Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Daily Southtown: Ladewski: Implosion implored at Wrigley

And now for a real Primer charge…Ladewski wants to blow up Wrigley Field.

As Baby Boomers will tell you, Wrigley Field is at its absolute best when it’s two-thirds empty. But pack it with 30,000-plus fans, and unless you’re one of the party animals to whom it caters, the atmosphere is about as comfortable as a detached retina. The place reeks of Old Style. The concrete has more cracks than the Cubs infield. The aisles are too narrow, the concourses too small. Stay at the Crumbling Confines much longer and be prepared to spend big bucks for a renovation project.

...So build a larger replica of Wrigley Field in a northwest suburb, it says here. They drink beer out that way, too, I’m told. Put ivy on the walls. Even take the old marquee and scoreboard. Because even all bad things must come to an end.

Repoz Posted: July 18, 2006 at 02:28 PM | 65 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cubs

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Dan The Mediocre Posted: July 18, 2006 at 02:37 PM (#2103243)
I was really hoping that this was about the management.

Anyway, Wrigley is a landmark at this point, so I think paying for major renovations would be the Cubs best bet. Wrigley itself attracts fans even when the team won't.

And for those two reasons, I think we should build a new Wrigley.
   2. Moses Taylor, Moses Taylor Posted: July 18, 2006 at 02:51 PM (#2103251)
NW suburbs? Hell ####### no.
   3. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 18, 2006 at 02:54 PM (#2103254)
A fake Wrigley in the NW suburbs would be lucky to draw 10,000 per game to watch this current Cubs team.
   4. TerpNats Posted: July 18, 2006 at 02:57 PM (#2103258)
Haven't seen anything at White Sox Interactive chortling about this yet...but give them time. At least he didn't refer to it as the "urinal."

But seriously, I would hate for a new Wrigley to be built, even a "replica," unless the Tribune Co. somehow found a transit-accessible site within the city. And that's not going to happen. Replicating Wrigley off an expressway exit in some northwest suburb would simply turn the Cubs into the Florida Marlins with money and two fewer World Series titles since 1908.
   5. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 18, 2006 at 03:06 PM (#2103268)
If you want to build a new park for the Cubs, so be it, but Wrigley Field is an iconic historical site, and wanting to destroy it makes you nothing but a vandal.
   6. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 18, 2006 at 03:10 PM (#2103270)
I will say this: Blowing up Wrigley Field would force the Tribune Company to put their best efforts into fielding a competitive team.

If the Cubs moved to a generic retro-mallpark, the Tribune's PR-first mentality would fail within a few years.
   7. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: July 18, 2006 at 03:15 PM (#2103277)
The place reeks of Old Style.

You say that like it's a bad thing.
   8. TerpNats Posted: July 18, 2006 at 03:16 PM (#2103281)
Baker offers you one thing you’re not going to get anywhere else—stability. The greatest failing of the Cubs in the Tribune Co. era is the tendency to make knee-jerk decisions, never sticking to a course.


You're right, of course. As the only vestige remaining from the Federal League, Wrigley should be preserved. In fact, once the Cubs leave, let's renovate Wrigley...back to the way it looked in 1914, when it was built for the Chicago Whales. Can't get more "retro" than that.
   9. TerpNats Posted: July 18, 2006 at 03:17 PM (#2103282)
Oopsie, I captured the wrong quote...

If you want to build a new park for the Cubs, so be it, but Wrigley Field is an iconic historical site, and wanting to destroy it makes you nothing but a vandal.
   10. Randy Watson and Sexual Chocolate Posted: July 18, 2006 at 03:24 PM (#2103292)
What a ridiculous idea.

The neighborhood around Wrigley is just as much of an attraction as Wrigley itself, and there sure as hell isn't any place in the godforsaken NW suburbs that can hold a candle to Wrigleyville.

