click to see the renderings - it's enormous

Have they no shame.

Shame is such an anachronistic concept.

welp, more good Cubs news.

Have they no shame.

I'll bet you 2000 bitcoins they don't.

click to see the renderings - it's enormous

Love how the existing 15-foot-wide sidewalks get crammed down to about 4 feet along the (Sheffield Ave?) side of the structure---god forbid two wheelchairs would need to pass in opposite directions.

It's amusing that they're embarking on this project while slashing payroll for the team.

BRAND SIGN

After 2016 I said the Cubs' leadership team had carte blanche to do as they pleased. Evidently I spoke too soon.

As a lover of baseball history, I loved the old ballparks....Comiskey, Tiger Stadium, Wrigley and Fenway. I lamented the passing of the two former but considering what has taken place at Fenway and especially Wrigley I wished the franchises had just moved into a new stadium and let the memories of their old digs remain unblemished memories in the past.

I mean does anyone go to Wrigley anymore and see the field that Banks hit #500, Ruth allegedly called his shot, or Sandberg or Dawson did something great in the 1980s?

Until I knew Draft Kings was a sponsor I thought the sports book would be called Evander's

What could go wrong?

I foresee exciting bets offered -- will the Cub starter make it past 4 innings? will Heyward get a hit? over/under on the date of the Contreras trade.

On the plus side, down in the Arizona Complex League (rookie), in 79 PA, Owen Caissie is hitting 373/532/712.

Primey for #5.

People will come, BBTF.

They'll come to the DraftKings Sportsbook at Wrigley Field for reasons they can't even fathom. They'll turn up the highway, not knowing for sure why they're doing it. They'll arrive at the teller as innocent as children, longing for the past.

"Of course, we won't mind if you look around," we'll say. "It's only twenty dollars per person - and risk-free for new signups." They'll pass over the money without even thinking about it - for it is the thrill of placing a bet they have, and a sufficient retirement account they lack.

And they'll walk out to the bleachers, and sit in shirt-sleeves on a perfect afternoon. They'll find they have reserved seats somewhere along one of the baselines, where they sat when they were children and cheered their betting targets. And they'll place money on the game, and it'll be as if they'd dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories of the 'big scores' will be so thick, they'll have to brush them away from their faces.

The one constant through the years, BBTF, has been gambling.

America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But gambling has marked the time.

This over/under, this parlay -- it's a part of our past, BBTF. It reminds us of all that once was corrupt, and could be again.

Oh, people will come, BBTF. People will most definitely come.

To be fair, this is the business that the Ricketts family really understands. TD Ameritrade is just a bookie.

Frankly, I'm nauseated by all of this. I'm a compulsive gambler in recovery. If I go down that hole again, I'll die.

The boom in open sports gambling doesn't affect me personally (AA members have always had to deal with alcoholic beverages being widely advertised and available), but I fear for people who haven't gambled much/at all in the past who will slip down the same path to self-destruction that I walked.

On the other hand, if a bunch of drunken frat boys want to gamble away some of Mommy and Daddy's hard-inherited cash, who are we to object?

I'm a compulsive gambler in recovery. If I go down that hole again, I'll die.

The boom in open sports gambling doesn't affect me personally (AA members have always had to deal with alcoholic beverages being widely advertised and available), but I fear for people who haven't gambled much/at all in the past who will slip down the same path to self-destruction that I walked.

much respect from me, and no doubt my BBTF colleagues, for your efforts. surely was difficult so a tip of the cap.

if it helps any, research I have seen suggests that for the most part, someone at risk of becoming addicted to - well, a lot of things - does not tend to fall on the wrong side of the line simply because something becomes legal (obviously, I can't speak to your own case either way).

that is, the compulsion exists, and often it can be accessed by illegal means fairly easily (bar that looks the other way at underage drinkers, friend of a friend who sells drugs, the corner bookie, and so forth). so one hopes that the group of people that are "well, I'd be willing to overextend myself but only if I have a legal option is small.

an advantage of legal online gambling is that the 'house' knows exactly how much you are gambling (on their site, anyway). for the at-risk gambler, being able to set monthly loss limits, for example, can keep some people in line. good luck getting your local-tavern bookie to turn you away, meanwhile. he'll even let you bet on credit, which legal books cannot do.

The UK and Ireland in particular have been our guinea pigs on this for decades, for better and for worse. we hope that the sharp backlash in a number of European countries against an absolute onslaught of advertising - leading to severe restrictions in some cases - is a good lesson for regulators here, for example. but we've only just begun,really.

Re 14: You bastard. Well done.

They should invite Pete Rose to run it. He'd be a perfect match for this entire disgusting idea.

And with baseball actively encouraging gambling, there's absolutely no reason for Rose to be banned from baseball. Hypocrisy can only be stretched so far.

