Fifteen years ago today I got home from classes at noon and sat down to eat lunch in my apartment. I began listening to the Cubs game on the radio. Kerry Wood was pitching. About midway through the game, I had to leave for work...at 45 minute drive. I listened to every pitch. I pulled into the parking lot at work just as the 9th inning was about to begin. I sat in my car listening to the game completely unconcerned about being late for work.
The half inning took very little time to complete with Wood dominating a very good Astros lineup.
My heart was racing as Pat Hughes made the call on that final pitch to Derek Bell. It was over. I ran inside, saw the two other Cubs fans that I had worked with on the factory floor and told them that he did it. I was shaking with excitement.
For many Cubs fans, this was almost like the moon landing...you'll never forget what you were doing when it happened.
I got to see Kerry Wood pitch at Wrigley a few weeks later, still in the infant stages of that great and memorable Cubs season. The ballpark was packed that afternoon. The legend of Kerry Wood had begun a few weeks earlier and I wanted to see him first hand.
Happy 15 year anniversary of Kerry Wood's 20 strikeout game, perhaps the most dominating pitching performance in Major League history.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Ricketts is making the wrong threat.
The Cubs released rendering and details about their proposed renovation or, in their words, restoration of Wrigley last night.
First off, the term restoration is about as stupid as saying Carlos Marmol is a good closer. It's not a restoration. If it was, they'd be tearing the lights down, removing the press box and putting bleachers back in the batters' eye area of center field.
It's not a restoration. It's a renovation...a renovation along the same lines of what was done with Fenway Park and Royals Stadium.
But that's not the point of this post.
Tom Ricketts today finally made a threat to move the team if they do not get their way as far as these renovations are concern.
What's the point?
No, I'm serious. At this time, what the hell is the point of threatening to move?
Is there something we don't know here?
Supposedly both Tom Tunney and City Hall have agreed to the changes. They don't need anything else. The rest of the "approval" process should, for the most part, be routine.
Why make the threat now? It would have been help for them if they had made it years ago. Now? Unless there is some process that we don't know about standing in the way, the threat is not only empty, but completely pointless.
They don't need to threaten to move. The Cubs are going to get their renovation.
The real question is when can they start their renovation. Time is quickly ticking for the Cubs to be able to start this renovation following this season.
The Cubs are in a situation where they need all parties involved to rubber stamp this thing so it can get started in short order.
The correct threat the Cubs should be making right now isn't to move the team permanently to some place like Rosemont. The threat should be to move the Cubs out of Wrigley for a season so they can complete the renovations by the date they want.
Ricketts should be threatening to move the team to U.S. Cellular Field or Miller Park for a season.
You want something that is taken seriously? That's it. You want something that will get the rooftop owners on board quickly? That's it. Slightly obstructed views will affect a small number of rooftops and will only have a marginal affect on their sales.
Temporarily relocating for season? You can bet a majority of those rooftops will go bankrupt if the team moves out of the stadium for a year. Most of them are in situations of narrow revenue margins already. No Cubs baseball at Wrigley for one season would be devastating
That will shut up just about all the critics of this renovation plan in very short order, and is much more effective than some bull crap threat to move the team to Rosemont.
First off, the term restoration is about as stupid as saying Carlos Marmol is a good closer. It's not a restoration. If it was, they'd be tearing the lights down, removing the press box and putting bleachers back in the batters' eye area of center field.
It's not a restoration. It's a renovation...a renovation along the same lines of what was done with Fenway Park and Royals Stadium.
But that's not the point of this post.
Tom Ricketts today finally made a threat to move the team if they do not get their way as far as these renovations are concern.
What's the point?
No, I'm serious. At this time, what the hell is the point of threatening to move?
Is there something we don't know here?
Supposedly both Tom Tunney and City Hall have agreed to the changes. They don't need anything else. The rest of the "approval" process should, for the most part, be routine.
Why make the threat now? It would have been help for them if they had made it years ago. Now? Unless there is some process that we don't know about standing in the way, the threat is not only empty, but completely pointless.
They don't need to threaten to move. The Cubs are going to get their renovation.
The real question is when can they start their renovation. Time is quickly ticking for the Cubs to be able to start this renovation following this season.
The Cubs are in a situation where they need all parties involved to rubber stamp this thing so it can get started in short order.
The correct threat the Cubs should be making right now isn't to move the team permanently to some place like Rosemont. The threat should be to move the Cubs out of Wrigley for a season so they can complete the renovations by the date they want.
Ricketts should be threatening to move the team to U.S. Cellular Field or Miller Park for a season.