Even if there was such a neighborhood in, say, Arlington Heights, the Cubs wouldn't want to build it there, nor could they afford to buy the land, nor would the city be particularly anxious to seize land occupied by revenue-generating businesses by eminent domain.

Furthermore, the Cubs, unless they dramatically buck the trend of the last 20 years of stadium architecture, would have little interest in building a "replica" of Wrigley Field, except in the superficial bricks-and-ivy sense. They would want to build a monstro-park on a much larger footprint, surrounded by parking lots (read: $$$), with a tier of luxury boxes (read: $$$), and an upper deck that does not overhang the lower seats, taking away another delightful aspect of Wrigley -- the fact that the tippy-top of the upper deck is still an outstanding seat far, far closer to the action than the tippy-top of every "modern" ballpark's upper deck.

A "New" Wrigley would be marginally more attractive as a Family Entertainment Destination, but it would kill off everything that makes the ballpark appealing to people who actually like baseball.
   11. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: July 18, 2006 at 03:31 PM (#2103301)
A "New" Wrigley would be marginally more attractive as a Family Entertainment Destination, but it would kill off everything that makes the ballpark appealing to people who actually like baseball.

Which is in fact what makes the idea not ridiculous.
   12. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: July 18, 2006 at 03:34 PM (#2103316)
Bad snip. Not the killing off part, obviously. The Destination part.
   13. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: July 18, 2006 at 03:35 PM (#2103318)
Take the Little Blue Machine this season. Please. It has no speed to speak of outside of outfielder Juan Pierre, who's past his prime.

The Cubs are 9th in stolen bases for MLB (6th in the NL).
   14. Dan The Mediocre Posted: July 18, 2006 at 03:49 PM (#2103337)
The Cubs are 9th in stolen bases for MLB (6th in the NL).


Which is sort of like being 4th in a bluest uniform contest.
   15. Randy Watson and Sexual Chocolate Posted: July 18, 2006 at 04:00 PM (#2103351)
Which is in fact what makes the idea not ridiculous.

Over the long haul, though?

There's plenty of evidence, and it's obvious enough that even Cubs management will (probably) understand it, that teams whose appeal is tied into their shiny new mallparks with Authentic Retro Touches tend to tank at the box office after a short honeymoon period unless the team is any damn good.

Cf. the post-dynasty Indians, the Orioles, the Tigers before this year, etc.

Whereas the Cubs, outside of two semi-fluky division titles, a Wild Card and a couple of near misses, have been a nonstop Parade Of Suck since the mid-80s, and they still pack the house day-in, day-out with paying customers who are decidedly not interested in Family Entertainment. (I mean, the LPTs and Chads *are* profoundly annoying people, but to their credit, they're uninterested in the charms of an Elk Grove Village Applebee's.) That's a goose layin' some serious golden eggs, and killing that off so that Mr. Big Butt Suburban Sports Columnist can have a little extra elbow room among the ThunderStix'd masses would be too dumb for even MacPhail and Co.

I think.
   16. McCoy Posted: July 18, 2006 at 04:01 PM (#2103352)
Every year it seems somebody writes an article that blames Wrigley Field for the problems of the Cubs. I think every journalist has a Wrigley must be torn down article tucked away in a folder for emergency purposes.
   17. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: July 18, 2006 at 04:21 PM (#2103383)
Over the long haul, though?

Well, I guess the question is, with all those extra revenue touches, does it matter if you have an attendance drop-off? Over the long haul, getting anything for parking is more than they get now. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
   18. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: July 18, 2006 at 04:24 PM (#2103388)
Every year it seems somebody writes an article that blames Wrigley Field for the problems of the Cubs. I think every journalist has a Wrigley must be torn down article tucked away in a folder for emergency purposes.

It's just like when, every year, someone writes an article blaming the high number of day games for the team's bad performances in August and September.

