"The chief executive officer of Tribune Company says he won't hesitate to sell the naming rights to Wrigley Field

This is exactly what is most wrong about baseball - now it is mostly about money (I don't say "all" because the game is still wonderful for those who love to watch those who love to play) I like the suggestion about Doublemint and Juicy Fruit. But let's not call it "DoubleJuide Field!"

posted by twoman at 09:56 PM - reply - flag:

How about "This 100 year old building costs 1 trillion dollars per year to maintain, so we should build a new one" Field.

posted by BoKnows at 09:57 PM - reply - flag:

Everyone on Spofi loves "futbol" so much, and those guys really know how to take sponsorship seriously. I'm sure the discussion to follow will include near unanimous approval.

posted by everett at 11:56 PM - reply - flag:

Baseball has always been about money, so I don't know that selling the name off Wrigley Field would be exceptional in that regard. The issue I have with selling names is that they weaken the mystique of these stadiums by changing their names all the time. A big part of baseball's marketing is a great ballpark. In 15 years, the Rangers have played in the Ballpark in Arlington, Ameriquest Field and now Rangers Ballpark in Arlington. And they haven't moved. Fans have just adopted "the Ballpark" or "the Temple" to get around the fact that corporate greed and short-term naming deals have made a joke of its real name. I think part of the Cubs' value is in Wrigley Field as a name, not just as a ballpark. If it becomes Depends Undergarment Field, that's one more reason to treat them as just another ballclub.

posted by rcade at 07:05 AM - reply - flag:

Wow, really good point. Though I think a lot of the Cubs' value is an excuse to get drunk during the day on a weekday. And some of it is the same as the value of the Red Sox until 2004: there's something useful/ attractive to rooting for a loser.

posted by yerfatma at 07:31 AM - reply - flag:

I think a big part of this story has been missed: THEY HAVENT WON A WORLD SERIES IN ONE HUNDRED FRIGGIN' YEARS!!!!! How is it that this teams stadium has any "mistique" anyway? Most people couldnt take a crap indoors the last time the cubs were champions. The first car was a month old when they won their last series. Yankee stadium has mistique. Busch stadium has mistique. Lambeau Field, Boston Garden, Joe Louis Arena, all of them have mistique. And what do they have in common? The teams that inhabit those stadiums win championships. it's the difference between classic rock, and old rock. Twisted sister: old rock, The Eagles: classic. I think the owners of the tribune company are free to do as they please with the name of that old stadium. While they'er at it, maybe they should take a weed-eater to that outfield wall...Blasphemy?...ok just a thaught.

posted by elijahin24 at 07:35 AM - reply - flag:

"Wrigley" Field is practically the only thing the fans of this team have ever had to hold onto. Changing the name would piss many off for a while, but these same people will get over it quickly if the team starts winning and actually wins a championship. The key is to make the team's identity associated with success, not with losing (but, hey, they still play in a cool, old ballpark).

posted by dyams at 08:13 AM - reply - flag:

And what do they have in common? The teams that inhabit those stadiums win championships. That's not a 1:1 correlation. The places that have mystique have good fan bases. Fenway had mystique for the 86 years it went sans championships. Could be you just don't like the Cubs.

posted by yerfatma at 08:45 AM - reply - flag:

I deffinitly dont like the cubs, but i loath the yankees, and celtics just as much. I also could have put texas stadium on there. im a niner fan. I dont think (whatever theyer calling candlestick these days) has the same mistique that the cowboys have with texas stadium. Yes the fans have something to do with it, but what makes those places so special is that when you go to your seat, you imediately feel this buzz. This energy and excitement. Its the feeling that "this is our year" Have you been to wrigley? the closest thing to buzz i have ever seen there is cautious optimism. i see the same look on the fans of the cubbies that i see on the face of a divorsee going out on her first date since her marriage of 15 years has crumbled. It isnt excitement. it isnt "this will be great!!" Its more like "I hope this doesnt suck too bad." I personally hate wrigley. It has no appeal for me whatsoever. From the trough in the mens room to the stale beer you wear out if you happen to root for the opposing team, to the fat guy who refuses to either put a shirt on or shut up about the fact that lou brock was theirs first. No, wrigley has no mistique in my opinion. Wrigley field is the "we built this city on rock and roll" of classic stadiums

posted by elijahin24 at 11:05 AM - reply - flag:

WOW! elijahin24, did you have to many Red Bulls this morning. Weather YOU like it or not there some mystic about Wrigley that can not be argued. I think it is relative to the mystic that surrounds Notre Dame's football stadium. I am certainly not an expert on the the subject but I get a mystical feeling when I enter these stadiums knowing the great players that played in them, and the history that is there. I got that same feeling at Tiger Stadium and a few others. I don't think winning has got anything to do with it. Don't the Celtics play in a fairly new facility?

posted by sportnut at 11:43 AM - reply - flag:

I think it is relative to the mystic that surrounds Notre Dame's football stadium. Oh you mean that stadium for the team that has been on a bad slump of late, but has the most storied history of any team in college football? That notre dame stadium? There is no way that wrigley has that kind of mistique. Have you been to wrigley. Opening day not withstanding that Buzz never lasts more than a few weeks.

posted by elijahin24 at 11:55 AM - reply - flag:

Yes, I've been to Wrigley. I saw Sammy hit his 63rd (I think) dinger during the home run race with McGwire. Drank way too many Olde Styles, and generall speaking, I was mesmerized the entire time. The mystique is there, but if you hate the Cubs enough, you just won't feel it. There was plenty of buzz the last time I was there. And it was August.

posted by hawkguy at 12:34 PM - reply - flag:

The thing you're missing completely, Elijahin, is that not winning a World Series for so long is an essential element of the Cubs mystique. They're the unchallenged title holder in baseball's "loveable losers" category now that the Red Sox curse is over. Mystique and success are two separate things. Some franchises are loved for winning; others for losing. I think part of the reason the Cubs stand out in this regard is that their fans often could have supported a winner simply by crossing town. They weren't stuck with a perennial dog by accident of birth and geography, as I've been with the Rangers. Any lifelong Cubs fan is a true fan.

posted by rcade at 12:37 PM - reply - flag:

Maybe I just picked crappy days to go, but when i was there, sitting about 14 rows behind first base, everyone there wearing royal blue seemed like comming to the game was an inconvenience in a way i have never seen at busch or even cincinnati. i saw them that same year, 1998, i think it was in july. everyone there seemed pissed from the moment i came in the gate. maybe that self-loathing is a mistique of sorts. i dunno. to me mistique is a joy to just be in the cathedral that is (insert stadium name here) where (insert HOFer here) played and (insert historic moment here) happened. Wrigly just seems like the one of those churches where people only go because they always have, and they would rather be sleeping in. The kind where the minister spends the entire sermon on one deep reaching guilt trip. That is not the type of mistique i want to see. i saw them in 2002 in september. they were well on their way to winning the division. That night i heard no less than 8 people say "well i wonder how they'll f*ck it up this year" I dont question the loyalty of a cub fan. I pitty them. the lovable loser tag is cute until you reach a certain age. At that point it seems that all the joy gets sucked out of them. i live in southern indiana. An area that is split almost evenly between cub, and cardinal fans. the cub fans i grew up with hardly watch baseball anymore. they dont even like to talk about it. Some of them are the same ones who lived for it as kids and into early adulthood. But when you lose for so long, and you keep hearing ass-holes like me repeating the number 1-9-0-8, i think it sucks the joy out of what was once a huge pare of life. Is that mistique? If so I dont get it.

posted by elijahin24 at 01:51 PM - reply - flag:

elijahin, I don't think winning and losing has anything to do with the history / tradition, that exists at Wrigley. What the heck does getting a buzz have to do with it. Do you think a Cubs fan goes to the game to just get a buzz. They are loyal FANS just like you are a loyal fan of another team, and if you go to the game to just drink beer you should save some money and go to the corner bar and get your buzz, it's cheaper, and you can watch the game on TV. I've been to Wrigley many times, and seen them get their head handed to them many times. But you can't deny the tradition and history that surrounds the park. Granted it is a fun place to go and get buzzed but that is not the main reason I go. I go to watch them get beat. LOL

posted by sportnut at 02:01 PM - reply - flag:

Ok sportnut, expain it to me Barney style. If the fans love their team, but they get no joy from going to the ball park, what is the point? What is the tradition and history that is so attractive to the teams own fans? Im not speaking in abstracts, im talking about people i know and have watched games with. People who want so bad to be able to celebrate in october just once but not only have never gotten to do so, but have no real hope that they ever will. It isnt winning, its the hope of winning. it isnt on the northside of chigago. I respect cub fans for their loyalty and i would never tell anyone that they should give up on their team, I just dont think they qualify for having a "mistique. There are a lot of bad teams out there, who's fans still get alot of joy out of going to the ball park. The cubs fans that i have met dont seem to get that joy. so, sportnut, rcade and hawkguy, explain it to me like im an alien and just learned about baseball. What is "the mistique about the cubs and wrigley field?

posted by elijahin24 at 02:14 PM - reply - flag:

elijahin, I'm from Indianapolis myself and I know you are an avid IU like myself, would you stop going being an IU fan if they had a 5 or 6 year losing streak? I realize the Cubs have been losing ALOT LONGER than 5 or 6 years so I guess they are super fans or dumb fans. I now live in Detroit and you cannot believe how many people are still die-hard lions fans. Up to last yrear they sold out every game. The haven't really contended for anything in over 50 years, and still have a tremendous following of FANS.

posted by sportnut at 02:14 PM - reply - flag:

I've been a Cub fan for over 50 years. If your not a true Cubs fan you will never understand. That's all..........As Ernie said "Lets play two"

posted by stickman at 02:17 PM - reply - flag:

I wouldnt say im an avid fan of any basketball team, but im actually a michigan fan who had a soft spot for the home town team as long as they werent playing the maize and blue. That said, when michigan sucks there is hope. The lions sold out last year, because they started off hot. Did you ever go to the silverdome after barry sanders retired? You could have walked right up to the gate and bought a ticket. That is my point. Its all about hope. Hope that this might be our year. Hope that even though this year wont be great, we are at least building toward something. Hope that if we can pick up one more piece before the trade deadline, we will be a contendor. HOPE in the face of adversity. The lions had hope last year. The cubs in a year that they were favored by many to go to the series (2002) they couldnt hold on to that hope. As soon as something relatively insignificant happened, the team fell apart. A foul ball that should have been an out. It wasnt the difference in a home run and an out. It was a foul ball. they should have been able to get out of the inning pretty easily, but they lost focus.

posted by elijahin24 at 02:23 PM - reply - flag:

Sorry for the mistakes in the last thread, I am working on a project and not concentrating on what I am writing, one of those dumb fans I guess I can't explain loyality I'm just a die-hard. I don't think you are an alien, you just have an opinion. There is nothing wrong with passion. Hey what is Barney style? LOL

posted by sportnut at 02:32 PM - reply - flag:

Barney style is the way you would explain it to a fan of barney the purple dinosaur. Its what my drill sergeant used to say if we needed to explain something in its simplest terms.

posted by elijahin24 at 03:02 PM - reply - flag:

so, sportnut, rcade and hawkguy, explain it to me like im an alien and just learned about baseball. What is "the mistique about the cubs and wrigley field? It's been explained to you already. You just don't like the answer.

posted by rcade at 03:12 PM - reply - flag:

Well it hasn't been explained actually. You've told me what it isnt, but not what it is.

posted by elijahin24 at 03:23 PM - reply - flag:

I swear I remember the same outcry when the lights were installed at Wrigley. And yet apparently the place still has mystique (whatever that is).

posted by billsaysthis at 03:50 PM - reply - flag:

You hate the Cubs, you hate Wrigley. Everybody else in this thread acknowledges that Wrigley has a certain mystique (not mistiquie, not mistyke, not mistake, but MYSTIQUE, dammit!), while you don't. I could try to explain it to you as I see it, but it's been tried, and didn't work. Agree to disagree, and move along smartly.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 03:55 PM - reply - flag:

I didnt misspell it did I? Look i get that everyone says "ooh its an old park for an old team, with ivy in the outfield, and this mistique of the friendly confines. But it seems to me, and its just my opinion, that its mistique is in that people say it has one. Not one person has tried to quantify it here. You have just tried to tell me THAT i am wrong for not agreeing with you, or THAT I will never understand. But nobody has given me a real explaination as to why. Once again i will compare it to a religion where everyone assumes that the minister knows what he is talking about so they take his word, but nobody bothers to look for themselves. Im ok with everyone disagreeing with me, but if i am honestly missing something, id like to know what it is. I dont hate the cubs. I just dont like them because i like their rival. I am a michigan fan and as such i loath the team from columbus, but i acknowledge that they have a great fan base, they are a great team year in and year out and that the horseshoe has a very obvious mistique. In other words i respect my rivals enough that i can look objectively at them. When i look at the cubs, and at wrigley field i just dont see it. And if nobody can tell me what it is and not just what it is not, i will assume that everyone is just drinking the kool-aid because it is an old stadium.

posted by elijahin24 at 04:04 PM - reply - flag:

I think part of the reason the Cubs stand out in this regard is that their fans often could have supported a winner simply by crossing town. I don't know about often. I realize the Cubs set the bar pretty low, but the White Sox still nick the top on the way over with 2 titles (1917 and 2005) and actually less pennants (4 vs. 7) since the Cubs' last World Series win in 1908.

posted by bender at 04:10 PM - reply - flag:

I didnt misspell it did I? . . . and this mistique . . . mistique is in that people say it has one. Yes, yes you did. Not one person has tried to quantify it here. mystique /m??stik/ noun : an aura of mystery or mystical power surrounding a particular occupation or pursuit You see where that would be difficult to quantify?

posted by yerfatma at 04:12 PM - reply - flag:

I thought the Mystiques played in Washington.

posted by BoKnows at 04:20 PM - reply - flag:

And if nobody can tell me what it is and not just what it is not, i will assume that everyone is just drinking the kool-aid because it is an old stadium. How dense are you, dude? I'm sorry we haven't explained the concept of "mystique" to you in a manner you like, but it's an abuse of this discussion to post message after message about how you haven't been given an answer to your satisfaction and we should explain it to you "Barney style." We get the point that you don't like Wrigley Field.

posted by rcade at 05:34 PM - reply - flag:

Being in Chicago and all, if Wrigley's doesn't pay up, I'd hope some local business does. Oprah Field? The Big O? (all innuendo intended) Playboy Mansion 2?

posted by worldcup2002 at 06:09 PM - reply - flag:

Wrigley Field to be Renamed After Barack Obama

posted by goddam at 06:14 PM - reply - flag:

NO NO NO! THEY CANT DO THAT!! I love Obama, but i'm a cards fan. i don't want to have to choose between my love of him, and my disdain for the cubs!

posted by elijahin24 at 06:23 PM - reply - flag:

The Friendly Confines has been the site of such historic moments as: Babe Ruth's "called shot," when Ruth allegedly pointed to a bleacher location during Game 3 of the 1932 World Series ... Ruth then hit Charlie Root's next pitch for a homer. Gabby Hartnett's famous "Homer in the Gloamin' " September 28, 1938, vs. Pittsburgh's Mace Brown. the great May 2, 1917, pitching duel between Jim "Hippo" Vaughn and the Reds' Fred Toney ... both Vaughn and Toney threw no-hitters for 9.0 innings before Cincinnati's Jim Thorpe (of Olympic fame) drove in the only run in the 10th inning ... Toney finished with a no-hitter. Ernie Banks' 500th career home run May 12, 1970, vs. Atlanta's Pat Jarvis. Pete Rose's 4,191st career hit, which tied him with Ty Cobb for the most hits in baseball history ... Rose singled off Reggie Patterson September 8, 1985. Kerry Wood's 20-strikeout affair in 1998. And that is just some of what I would call the mystique of Wrigley Field. You can read more here It is about tradition, about a father taking his son to the ball park and telling him "when I was your age..." It is the footsteps of all the greats that have passed through its locker room. It is about recognition, I have to stop and think what field the Indians play on, but I could tell you where the Cubs play. It is a name that has a history. It may be only a name change, but it is one more thing about old Chicago that will dissappear if they change it. Not as drastic as tearing it down and building a new one, but it would make it different.

posted by steelergirl at 09:42 PM - reply - flag:

Everybody who has been fighting me all day, look at what steelgirl put down here. This is what i was talking about. This is an explanation. A piece of old Chicago, i can appreciate. A name that has history, i can appreciate. Thank you steelgirl. I probably will never get the full effect of the stadium, because it is not my team, but now i can appreciate where you cub fans are coming from.

posted by elijahin24 at 10:21 PM - reply - flag:

I probably will never get the full effect of the stadium, because it is not my team, but now i can appreciate where you cub fans are coming from. Appreciating a stadium or arena doesn't really have anything to do with being a fan of the home team. I've met quite a few fans from all of the country at Yankee games who went there just because they wanted to see a game at the Stadium (and this was before they announced plans for a new stadium). They weren't rooting for anyone in particular. And I know a lot of Yankee fans who have gone up to Fenway for a non NY/Boston game because it's Fenway and they just wanted to see a game there. Wrigley gets a similar treatment. These older stadiums are like national landmarks. I would love to go see a game in Chicago, and I have no rooting interest in the Cubs or the National League for that matter.

posted by goddam at 10:59 PM - reply - flag:

If Wrigley did get it, they'd probably call it "Juicy Fruit Field" or just "Juicy Field", just to piss off the purists. This stadium naming bullshit needs to end. It's so fucking pathetic. Greedy little shits. (I have flu and I'm cranky, bite me.)

posted by Drood at 12:32 AM - reply - flag:

Thanks steelergirl you put it much better than I, and you spell much better also. That is what I was trying to express , but not very good.

posted by sportnut at 07:14 AM - reply - flag:

Loosing tradition, name change please

posted by Bxboy at 10:12 AM - reply - flag:

Thanks for the compliments. The name will probably be changed though because money talks and bullshit walks. Or some could say that it is just progress.

posted by steelergirl at 12:17 PM - reply - flag:

$$$$$$ rule. That is why I am turned off on pro sports. College is somewhat better. The Horseshoe, The Big House, Tiger Stadium, good college names that have withstood the $$$$ push.

posted by RA at 12:22 PM - reply - flag:

I guarantee that if Allen Fieldhouse is ever named anything but Allen Fieldhouse, heads will roll. The endowment at the University of Kansas will suffer immensely.

posted by hawkguy at 12:28 PM - reply - flag:

Maybe this company could buck up.

posted by BoKnows at 12:32 PM - reply - flag:

All that to just find out he's a freaking Card's fan??!!! No wonder he couldn'y get it.

posted by volfire at 01:21 PM - reply - flag:

Tiger Stadium The Tigers moved out of Tiger Stadium around the same time that the selling of naming rights was picking up. Now they play in spacious, non-commercially named Comerica Park.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 02:05 PM - reply - flag:

The Cubs have not won a World Series since they have moved into Wrigley Field - I would think Cub fans would do anything to see a World Series winner. But no, they would rather die than give up the name of the owner that provided them with nothing but a sunburn!

posted by americanleague at 02:49 PM - reply - flag:

Whoa - wasn't that like the soccer thread a while back? The one where unless we unequivically convinced a guy that soccer was truly a worthy sport, he would continue to consider it second teir - and then didn't like any of the answers? Look i get that everyone says "ooh its an old park for an old team, with ivy in the outfield, and this mistique of the friendly confines. But it seems to me, and its just my opinion, that its mistique is in that people say it has one. Not one person has tried to quantify it here. You have just tried to tell me THAT i am wrong for not agreeing with you, or THAT I will never understand. But nobody has given me a real explaination as to why. You've clearly never been there. You can't 'quantify' a subjective. What would equal a satisfactory explanation? You either feel it or you don't. It's not a fact.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 04:36 PM - reply - flag:

Everybody who has been fighting me all day, look at what steelgirl put down here. This is what i was talking about. Oh come on, that's a load of crap. Good comment by steelergirl, but you simply wanted to argue. She listed historic occurrences that you could have found simply by going to the Wrigley Field website. But you were too busy arguing to do that. It's a hundred year old park. Did you not realize some important events and milestones probably happened there? Someone had to explain that to you? You didn't realize that over the hundred years generations of fathers would take their sons to games? You simply wanted to argue and blaming it on answers not up to your standard is comical.

posted by justgary at 05:00 PM - reply - flag:

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Comments