Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Thursday, August 05, 2021

The Cubs move ahead with plans for a Wrigley Field sportsbook

Last September, the Cubs unveiled plans to partner with DraftKings for a sportsbook in the neighborhood around Wrigley Field, and last month it was revealed that the team was moving forward with those plans, which require approval by the Chicago City Council.

Today, Danny Ecker of Crain’s Chicago Business reports that the team will make a presentation to the Council Thursday:

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.

Ald. Walter Burnett (27th) introduced such an ordinance last month, but the proposal was sent to the Council’s Rules Committee, which could stall its consideration. The ordinance isn’t without controversy, as some aldermen are concerned that sportsbooks at pro sports venues including Wrigley Field and the United Center could cannibalize spending at a future Chicago casino, something the city is counting on as a vital new revenue source.

In addition, the team would possibly have to get approval from Major League Baseball to have a sportsbook inside the ballpark, per this ESPN article from September 2020:

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 05, 2021 at 11:24 AM | 47 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cubs, wrigley field

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. Howie Menckel Posted: August 05, 2021 at 11:52 AM (#6032956)
click to see the renderings - it's enormous
   2. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 05, 2021 at 01:00 PM (#6032971)
Have they no shame.
   3. Rough Carrigan Posted: August 05, 2021 at 01:32 PM (#6032976)
Shame is such an anachronistic concept.
   4. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: August 05, 2021 at 01:49 PM (#6032983)
welp, more good Cubs news.
   5. Tin Angel Posted: August 05, 2021 at 02:18 PM (#6032991)
Have they no shame.


I'll bet you 2000 bitcoins they don't.
   6. salvomania Posted: August 05, 2021 at 02:30 PM (#6032992)
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.
   7. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: August 05, 2021 at 03:15 PM (#6033003)
It's amusing that they're embarking on this project while slashing payroll for the team.
   8. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: August 05, 2021 at 03:28 PM (#6033007)
BRAND SIGN
   9. The Honorable Ardo Posted: August 05, 2021 at 03:39 PM (#6033010)
After 2016 I said the Cubs' leadership team had carte blanche to do as they pleased. Evidently I spoke too soon.
   10. winnipegwhip Posted: August 05, 2021 at 04:50 PM (#6033036)
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?
   11. winnipegwhip Posted: August 05, 2021 at 04:52 PM (#6033037)
Until I knew Draft Kings was a sponsor I thought the sports book would be called Evander's
   12. Walt Davis Posted: August 05, 2021 at 05:12 PM (#6033043)
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.
   13. The Honorable Ardo Posted: August 05, 2021 at 05:27 PM (#6033047)
Primey for #5.
   14. Howie Menckel Posted: August 05, 2021 at 05:46 PM (#6033052)
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.
   15. Tom Goes to the Ballpark Posted: August 05, 2021 at 05:49 PM (#6033053)
To be fair, this is the business that the Ricketts family really understands. TD Ameritrade is just a bookie.
   16. The Honorable Ardo Posted: August 05, 2021 at 05:54 PM (#6033054)
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.
   17. Walt Davis Posted: August 05, 2021 at 06:25 PM (#6033059)
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?
   18. Howie Menckel Posted: August 05, 2021 at 08:54 PM (#6033075)
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.

   19. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: August 05, 2021 at 09:13 PM (#6033076)
Re 14: You bastard. Well done.
   20. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 05, 2021 at 09:32 PM (#6033081)
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.
   21. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 05, 2021 at 10:03 PM (#6033087)
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.
   22. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: August 05, 2021 at 10:29 PM (#6033090)
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!
   23. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 05, 2021 at 10:38 PM (#6033092)
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.
   24. Ron J Posted: August 05, 2021 at 11:07 PM (#6033098)
#20/23 Andy can be relied upon to come up with the dumbest possible take.
   25. SoSH U at work Posted: August 05, 2021 at 11:22 PM (#6033100)
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."

