Wrigley Field Calling Their Bluff

By Brandon Lee

Date: Mar 23, 2003

In a letter to the city of Chicago dated March 7, 2003, Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig said that making Wrigley Field a landmark would be "the first step toward the ultimate loss of the ballpark." So, does Bud think the Cubs will actually move, or stay put?

Cubs president Andy MacPhail seems to agree with Selig.

"In our view, the current landmark designation goes far beyond that and greatly restricts our ability to keep the park viable and appealing," says MacPhail.

Of course, Wrigley Field hasn't yet been designated as a "landmark" in the city of Chicago, but the city is trying to do so, and the Tribune/Major League Baseball want no part of it, as stated in the quote by Selig.

This whole thing is over a proposed bleacher expansion that the Cubs brought up a year ago or so, where the bleachers would extend over Sheffield and Waveland Avenues. The Wrigleyville neighborhood wasn't pleased, and didn't want the expansions done. Thusly, the Cubs are contemplating a move to another stadium.

So, the Cubs wouldn't play in Wrigley Field? Well, lets call their bluff.

The Chicago Cubs wouldn't dare to move from Wrigley Field. It may have the second smallest seating capacity in the Major Leagues to Boston's Fenway Park, but it still draws fans if the team wins or loses. They were one of only 4 teams to make money according to Major League Baseball in the 2001 season, and still manage draw large amounts of people to the park.

Maybe it's because of the trendy area; maybe it's because it's a tourist attraction to baseball fans and non-baseball fans alike. Either way, the fans come.

So, would moving from Wrigley Field over this dispute be worth it? Well, Mayor Richard Daley seems to be calling the bluff of the Chicago National League Professional Baseball Club. He knew it back in the day when the Chicago Bears threatened to move to Gary, Indiana, especially when he said that if they made the move, they could no longer call themselves the "Chicago" Bears.

So, if the Cubs move to a suburb, would the "Schaumburg" Cubs ring a bell? Or would "The Naperville Cubs" sound right? They would probably play in a corporately sponsored ballpark without the mystique of Wrigley.

Moving out to the suburbs would definitely mean lower attendance because it's not close to a highly populated area. After the first couple of years, the attendance would drop greatly anyway. The novelty of the new park would be gone, and the tourists would only be baseball fans and the baseball fans alone are definitely smaller in volume than the baseball fans combined with the regular tourists.

The fans that get to 10 or 12 games a year now would only be able to go 2 or 3 times a year. It would be like a pilgrimage to Mecca for most of the older Cubs fans that have been going to games for the past 50 years. You would also think that there would be animosity towards the Cubs for moving in the first place. Then, with the lack of the regular fan base, the Tribune would have to, dare I say, field a [gasp!] WINNING TEAM!

Maybe they would actually have to spend Yankee-esque money to even draw enough people to even show that there's hope. My goodness, the travesty!

Of course, I want the Cubs to win too, but I would rather them to do it in Wrigley Field than somewhere that's not even Chicago. But, I don't think anyone will have to worry about the Cubs going anywhere soon, if they know what's right for them.

The fan backlash would be huge, and the fan base would decline. The Cubs won't go anywhere outside of Wrigley Field. If they do, then they should know what they have to do. As my best James Earl Jones voice, "Build it, and they won't come."

Copyright 2003 CubsTalk.com and CubsTalk.com News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without express written consent.