Brad Stephens: bring the brick and ivy to Rosemont

[Balta1701]

People do overvalue the stadium for the Cubs, moving out or building a new stadium would have no affect on their fan base. I don't know any Cubs fan that has said he would stop going based on their park, most admit it is a dump now if anything.

Getting the fans of the team out to the ballpark isn't why the Cubs sell 30k tickets a game. It's the casual person who is only slightly interested in the game that is filling their park.

[kev211]

Getting the fans of the team out to the ballpark isn't why the Cubs sell 30k tickets a game. It's the casual person who is only slightly interested in the game that is filling their park.

I guarantee you at most 5k people a game are what you describe

[Balta1701]

I guarantee you at most 5k people a game are what you describe

That's the difference between 32k a game and 27k a game. Especially in a park without skyboxes, that's a huge difference.

[kev211]

That's the difference between 32k a game and 27k a game. Especially in a park without skyboxes, that's a huge difference.

And they'd pick up 5k from the northern suburbs each game easily.

 

 

 

You guys are really underestimating how large the cubs fan base is.

[southsider2k5]

And they'd pick up 5k from the northern suburbs each game easily.

 

 

 

You guys are really underestimating how large the cubs fan base is.

 

I think you might be underestimating how large the Wrigley Field fan base is. I think you would see an ebb, not right away, but in 3-5 years when the "new" wore off.

[kev211]

I think you might be underestimating how large the Wrigley Field fan base is. I think you would see an ebb, not right away, but in 3-5 years when the "new" wore off.

Well never know unless this happens. I say your overestimating it and you say I'm underestimating it. Well have to agree to disagree.

 

 

 

All I know is the only team in Chicago that struggles to fill their stadium on a game by game basis is the white sox. The cubs fan base wouldn't stop showing up to a new park

[Disco72]

Well never know unless this happens. I say your overestimating it and you say I'm underestimating it. Well have to agree to disagree.

 

 

 

All I know is the only team in Chicago that struggles to fill their stadium on a game by game basis is the white sox. The cubs fan base wouldn't stop showing up to a new park

 

Or we could use actual data... According to the Cubs' own marketing studies, 37% of attendance at Wrigley Field is from out of state (tourists).

[Balta1701]

Or we could use actual data... According to the Cubs' own marketing studies, 37% of attendance at Wrigley Field is from out of state (tourists).

Does that count the Chicago metro area? NW Indiana and Wisconsin?

[GoodAsGould]

Or we could use actual data... According to the Cubs' own marketing studies, 37% of attendance at Wrigley Field is from out of state (tourists).

 

And that doesn't really tell you anything.

[kev211]

And that doesn't really tell you anything.

This

 

 

No way of knowing how much of that 37% would still go to a new park. Also we don't have that same number from other teams around the county to compare it too and see if its really high because of wrigley or not.

 

I also know the cubs have a large national following and would continue to wrigley or no wrigley.

[Disco72]

This

 

 

No way of knowing how much of that 37% would still go to a new park. Also we don't have that same number from other teams around the county to compare it too and see if its really high because of wrigley or not.

 

I also know the cubs have a large national following and would continue to wrigley or no wrigley.

 

Since everyone wants to play the game of throwing out their own numbers as fact, I guarantee you that the 37% is much higher than the MLB average. Anecdotally, I can say that every time I have a conference in Chicago, everyone I talk to wants to (and does) go to Wrigley; nobody is interested in seeing a Sox game. These people are not Cubs fans - Wrigley Field is a part of the 'tourist' must-sees. Without Wrigley Field, the Cubs would most certainly have to attract fans the way most other teams do - by winning. You can already see the decline in attendance with their recent bad seasons.

[kev211]

Since everyone wants to play the game of throwing out their own numbers as fact, I guarantee you that the 37% is much higher than the MLB average. Anecdotally, I can say that every time I have a conference in Chicago, everyone I talk to wants to (and does) go to Wrigley; nobody is interested in seeing a Sox game. These people are not Cubs fans - Wrigley Field is a part of the 'tourist' must-sees. Without Wrigley Field, the Cubs would most certainly have to attract fans the way most other teams do - by winning. You can already see the decline in attendance with their recent bad seasons.

Your guarantee is worthless.

 

The cubs will always be the go to destination for baseball for tourist. Even if they build a new stadium. Because like you said if they're in town for business reasons and they have 3 hours to kill they're still going to want to see the cubs and their state of the art stadium over the sox.

Edited March 31, 2013 by kev211

[Disco72]

Your guarantee is worthless.

 

The cubs will always be the go to destination for baseball for tourist. Even if they build a new stadium. Because like you said if they're in town for business reasons and they have 3 hours to kill they're still going to want to see the cubs and their state of the art stadium over the sox.