   26. Walt Davis Posted: August 06, 2021 at 02:42 AM (#6033119)
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.

   27. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 06, 2021 at 09:57 AM (#6033160)
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.
   28. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 06, 2021 at 11:47 AM (#6033192)
#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.


   29. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 06, 2021 at 11:52 AM (#6033194)
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.
   30. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 06, 2021 at 12:18 PM (#6033200)
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?
   31. caspian88 Posted: August 06, 2021 at 01:04 PM (#6033209)
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).
   32. Ron J Posted: August 06, 2021 at 01:09 PM (#6033211)
#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.

   33. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 06, 2021 at 01:14 PM (#6033214)
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.
   34. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 06, 2021 at 01:30 PM (#6033215)
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.
   35. Eddo Posted: August 06, 2021 at 01:59 PM (#6033225)
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.
   36. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 06, 2021 at 02:13 PM (#6033228)
but also don't allow players to drink alcohol while playing

Babe Ruth begs to differ.
   37. jmurph Posted: August 06, 2021 at 03:48 PM (#6033263)
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).
   38. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 06, 2021 at 04:20 PM (#6033273)
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.
   39. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 06, 2021 at 04:24 PM (#6033274)
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.
   40. Traderdave Posted: August 06, 2021 at 04:40 PM (#6033276)
but also don't allow players to drink alcohol while playing


Is drinking during a game punished with a lifetime ban?
   41. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 06, 2021 at 05:40 PM (#6033288)
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.
   42. Ron J Posted: August 06, 2021 at 05:43 PM (#6033289)
#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.
   43. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 06, 2021 at 05:45 PM (#6033291)
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.
   44. Howie Menckel Posted: August 06, 2021 at 05:51 PM (#6033293)
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.
   45. Ron J Posted: August 06, 2021 at 05:58 PM (#6033297)
#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.
   46. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: August 06, 2021 at 07:15 PM (#6033303)
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.
   47. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: August 06, 2021 at 09:02 PM (#6033311)
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.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Marc Sully's not booin'. He's Youkin'.
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogA’s reportedly eyeing Tropicana site for possible Strip ballpark
(8 - 2:59pm, Dec 02)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogReport: MLB Owners Vote Unanimously to Institute Lockout
(24 - 2:57pm, Dec 02)
Last: winnipegwhip

Newsblog'Chicago!' Stroman says he's joining Cubs
(37 - 2:46pm, Dec 02)
Last: sunday silence (again)

NewsblogNBA 2021-2022 Season Thread
(1224 - 2:35pm, Dec 02)
Last: KronicFatigue

NewsblogSources - Cy Young winner Robbie Ray, Seattle Mariners finalizing $115 million contract
(8 - 2:33pm, Dec 02)
Last: Jesus Luzardo Maraschino

NewsblogJackie Bradley, Jr. back to Boston in deal with Crew
(16 - 2:24pm, Dec 02)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

NewsblogMLB, union stopped blood testing for HGH due to pandemic
(17 - 2:17pm, Dec 02)
Last: Ron J

Sox TherapyLocked Out and Semi-Loaded
(5 - 2:13pm, Dec 02)
Last: Darren

NewsblogMarcell Ozuna was choking wife as cops burst in, police video shows
(28 - 1:52pm, Dec 02)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

Sox TherapyMeet the 2022 Red Sox
(73 - 12:50pm, Dec 02)
Last: Darren

NewsblogThe 100 Best Baseball Books Ever Written
(69 - 12:48pm, Dec 02)
Last: Perry

NewsblogClint Frazier nearing deal with Cubs after Yankees release
(10 - 12:41pm, Dec 02)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

NewsblogSources: Boston Red Sox in agreement with Rich Hill
(13 - 11:47am, Dec 02)
Last: pikepredator

NewsblogJames Paxton, Boston Red Sox agree to 1-year, $10 million deal, sources say
(6 - 11:19am, Dec 02)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogMiami Marlins acquire Joey Wendle, send Kameron Misner to Tampa Bay Rays
(17 - 10:59am, Dec 02)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

Page rendered in 0.3136 seconds
48 querie(s) executed