Like the Taste of Chicago festival and elderly people killed by the heat, it's just a sign of summer in Chicago.
   19. Dag Nabbit is a cornucopia of errors Posted: July 18, 2006 at 04:25 PM (#2103390)
Isn't this just a variation of the old good-team-blame-their-best-players idea?
   20. Buddha Posted: July 18, 2006 at 04:38 PM (#2103416)
Over the long haul, getting anything for parking is more than they get now. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

No rooftop revenue though.

And no scalping your own tickets since the market won't be the same. No more selling out the whole season in one day. Wrigley Field is a tourist destination, there's an Elk Grove Village in every city. Every time I go to Wrigley I'm sitting near some family from Iowa, or tourist from out of state (or country) or some frat boy and trixie who are there for two innings. No way that happens in the burbs.

If you tear down Wrigley, you get rid of what makes the Cubs unique (other than the losing...). Then they just become the Arizona Cardinals or Detroit Lions.

I'm wondering how much more money the Cubs would make if they ever won a world series? I'd imagine it would be a staggering amount.

This article was completely ridiculous.
   21. bond1 Posted: July 18, 2006 at 05:26 PM (#2103486)
How much more would the Cubs make if they won a World Series? Are you kidding? The only reason they're popular is because they're a bunch of losers. The Wrigley crowd doesn't care what's going on on the playing field because they're too drunk.
   22. bond1 Posted: July 18, 2006 at 05:26 PM (#2103488)
How much more would the Cubs make if they won a World Series? Are you kidding? The only reason they're popular is because they're a bunch of losers. The Wrigley crowd doesn't care what's going on on the playing field because they're too drunk.
   23. jolietconvict Posted: July 18, 2006 at 05:56 PM (#2103529)
And no scalping your own tickets since the market won't be the same. No more selling out the whole season in one day.


The days of both of those things is over. There is no market for Cubs tickets on the secondary market right now.
   24. Moses Taylor, Moses Taylor Posted: July 18, 2006 at 06:21 PM (#2103553)
How much more would the Cubs make if they won a World Series? Are you kidding? The only reason they're popular is because they're a bunch of losers. The Wrigley crowd doesn't care what's going on on the playing field because they're too drunk.

Bite me.
   25. Moses Taylor, Moses Taylor Posted: July 18, 2006 at 06:23 PM (#2103557)
Sorry, there's supposed to more to that post, but I'm having computer issues. Anyway, that's ridiculously false. This year was sold out partly because there was still higher expectations (and people, including some on this site) who thought they were going to be good again. And partly because of the bleacher expansion.

Yes, there'll always be the drunks and the tourists. But by themselves, it's not a complete sellout every day.
   26. Jeff K. Posted: July 18, 2006 at 06:27 PM (#2103565)
The last few posts are begging for Lee Elia.
   27. Halofan Posted: July 18, 2006 at 06:28 PM (#2103566)
What if they had one game a week where they didn't sell beer? Would the ambience radically tilt toward the team and the game?
   28. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: July 18, 2006 at 06:40 PM (#2103576)
As I've argued before on this site, and elsewhere: some day Wrigley will be too unstable to continue, and they will be forced to tear it down. The Trib will then build a replacement on the same footprint it currently has (plus the triangle of yum-yums and the car wash). I'm not sure if it will be a replica or not.

There is no market for Cubs tickets on the secondary market right now.

Looking on ebay right now, there is a pair of bleachers for the 7/29 Cards game going for $162.50. I'm a little out of the loop with Cubs tickets face value, but I think its a little lower than $81 a bleacher.
   29. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: July 18, 2006 at 07:02 PM (#2103605)
Looking on ebay right now, there is a pair of bleachers for the 7/29 Cards game going for $162.50. I'm a little out of the loop with Cubs tickets face value, but I think its a little lower than $81 a bleacher.