You want something that is taken seriously? That's it. You want something that will get the rooftop owners on board quickly? That's it. Slightly obstructed views will affect a small number of rooftops and will only have a marginal affect on their sales.
Temporarily relocating for season? You can bet a majority of those rooftops will go bankrupt if the team moves out of the stadium for a year. Most of them are in situations of narrow revenue margins already. No Cubs baseball at Wrigley for one season would be devastating
That will shut up just about all the critics of this renovation plan in very short order, and is much more effective than some bull crap threat to move the team to Rosemont.
Friday, April 5, 2013
How much could the rooftops sue the Cubs for?
The rooftop owners are threatening to sue the Cubs over any renovation deal where their views of the ballpark may be obstructed.
I've stated before that the rooftop owners will do anything in their power to fight renovations of any kind.
The rooftop association released this statement today:
How much could the rooftops really sue the Cubs for?
Basically, a judge would have to decided how much monetarily the video board and any other advertisements would affect sales of rooftop seats.
My argument is that obstructed views would not affect the rooftop businesses significantly. The rooftops would, though, be majorly affected by the other renovations being done to the ballpark...as the Cubs add the amenities that only the rooftops currently provide. But putting that aside, we first need to look at how many rooftops would be significantly affected by the video board and any advertisements. In left field, only the Beyond The Ivy rooftop on, Waveland at the corner of Sheffield, would be horribly affected by a video board. I should add that this rooftop structure was built after the 2004 agreement the Cubs had with the rooftop owners. Perhaps one other rooftop in left field would be significantly affected by the board.
In right field, perhaps two rooftops will really be affected assuming the Cubs put them up in such a way that they would limit the obstruction.
So, we now say that 4 of the 17 rooftops are affected by the new signage, or for simplicity sake, we'll just say a quarter of them.
The rooftop owners currently take in an estimated $25 million a year. Over the span of 11 years, that is $275 million dollars. That's a ton of money.
But if the new signage only significantly affects 4 rooftops...we'll say this total only affects about a quarter of revenue involved...so that puts us at about $70 million total. I don't believe a judge could really say that the blockage will affect 100% of the revenues from those four rooftops. It seems reasonable to think that the rooftops will suffer a 50% reduction in revenue. That puts that total at $35 million.
$35 million...over 11 years.
That's a little over $3 million a year.
To put that in perspective, the Cubs currently get $4 million a year from the rooftops as part of their agreement.
If I'm the Cubs, the lawsuit probably wouldn't bother me too much. The only thing that could happen is it could delay when they could deploy the new video board.
I'm not a lawyer, a judge and no very little about these sort of things, but I'm just trying to use some logic here to get an idea of what is at stake. Please leave a comment if you have any different perspectives on this.
***************************
As an aside, I'm asking for any help from anyone who might have access to the text of the agreement between the rooftop owners and the Cubs.
The reason I ask about this is because a lot of things are being said about this agreement including the possibility that, as stated above, the agreement states that the Cubs may not alter the “uninterrupted sweep of the bleachers”...but with the added note of "without approval from the city."
If that is the case, the rooftop owners have little ground to stand on here.
This could very well be why Tom Tunney changed his tune and has basically turned his back on the rooftop owners.
I've stated before that the rooftop owners will do anything in their power to fight renovations of any kind.
The rooftop association released this statement today:
The apparent decision to allow the Chicago Cubs to block the views of some Wrigleyville Rooftops is in direct violation of the current 20-year agreement entered into by the Cubs and the Rooftop owners. While Rooftop owners support the concept of renovating Wrigley Field, exact plans for outfield signage have not been provided to these contractual partners.
The in-force contract negotiated by federal mediators which enumerates revenue sharing between the Cubs and their neighbors – along with the accompanying landmark ordinance – protects the “uninterrupted sweep of the bleachers” until at least 2024. Any construction that interrupts the Rooftop views will effectually drive them out of business and be challenged in a court of law.
How much could the rooftops really sue the Cubs for?
Basically, a judge would have to decided how much monetarily the video board and any other advertisements would affect sales of rooftop seats.
My argument is that obstructed views would not affect the rooftop businesses significantly. The rooftops would, though, be majorly affected by the other renovations being done to the ballpark...as the Cubs add the amenities that only the rooftops currently provide. But putting that aside, we first need to look at how many rooftops would be significantly affected by the video board and any advertisements. In left field, only the Beyond The Ivy rooftop on, Waveland at the corner of Sheffield, would be horribly affected by a video board. I should add that this rooftop structure was built after the 2004 agreement the Cubs had with the rooftop owners. Perhaps one other rooftop in left field would be significantly affected by the board.
