From a city standpoint, from an owner standpoint, and from a fan standpoint, I am not able to understand why putting any money into Wrigley Field is a good idea.
I get that it's an icon of the city, a landmark, and home of the beloved Chicago Cubs. But the building is too outdated--not even $600 million can fix the kind of bad that Wrigley Field is--and better opportunities were elsewhere.
Had I been able to advise Cubs' owner Tom Ricketts, I would have told him to jump at any opportunity to move the team to Rosemont, Schaumburg, or any other suburb willing to spend gobs of money to let the Cubs call it their home.
From a city standpoint, how could mayor Rahm Emanuel donate $300 million of taxpayer dollars to the Cubs? A Google search for CPS (Chicago Public Schools) teacher layoffs turns up articles from 2004 (2,180 teacher layoffs), 2010 (2,700 teacher layoffs), 2011 (1,000 teacher layoffs), and 2012 (where 9 out of 10 teachers approved a strike). The city is broke! And yet they put $300 million into a baseball stadium they don't even own in the wake of thousands of teachers losing their jobs because of budget cuts. For the life of me, I can't believe this isn't a bigger story. Chicago residents, and in particular parents, ought to be outraged.
From the Cubs perspective, there is no excuse--NONE--to not take the team to the suburbs, where they undoubtedly would have gotten the deal of their dreams in addition to limitless income potential in the future.
Think about it. Brand new stadium with upwards of 50,000 seat capacity. Sky boxes. Huge scoreboard. Parking lots. Hotels, restaurants, and shopping inside the ballpark. Luxurious employee offices and player's clubhouse. Large and plentiful bathrooms. The Cubs could have had all that and had almost all of it paid for by city/county taxes and a real corporate sponsor (Wrigley Gum has never paid a nickel to have the current stadium named after them).
And the reason, most likely, that Cubs fans aren't getting this is because Ricketts is attached emotionally to Wrigley. The ivy, the Harry Carey statue, the neighborhood, the north side. You can keep all that stuff.
The common argument goes that if the Yankees can tear down Yankee Stadium (which they did in 2009), the Cubs can tear down (or at least vacate) Wrigley Field. Of what are the Cubs reminiscent about Wrigley? It certainly isn't their vast collection of World Series banners from the past 100+ years.
I remember in 1992 when Chicago Stadium was demolished to make room for a parking lot across from the United Center. My dad (and many thousands of other fans I presume) was sad. He thought it was a mistake to leave Chicago Stadium, the original Madhouse on Madison. He had memories of going there as a kid, and thoughts of the building's history gives my dad goose bumps. But the United Center remains home to one of the best game-day experiences in all of sports, and both the Blackhawks and Bulls sell out every single home game.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a new version of a Cubs stadium located in suburban Rosemont would sell out every game for decades and bring dozens of new revenue streams to the team.
To hell with the Cubs' lousy history in Wrigley Field. These days its all about money and Tom Ricketts passed the opportunity of a lifetime.