Cubs-Cardinals is a special case - they could sell out those games if inflatable rubber dolls were moved around the diamond by hat-wearing monkeys. It's like looking at the prices for Cubs-White Sox and deciding there's a vigorous market.
   30. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: July 18, 2006 at 07:14 PM (#2103620)
I realize Cards games are a little different, which is why people shouldn't post absolutes like the one I quoted.
   31. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 18, 2006 at 07:22 PM (#2103630)
if inflatable rubber dolls were moved around the diamond by hat-wearing monkeys

I would pay HUGE amounts of money to watch hat-wearing monkeys moving inflatable dolls around a baseball diamond!
   32. Urban Faber Posted: July 18, 2006 at 07:39 PM (#2103657)
Never mind Ladewski. How do the Latowskis feel? We need to hear from two more ...
   33. SuperGrover Posted: July 18, 2006 at 07:40 PM (#2103660)
and an upper deck that does not overhang the lower seats, taking away another delightful aspect of Wrigley -- the fact that the tippy-top of the upper deck is still an outstanding seat far, far closer to the action than the tippy-top of every "modern" ballpark's upper deck.

Delightful? I guess if you're in the upperdeck. If you're in one of the thousands of obstructed view seats underneath, I would guess your opinion might differ.

I don't like Wrigley, nor do I like Yankee Stdium. Fenway is okay, but I was lucky enough to sit in primo seats, so I can't really comment on the general fan experience. Clearly, when a stadium is 90+ years old, it's not going to live up to it's modern day counterparts. No way around it.

Still, replacing Wrigley with a venue in the suburbs is a TERRIBLE idea. The only two viable options are to rennovate Wrigley or tear the entire thing down and rebuild from the ground up on the same land. I highly doubt the latter is a viable option as it would certainly require the Cubs to relocate for a minimum of one full season. Chances are, the Cubs add several million dollars of rennovations over the next few offseasons in attempt to re-vitalize the sh!thole.
   34. Urban Faber Posted: July 18, 2006 at 07:47 PM (#2103670)
There's no way they're leaving Wrigley, and they probably don't have to for at least another 20 years. They might have to rebuild it at some point, but that's a long ways off.

Serious question ... would the neighborhood really be much without Wrigley, as far as being a huge attraction? Depending on what replaced it of course. The Wrigley Field Apartments don't have a whole lot of appeal, but I suppose if they went with shopping they could build on what's there now, which would need something like the ballpark to hold the thing together. Hey, maybe they'd even have some parking at long last!
   35. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: July 18, 2006 at 07:57 PM (#2103676)
I would pay HUGE amounts of money to watch hat-wearing monkeys moving inflatable dolls around a baseball diamond!

This time it counts!
   36. jolietconvict Posted: July 18, 2006 at 07:58 PM (#2103677)
I realize Cards games are a little different, which is why people shouldn't post absolutes like the one I quoted.


Those are bleacher tickets for Cubs/Cards. I've been trying to sell 3 sets of Cubs/Cards UDR tickets at face value without success for a few weeks. The same goes for bleacher tickets to a night game with the Phillies in August. Compared to the last two years there is no secondary market.
   37. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: July 18, 2006 at 08:19 PM (#2103711)
The Wrigley Field Apartments don't have a whole lot of appeal, but I suppose if they went with shopping they could build on what's there now, which would need something like the ballpark to hold the thing together.<i>

They could put up an enormous housing project. It sure worked for the Polo Grounds.
   38. Moses Taylor, Moses Taylor Posted: July 18, 2006 at 08:22 PM (#2103715)
Define "worked."
   39. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: July 18, 2006 at 08:24 PM (#2103717)
This article was completely ridiculous.


It was in the Daily Southtown. What did you expect, a paean to Wrigley? I went to a Cubs game earlier this year with some friends. Two Cubs fans, me (more a Sox fan than a Cubs fan), and a Sox fan who has spent his entire life in Chicago and had never been to Wrigley. Not once. His apprehension about going to Wrigley was only a bit faked. He did have some good things to say, eventually, but only after telling us he felt dirty, complaining about the tiny seats and aisles, and even bashing the cupholders. It was great times. It was the game early in the year when Sean Marshall, one start after being hammered by the Giants, pitched a complete game and beat the Pirates 2-1. At one point, one of the guys said "this is quite a pitching duel" and the Sox fan said "no, this is more like two teams that have no idea how to hit." Sweet.