The reasons for Rose being banned are as valid today as ever, even more so if you believe that MLB is serious that fans being able to gamble at MLB facilities won’t affect the game on the field or weaken its policy forbidding MLB personnel from betting on baseball.

I'll bet you 2000 bitcoins they don't.

If you have $40 million to wager...well let's just say I'm impressed and I'm sure you're the wealthiest poster here!

The reasons for Rose being banned are as valid today as ever, even more so if you believe that MLB is serious that fans being able to gamble at MLB facilities won’t affect the game on the field or weaken its policy forbidding MLB personnel from betting on baseball.

You're right that the reasons for Rose being banned are as valid as ever. What's changed now is that I don't think MLB has any moral standing to enforce them. AFAIC the idea that some gambling is Good while other gambling is Bad just doesn't hold water for me.

#20/23 Andy can be relied upon to come up with the dumbest possible take.

What's changed now is that I don't think MLB has any moral standing to enforce them.

So if David Ross is seen standing in line at the sportsbook 30 minutes before game time, MLB should just say, "Nothing to see here boys."

If you have $40 million to wager...well let's just say I'm impressed and I'm sure you're the wealthiest poster here!

Hugh, we've all got 2000 bitcoins. If you'd like to buy WaltCoins at $2000 a pop, please wire through the money to my secure Cayman's account. Be a pioneer!!

the idea that some gambling is Good while other gambling is Bad

How many times do we have to go over this? GAMING is Good; GAMBLING is Bad.

In one of the other articles there was a quote about how the key to reaching young folks was to "gamify" baseball ... which may be as stupidly meta as you can get.

I'm one of the more pro-gambling people here, and this is a complete abomination.

In one of the other articles there was a quote about how the key to reaching young folks was to "gamify" baseball ...

This week, Chris Ripley of Sinclair (which owns the Ballys Sports RSNs, as well as Marquee) did an earnings call where he talked more about integrating gaming into the baseball television watching experience.

#20/23 Andy can be relied upon to come up with the dumbest possible take.

If you want to defend the Rose ban, fine.

But if you want to defend MLB-sponsored gambling, I'd like to know what the rationale is other than pure greed.

------------------

the idea that some gambling is Good while other gambling is Bad

How many times do we have to go over this? GAMING is Good; GAMBLING is Bad.

I realize you're being sarcastic, but then maybe someone should provide spellcheck for this passage in the article:

The team is slated to go before the Commission on Chicago Landmarks today to present its plans for a 22,350-square-foot structure that would be developed along the southeast corner of the stadium at Sheffield Avenue and Addison Street, team plans show.

It’s a key step toward building the future DraftKings Sportsbook at Wrigley Field—part of a sponsorship deal the team struck last year with Boston-based DraftKings—and stands to make gambling an integral part of game day at the Friendly Confines.

But there are significant hurdles to clear: In addition to winning approval from the landmarks panel, the team needs the City Council to sign off not only on the development itself but also pass an ordinance that would allow sports betting inside the city’s major stadiums.

So if David Ross is seen standing in line at the sportsbook 30 minutes before game time, MLB should just say, "Nothing to see here boys."

Of course not, but it'd now be like William Barr....(well, you get the idea).

It's the complete disconnect that's the issue, not that there'd be anything kosher about David Ross standing in line at the sportsbook.

So if David Ross is seen standing in line at the sportsbook 30 minutes before game time, MLB should just say, "Nothing to see here boys."

I must admit it's rather strange to have a massive section of the stadium where it would be scandalous to find a player. How long before players are confined to the locker room and dugout?

They're not going to confine the players to areas of the park - they're going to require them to dance in those money suits outside the casino to attract potential customers (suckers).

#28 Of course it's pure greed. What of it?

But MLB's position has never been, "gambling evil" -- it's always been "players can't bet on baseball" (because of the risk to the on field product). If anything enforcing the Rose ban is more important than ever as it reinforces this distinction.

To be clear I think gambling firms are a plague on society. In the same general tier as tobacco companies. And if a fan backlash forces MLB to walk away from this (color me skeptical), I'll be happy.

But if you want to defend MLB-sponsored gambling, I'd like to know what the rationale is other than pure greed.

Well, I mean they are a business and want more revenue. So, yeah, it is "pure greed." Also, the reason they sell naming rights to stadiums and a million other things.

If you want to defend the Rose ban, fine. But if you want to defend MLB-sponsored gambling, I'd like to know what the rationale is other than pure greed.

One can defend the Rose ban without endorsing MLB’s new gaming policies. Or one can even defend both, which presumably would require one to think the increased revenue potential from gaming was a net benefit. The point is they are separate issues. Your take is like suggesting that once government institutes controlled burns to reduce the threat of forest fires it can no longer prosecute anyone for arson for deliberately starting a forest fire.