 

That was exactly my point. Of course it is worthless because it is grounded in anecdote and not any real facts. The irony is that you keep throwing around opinion as fact, which you do yet again in this post. Why would tourists go see a non-Wrigley stadium, especially if it is in a different part of the city (e.g., Rosemont, like the thread was started to discuss)? If you want to argue the Cubs have a larger, and more national, fan base, I think we could agree on that point. The 37% out-of-state number I posted earlier is flawed because we really don't know what it means. If it is mostly near-state Cub fans, it's a worthless number. If it is the tourist crown, it's relevant because it brings up the question of why someone would go to a Cubs game in Rosemont at Corporate Stadium X instead of some other tourist attraction in Chicago if they have 3 hours to kill.

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

Now that a deal has been reached, the ridiculous concept of the Cubs leaving Wrigley can be gone until the next time their ownership needs to get something done, which hopefully won't be for a few years.

 

Regarding the video-board in left field- a few years ago the Tribune ran an article on Wrigley renovations, and their proposal was a retractable video-board that would be in use for night games, but would stay down for day games. I thought that was a great idea, I wish I could find it somewhere. Whatever they do decide, I hope they can come to some agreement with the rooftop people that would prevent them from building something for the sole purpose of obstructing their view/locking them out. I think they're an integral part of the ballpark.

[Cali]

I don't know if this has ever been brought up, but exactly how long are they planning on feasibly keeping Wrigley alive? a 100-year old building after $500 million in renovations is still a 100 year old building.

 

Cubs fans an management really need to let go. Sometimes nostalgia and the classic park get in the way of modern 21st century baseball.

[lostfan]

People do overvalue the stadium for the Cubs, moving out or building a new stadium would have no affect on their fan base. I don't know any Cubs fan that has said he would stop going based on their park, most admit it is a dump now if anything.

I'm not sure if it's "some" or "most" but a significant percentage of the Cubs fans I know get extremely defensive about calling Wrigley a dump and will immediately start projecting onto the Cell, and talking about how they don't need all these "fancy things" new stadiums have. They're good just going to the game, getting a hot dog and a beer, etc.

 

Those are things you say you never need, until you know what it's like to have it. Kinda like someone getting their first smartphone in 2013.

[Iwritecode]

Whatever they do decide, I hope they can come to some agreement with the rooftop people that would prevent them from building something for the sole purpose of obstructing their view/locking them out. I think they're an integral part of the ballpark.

 

How?

 

They are background scenery more than anything. I think the Tribune owners were stupid to give them a 20 year contract so they could continue to profit off a product they have no rights to when it handcuffs the current owners from upgrading their park in whatever way they see fit.

[Balta1701]

[/b]

 

How?

 

They are background scenery more than anything. I think the Tribune owners were stupid to give them a 20 year contract so they could continue to profit off a product they have no rights to when it handcuffs the current owners from upgrading their park in whatever way they see fit.

In like 1990 I could have believed that they were an integral part. People up on the roof grilling across the street, maybe a dozen people who actually lived in the building, just a bit of local flair. Now they're 20 row deep bleachers that the park doesn't control, where the building owners make out with some fraction of the team's ticket sales.

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

[/b]

 

How?

 

They are background scenery more than anything. I think the Tribune owners were stupid to give them a 20 year contract so they could continue to profit off a product they have no rights to when it handcuffs the current owners from upgrading their park in whatever way they see fit.

 

I'm not looking at them from a business standpoint- I agree, they're really nothing more than parasites in that regard. It may just be background scenery, but take them away and the place all of a sudden has a whole different feel to it. I hesitate to use the word charm, but that's what I'll call it.

 

Those are things you say you never need, until you know what it's like to have it. Kinda like someone getting their first smartphone in 2013.

 

It probably is for the majority of people (which is what matters), but taking a moment to give it some thought, I don't know what I would miss (if anything) if the video board at USCF suddenly stopped working. MLB takes the single most important purpose they can serve- replays of controversial calls- out of the equation. Apart from displaying a players mug shot and a replay here and there, the majority of what we're treated to are commercials, fans acting like idiots because there is a camera on them, stupid trivia questions, and birthday wishes. And commercials (again).

 

(I realize that commercials and "Sox-o-grams" are revenue streams and probably single-handedly justify the existence of a video screen to any ownership group.)

Edited April 5, 2013 by Swingandalongonetoleft

[HuskyCaucasian]

Wasnt there supposed to be an announcement yesterday? What happened?

[lostfan]

In like 1990 I could have believed that they were an integral part. People up on the roof grilling across the street, maybe a dozen people who actually lived in the building, just a bit of local flair. Now they're 20 row deep bleachers that the park doesn't control, where the building owners make out with some fraction of the team's ticket sales.

Can we call the rooftop owners moochers?

[justBLAZE]

Deal reached.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I find it interesting that it'll be done over 5 years rather than take one season off, play at US Cellular, then have it all done.

 

If they really want to give a middle finger to the roof-tops, move away for a year... AND obstruct their view.

[ewokpelts]

I find it interesting that it'll be done over 5 years rather than take one season off, play at US Cellular, then have it all done.

 

If they really want to give a middle finger to the roof-tops, move away for a year... AND obstruct their view.

I still think the Cubs will be bunking with the sox. It may even be as early as 2014.

 

Why else would the red line project get fast tracked?

 

[kitekrazy]

The Sox should have moved out of Chicago and into one of the suburbs.