Anyway, by request, it's Lee Elia!
(careful at work - it's the real deal).
   40. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: July 18, 2006 at 08:30 PM (#2103723)
Those are bleacher tickets for Cubs/Cards. I've been trying to sell 3 sets of Cubs/Cards UDR tickets at face value without success for a few weeks. The same goes for bleacher tickets to a night game with the Phillies in August. Compared to the last two years there is no secondary market.


Really? That surprises me. I was poking around retrosheet looking at attendance figures at the time of the Lee Elia tirade. Attendance was atrocious early in the season. It got better going into summer, but there were still plenty of sub-10k crowds. But they still got almost 40,000 for the Cardinals - every game.

I was under the impression that the Cubs and the Cardinals could be playing .350 ball and they would still sell out.
   41. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: July 18, 2006 at 08:31 PM (#2103726)
Define "worked."

Well, that was kind of my point. Not a very good project. Probably not the worst one, but not good.
   42. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 18, 2006 at 08:37 PM (#2103739)
Every year it seems somebody writes an article that blames Wrigley Field for the problems of the Cubs. I think every journalist has a Wrigley must be torn down article tucked away in a folder for emergency purposes.

I don't want to say that Wrigley Field has made the Cubs what they are, but I do think that the Tribune Company uses it as a crutch. If that crutch were taken away and blown up, Cub revenues would dry up faster than an old nun's . . . well, you know.
   43. Flynn Posted: July 18, 2006 at 08:45 PM (#2103749)
Clearly, when a stadium is 90+ years old, it's not going to live up to it's modern day counterparts. No way around it.

That's not why you go to an old stadium.
   44. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 18, 2006 at 08:46 PM (#2103750)
Looking on ebay right now, there is a pair of bleachers for the 7/29 Cards game going for $162.50. I'm a little out of the loop with Cubs tickets face value, but I think its a little lower than $81 a bleacher.

--Cubs-Cardinals is a special case - they could sell out those games if inflatable rubber dolls were moved around the diamond by hat-wearing monkeys. It's like looking at the prices for Cubs-White Sox and deciding there's a vigorous market.


How about the August 4 game against the Pirates? Terrace Reserved tickets have a $32 face value, yet this guy has a bid at $99 for a pair.
   45. Buddha Posted: July 18, 2006 at 09:09 PM (#2103778)
It was in the Daily Southtown. What did you expect, a paean to Wrigley?

No, but that doesn't mean the article wasn't completely ridiculous.
   46. Randy Watson and Sexual Chocolate Posted: July 18, 2006 at 09:18 PM (#2103785)
Serious question ... would the neighborhood really be much without Wrigley, as far as being a huge attraction?

In today's housing market? Sure. Plenty of Chicago neighborhoods without benefit of a ballpark (Wicker Park, Lincoln Square, Roscoe Village, Edgewater, the South Loop) are sustaining a significant number of bars and restaurants and shops just fine... Lake View/Wrigleyville is close enough to downtown and close enough to the lake that it would be desirable without the stadium.

On the contrary, I would argue that the neighborhood makes Wrigley, rather than vice versa -- attendances have risen as the per capita income of the neighborhood (which was fairly shabby even within my living memory) and the number of people who can sustain the Wrigleyville bar/restaurant scene has risen.

Contrast this dynamic with That Other Ballpark Down South: Bridgeport has long had a rep as a drab and unwelcoming place, and even as the White Sox have comprehensively outclassed the Cubs on the field for most of the last 15 years, their attendance has lagged. Hmmm.
   47. no neck Posted: July 18, 2006 at 09:29 PM (#2103795)
The Cubs wouldn't have a problem filling up a new ball park in Addison or Elk Grove. Plus Lake View doesn't need Wrigley Field to continue to prosper.
   48. Moses Taylor, Moses Taylor Posted: July 18, 2006 at 09:40 PM (#2103807)
The Cubs wouldn't have a problem filling up a new ball park in Addison or Elk Grove.