This isn't fundamentally different from teams and the league partnering with alcohol companies and selling alcohol at stadiums. They promote that (for pure greed!!!), but also don't allow players to drink alcohol while playing, where it could affect the outcomes of games.

but also don't allow players to drink alcohol while playing

Babe Ruth begs to differ.

This week, Chris Ripley of Sinclair (which owns the Ballys Sports RSNs, as well as Marquee) did an earnings call where he talked more about integrating gaming into the baseball television watching experience.

I know they keep making this pitch to the public/investors, but I continue to not understand how it's supposed to work when television is on a several second delay (even more with streaming).

But MLB's position has never been, "gambling evil" -- it's always been "players can't bet on baseball" (because of the risk to the on field product). If anything enforcing the Rose ban is more important than ever as it reinforces this distinction.

Read some of the rhetoric surrounding the Black Sox scandal, both before and after the exposure. Throwing games was the Ultimate Sin, but the entire gambling culture was seen as the enabling culprit. Not that there wasn't pure hypocrisy on the part of newspapers that would run big feature stories during the World Series on the shifting odds.

----------------------

Well, I mean they are a business and want more revenue. So, yeah, it is "pure greed." Also, the reason they sell naming rights to stadiums and a million other things.

I'd say there's a Big Difference between what's at bottom nothing but an aesthetic or tradition-breaking violation (cheesy special uniforms; hideous corporate names for stadiums) and a violation of a message that baseball has been shouting from the rooftops since the day the Black Sox scandal emerged.

----------------------

One can defend the Rose ban without endorsing MLB’s new gaming policies. Or one can even defend both, which presumably would require one to think the increased revenue potential from gaming was a net benefit. The point is they are separate issues. Your take is like suggesting that once government institutes controlled burns to reduce the threat of forest fires it can no longer prosecute anyone for arson for deliberately starting a forest fire.

Er, in case you hadn't noticed it, some of those "controlled burns" get out of control. And while there may be more forests where those accidentally burned forests came from, baseball's not likely to get any Mulligans if one of those sportsbooks takes a crooked turn. AFAIC the reputational risk isn't nearly worth any potential financial or marketing rewards.

but also don't allow players to drink alcohol while playing

Babe Ruth begs to differ.

Obviously that depends on how you define "while playing". Ruth often arrived at games in a hungover state, but I don't remember seeing any accounts of his guzzling during the actual contest, or even in the dugout before the game started.

but also don't allow players to drink alcohol while playing

Is drinking during a game punished with a lifetime ban?

Obviously that depends on how you define "while playing". Ruth often arrived at games in a hungover state, but I don't remember seeing any accounts of his guzzling during the actual contest, or even in the dugout before the game started.

I've read accounts of him asking for a few beers and hot dogs before the game. Hair of the dog I'd expect. 2 or 3 beers (or even 4 or 5) were likely nothing, in terms of intoxication, to a drinker like Ruth, and probably helped delay some of the hangover effects until after the game.

#38 Yeah, Landis personally hated gambling. And there was a time Landis' stance was baseball's but that was brief.

On the other hand, while Landis did investigate Hornsby for gambling -- which wasn't in dispute -- he never took (or appears to have contemplated taking) action (beyond releasing interview transcripts).

As with Durocher (I don't think it's in dispute that Durocher gambled either -- but that's not what he was suspended for) later though the issue was less about the gambling as who they were associating with. And there were grounds for an investigation as Hornsby was betting (and borrowing) pretty significant amounts. Not hard to see that debts to the wrong people could go badly. Again, gets back to issues of integrity of the game.

They promote that (for pure greed!!!), but also don't allow players to drink alcohol while playing, where it could affect the outcomes of games.

I'm looking and I can't find such a rule. There are rules about drinking alcohol on the field, or anywhere besides the clubhouse, but the latter suggests there is no prohibition against players drinking before, or even during, a game.

I remember watching Keith Hernandez smoke cigarettes in the dugout during games. good times.

Orioles MGR Earl Weaver used to call reliever Don Stanhouse "Full Pack" - because that was how many Raleighs he'd inhale as Stanhouse wriggled his way out of jams.

#43 Probably falls under XII B. Arbitrators won't let teams make an expansive reading of Just Cause, but there's nothing that specifically covers all sorts of conduct that players have been disciplined for.

Orioles MGR Earl Weaver used to call reliever Don Stanhouse "Full Pack"

"Don Stanhouse was an a$$hole!"

You can't watch this too many times.

but also don't allow players to drink alcohol while playing

Babe Ruth begs to differ.

Dock Ellis directs your attention to the purple giraffe grazing in center fielld.