask, why protect the rivalry games? A similar attendance drop in the New York rivalry series has occurred. Either these rivalries have become way too noncompetitive or fans are tired of the same thing every year.
I vote for the latter, but either way, it's time to mix things up a bit and move these rivalry games to be held only once every 3 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)