I disagree, but it's just guessing by both of us anyway.
   49. Buddha Posted: July 18, 2006 at 09:43 PM (#2103810)
The Cubs wouldn't have a problem filling up a new ball park in Addison or Elk Grove. Plus Lake View doesn't need Wrigley Field to continue to prosper.

As soon as they started to lose (continued to lose?) for a few years, attendance would dwindle if they were in the burbs. I think the busloads from Iowa would begin to lag too.

Wrigley is a major attraction. When they played the Tigers, a huge number of people came in. Many that I know were as excited to come to Wrigley as they were to see the Tigers whoop the Cubs. Nobody gets excited or makes huge plans to be a visiting fan at the Cell.
   50. Urban Faber Posted: July 18, 2006 at 09:57 PM (#2103821)
But how many people wouldn't go there as often without the ballpark there? That was the question. I suppose it depends on what replaced the ballpark.
   51. OCF Posted: July 18, 2006 at 10:06 PM (#2103826)
When I lived in Chicago (South Side - Hyde Park to be specific) in the early 70's, what I like about Wrigley was was that you could decide on the spur of the moment to go to a game, hop an El, and just walk up to the stadium box office to buy a ticket. I suppose those days are long gone.
   52. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 18, 2006 at 10:07 PM (#2103828)
But how many people wouldn't go there as often without the ballpark there? That was the question. I suppose it depends on what replaced the ballpark.

Yeah, they won't get busloads of fans coming in from Iowa, but I don't really see your point. Those folks aren't popularizing Wrigleyville now anyway.

The neighborhood is popular, with lots of bars and restaurants that don't depend on Wrigley for their livelihood. Sure, a few may go out of business, but it's not as if Wrigleyville would be a wasteland without the ballpark. It would still be a popular place in which to live and socialize.
   53. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 18, 2006 at 10:09 PM (#2103830)
When I lived in Chicago (South Side - Hyde Park to be specific) in the early 70's, what I like about Wrigley was was that you could decide on the spur of the moment to go to a game, hop an El, and just walk up to the stadium box office to buy a ticket. I suppose those days are long gone.

Not really. You could still do that; you just might have to get your ticket on the street.
   54. Urban Faber Posted: July 18, 2006 at 10:09 PM (#2103831)
I mean, without the ballpark, it's not exactly going to draw people from out of town. They'll stick to the mall on Michigan Avenue.
   55. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 18, 2006 at 10:12 PM (#2103833)
I mean, without the ballpark, it's not exactly going to draw people from out of town. They'll stick to the mall on Michigan Avenue.

Maybe, but so what? If you're trying to imply that the neighborhood would dwindle out, that's not true at all. With a few businesses as exceptions, the area doesn't rely on out-of-towners for it's livelihood.
   56. Urban Faber Posted: July 18, 2006 at 10:20 PM (#2103842)
No, I'm just saying it would be no different than any other neighborhood, that's all. It would lose its cachet. With the exception of Jack Vincennes standing on the corner of Clark and Addison singing "There Used to Be a Ballpark Here."
   57. no neck Posted: July 18, 2006 at 10:26 PM (#2103847)
The Cubs would easily draw over 2.75 million if they played all their home games at the Cell.

Farmers drive to St.Louis to see the Cardinals, farmers would drive to the Cell to see the Cubs.
   58. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 18, 2006 at 10:26 PM (#2103848)
No, I'm just saying it would be no different than any other neighborhood, that's all. It would lose its cachet. With the exception of Jack Vincennes standing on the corner of Clark and Addison singing "There Used to Be a Ballpark Here."

