Moving the team, but where?

[waldo7239117]

The Cubs ain't moving! It's a publicity stunt and an open threat. But it's a threat that had to be made. Ricketts owns Wrigley Field and the McDonald's lot, let him do what he wants to do. Period!

 

[justaChifan]

Wrigley Field and Wrigleyville has drawn more casual fans,since the mid 80's, than the teams success. I doubt that could be duplicated anywhere else.

 

[SilenceS]

Wrigley draws 3 million fans a year. It isnt because the Cubs are perennial winners. Wrigley has a magic to it. The Ivy and the old feel is what I love. Im from down south and go to Wrigley almost every year. It sure isnt because the Cubs are good and I want to them play. I go because I love the Cubs and I love the Wrigley experience. They could never duplicate that anywhere else. They would lose a ton of ticket sales if they moved.

 

[Jntg4]

Wrigley draws 3 million fans a year. It isnt because the Cubs are perennial winners. Wrigley has a magic to it. The Ivy and the old feel is what I love. Im from down south and go to Wrigley almost every year. It sure isnt because the Cubs are good and I want to them play. I go because I love the Cubs and I love the Wrigley experience. They could never duplicate that anywhere else. They would lose a ton of ticket sales if they moved.

It's also a shithole, but I agree that no suburban stadium will draw as much of a crowd.

There's a reason that the Kings are more popular than the Ducks, the Rangers more than the Devils or Islanders, etc. (even with the history taken out of the equation, I feel it would still be that way even if the teams were all the same age).

 

[KBisBack!]

for all the fans they lose that go to WF just to go to to WF and drink, there will just as many fans who will go to the new ballpark, maybe even more if they moved to rosemont because you will get the fan/families from the far west suburbs who would take a shorter ride more often to the newer stadium then the longer trip to WF plus those who live in Wisc. and Indiana would venture more to rosemont then they would to WF because its closer, easier to get to and they wouldnt have to park miles away from the stadium.

bearz99,

Not a chance.

You put a losing Cubs team in a new stadium in the suburbs and you'd be lucky to draw 1.75M fans.

A losing Cubs team in Wrigley Field still draws 2.5M fans.

 

[brett05]

I used to think it was the stadium too. But we all agree that the stadium is a toilet. It's the experience that draws IMO. So moving to Rosemont or Arlington Heights would still have that experience and they would draw even with the bad team. It's just the "in" thing to do.

 

[Jntg4]

I used to think it was the stadium too. But we all agree that the stadium is a toilet. It's the experience that draws IMO. So moving to Rosemont or Arlington Heights would still have that experience and they would draw even with the bad team. It's just the "in" thing to do.

Look at any team that has moved from the city to the burbs and show that their popularity did not decrease - besides NFL teams that would draw in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean - for example, the Fire's attendance plummeted after moving from Soldier Field to Bridgeview, the Cubs would also see a decrease in attendance.

 

[brett05]

I disagree, you can't compare the popularity of the Fire to the Cubs.

 

[brett05]

Also the Fire appeal to a different crowd than the Cubs. Bridgeview is not a mecca for soccer.

 

[KBisBack!]

I used to think it was the stadium too. But we all agree that the stadium is a toilet. It's the experience that draws IMO. So moving to Rosemont or Arlington Heights would still have that experience and they would draw even with the bad team. It's just the "in" thing to do.

How would a new stadium in the suburbs give the same experience as Wrigley Field in the city??

They would be almost totally opposite things.

 

[brett05]

People don't go to Wrigley for the smell of pee, the tight seats, the FDA unapproved food with free rat droppings, the chain link prison like feel fencing.
They go for the beer, the girls, the team, the sun. Once you go to Wrigley once, you realize the charm of the actually building is a myth.

 

[Sunbiz1]

People don't go to Wrigley for the smell of pee, the tight seats, the FDA unapproved food with free rat droppings, the chain link prison like feel fencing.
They go for the beer, the girls, the team, the sun. Once you go to Wrigley once, you realize the charm of the actually building is a myth.

They go for the beer, the girls, the team, the sun.>>>

In which order?.

 

[brett05]

Probably the team should be last

 

[KBisBack!]

Once you go to Wrigley once, you realize the charm of the actually building is a myth.

Apparently not since they continue to be a top draw in the league despite fielding a terrible team

 

[Sunbiz1]

Probably the team should be last

I used to hear the same from Sox fans.

So basically Wrigley is simply an open air bar with lousy entertainment...yet folks find its' charm irresistible.

*As the theme song from an old Cheers episode runs through my head.

 

[brett05]

Apparently not since they continue to be a top draw in the league despite fielding a terrible team

Actually that doesn't counter my point. The beer, women, sun, and team are still there

 

[KBisBack!]

Actually that doesn't counter my point. The beer, women, sun, and team are still there

And the only thing still there in a move to the suburbs would be the beer and the bad baseball.

Not quite the same is it?

It would be nearly impossible to duplicate the environment and atmosphere of Wrigley Field and the surrounding neighborhood at a stadium in the suburbs and certainly not at a location next to an airport.

 

[Jntg4]

Also the Fire appeal to a different crowd than the Cubs. Bridgeview is not a mecca for soccer.

Sure, it's a different crowd than the Cubs, fact is that more people will come when your stadium is located in the heart of the city. It's a matter of population. Arlington Heights as you mentioned isn't a Mecca for baseball either afaik.

 

[Parade_Rain]

The move allows for almost all games on weekdays to be played at night. That means more revenue in the suburbs. Before the kids get out of school look at the crowds at wrigley on weekdays. When the kids go back to school in late August, look at the crowds at Wrigley. Night games are better. When the Cubs move to a new stadium in a different venue in the suburbs, they will not only be able to have all the night games they want, they will have a retractable roof for inclement weather. They will have state of the art facilities for the players. Wrigley is a crapstain, except to some fans stuck on nostalgia.

 

[brett05]

Sure, it's a different crowd than the Cubs, fact is that more people will come when your stadium is located in the heart of the city. It's a matter of population. Arlington Heights as you mentioned isn't a Mecca for baseball either afaik.

I think you missed my use of mecca, but that's ok, it's a point I don't want to labor over.

I'd have to see a census, but I think if you look at say Rosemont or arlington Heights there are more people near it in 25-30 mile range than the north side of the city. Plus it's easier to get there for the million or so fans living in that area.