It would definitely be different than other neighborhoods, just as Bucktown is different from Andersonville or Ukrainian Village is different from Lincoln Park, but I guess that's not really your point.

Yes, it would lose some cachet. No, it wouldn't shut down the neighborhood or make it indistinguishable from other places. If the Cubs moved to a different part of the city, Vincennes would still have reasons to tip a few martini glasses in Wrigleyville.
   59. Urban Faber Posted: July 18, 2006 at 10:35 PM (#2103854)
True, I guess I meant it would lose a lot of its identity, but it would still be different enough. You raise a good point there.

And it's not going to happen - in fact, they'd probably just build the new place where they are. They'll play a year at the Cell (or its successor) then move back in.

Back to Game Chatter ...
   60. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 18, 2006 at 10:40 PM (#2103859)
True, I guess I meant it would lose a lot of its identity, but it would still be different enough.

Sure. It would be just another popular bar/restaurant area, one with a little nostalgia to it. Boystown would go on unchanged, of course.
   61. karkface killah Posted: July 18, 2006 at 11:31 PM (#2103916)
I think the busloads from Iowa would begin to lag too.

I live in Iowa. I was on a bus trip to Boystown once. Not sure if that's relevant to this thread.
   62. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: July 19, 2006 at 12:13 AM (#2103986)
I live in Iowa. I was on a bus trip to Boystown once. Not sure if that's relevant to this thread.

Nice post. What time are you due back at Boys' Town? /czervik
   63. Dash Carlyle Posted: July 19, 2006 at 04:31 AM (#2104318)
If you're in one of the thousands of obstructed view seats underneath, I would guess your opinion might differ.

Is it thousands? Is it even a thousand? And how many seats are in the upper deck?
   64. Passed Ball Posted: July 19, 2006 at 04:54 AM (#2104351)
Not sure if that's relevant to this thread.
Only in that you may have passed Wrigley Field on your way to Roscoe's.
   65. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: July 19, 2006 at 12:26 PM (#2104458)
czervik

A part of the anatomy rarely remarked upon in Boys' Town.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Hall of MeritTrevor Hoffman and Billy Wagner
(11 - 12:54am, Dec 28)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(5936 - 12:42am, Dec 28)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogStarlin Casto Arrested in Shooting Incident
(19 - 12:33am, Dec 28)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT - College Football Bowl Spectacular (December 2014 - January 2015)
(149 - 12:33am, Dec 28)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogTampa Bay Rays Ben Zobrist can play infield and outfield, is 33 and will be a free agent after next season, so it's time to examine potential trade partners because it makes sense that the Rays will try to move him | FOX Sports
(61 - 12:22am, Dec 28)
Last: jingoist

NewsblogBuckley: Hall of Fame voting needs transparency | Boston Herald
(42 - 12:21am, Dec 28)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogHiroki Kuroda Plans To Return To Hiroshima Carp – MLB Trade Rumors
(20 - 11:53pm, Dec 27)
Last: The TVerik of Lordly Might

NewsblogAmmenheuser: Picking the next Baseball Hall of Fame class
(26 - 11:45pm, Dec 27)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(897 - 11:29pm, Dec 27)
Last: starving to death with a full STEAGLES

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(410 - 11:03pm, Dec 27)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogIs Yasiel Puig baseball's worst baserunner? - SweetSpot Blog - ESPN
(27 - 7:07pm, Dec 27)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1396 - 7:05pm, Dec 27)
Last: CrosbyBird

NewsblogSherman: Yankees' cold-blooded A-Rod approach was missing with Jeter
(41 - 5:28pm, Dec 27)
Last: bookbook

NewsblogMLBTradeRumors: Twins Extend Phil Hughes to 2019
(6 - 3:54pm, Dec 27)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogThe Economist: The baseball-card bubble
(1 - 2:07pm, Dec 27)
Last: Matt Welch

Page rendered in 0.4884 seconds
48 querie(s) executed