In right field, perhaps two rooftops will really be affected assuming the Cubs put them up in such a way that they would limit the obstruction.
So, we now say that 4 of the 17 rooftops are affected by the new signage, or for simplicity sake, we'll just say a quarter of them.
The rooftop owners currently take in an estimated $25 million a year. Over the span of 11 years, that is $275 million dollars. That's a ton of money.
But if the new signage only significantly affects 4 rooftops...we'll say this total only affects about a quarter of revenue involved...so that puts us at about $70 million total. I don't believe a judge could really say that the blockage will affect 100% of the revenues from those four rooftops. It seems reasonable to think that the rooftops will suffer a 50% reduction in revenue. That puts that total at $35 million.
$35 million...over 11 years.
That's a little over $3 million a year.
To put that in perspective, the Cubs currently get $4 million a year from the rooftops as part of their agreement.
If I'm the Cubs, the lawsuit probably wouldn't bother me too much. The only thing that could happen is it could delay when they could deploy the new video board.
I'm not a lawyer, a judge and no very little about these sort of things, but I'm just trying to use some logic here to get an idea of what is at stake. Please leave a comment if you have any different perspectives on this.
***************************
As an aside, I'm asking for any help from anyone who might have access to the text of the agreement between the rooftop owners and the Cubs.
The reason I ask about this is because a lot of things are being said about this agreement including the possibility that, as stated above, the agreement states that the Cubs may not alter the “uninterrupted sweep of the bleachers”...but with the added note of "without approval from the city."
If that is the case, the rooftop owners have little ground to stand on here.
This could very well be why Tom Tunney changed his tune and has basically turned his back on the rooftop owners.
Might there be a video board this year?
Numerous sources are now reporting that the Cubs and the city have a deal for renovating Wrigley and it will be announced sometime in the next few days.
Obviously the Ricketts family has wanted to have a deal done in time for them to finalize plans for the initial stage of the renovation so that construction can start immediately after the season ends this year.
However, I have to wonder if it is possible that some items on their wish list might happen before the end of the season...in particular, the video board.
It isn't unprecedented that the Cubs make major renovations to Wrigley in the middle of the season. Some of you might recall that the announcement that lights would be installed a Wrigley Field happened early in the 1988 season and those lights were install while the Cubs were on road trips during that year, with the change having been completed by late July. Heck, the Toyota sign was installed mid-season too. Even in the early days of the ballpark, the center field scoreboard was not completed until mid way through the 1937 season.
Since the installation of the video board should have little effect on any of the existing structure of the ballpark, and interfere very little with the existing seats in the ballpark, it seems entirely possible that the Cubs may look to have it installed as the season is in progress. The logistics and the size of the project to install a video board can't be much more complicated than putting up the lights in the ballpark.
We won't ultimately know what the timeline is for any of the renovations until there is an official announcement made, but we do know that the first phase of the renovations is likely to target the player facilities which happens to be the most important aspect of this renovation. I would also assume that they will want to target any major revenue generating aspects of the renovation early on as well...which would include signage in the outfield and the video board.
Obviously the Ricketts family has wanted to have a deal done in time for them to finalize plans for the initial stage of the renovation so that construction can start immediately after the season ends this year.
However, I have to wonder if it is possible that some items on their wish list might happen before the end of the season...in particular, the video board.
It isn't unprecedented that the Cubs make major renovations to Wrigley in the middle of the season. Some of you might recall that the announcement that lights would be installed a Wrigley Field happened early in the 1988 season and those lights were install while the Cubs were on road trips during that year, with the change having been completed by late July. Heck, the Toyota sign was installed mid-season too. Even in the early days of the ballpark, the center field scoreboard was not completed until mid way through the 1937 season.
Since the installation of the video board should have little effect on any of the existing structure of the ballpark, and interfere very little with the existing seats in the ballpark, it seems entirely possible that the Cubs may look to have it installed as the season is in progress. The logistics and the size of the project to install a video board can't be much more complicated than putting up the lights in the ballpark.
We won't ultimately know what the timeline is for any of the renovations until there is an official announcement made, but we do know that the first phase of the renovations is likely to target the player facilities which happens to be the most important aspect of this renovation. I would also assume that they will want to target any major revenue generating aspects of the renovation early on as well...which would include signage in the outfield and the video board.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
To DH or not to DH...that is the question.
Cubs Den, which has become one of the better Cubs blogs out there over the last few years, brought up the question of what to do with Dan Vogelbach, who is quickly becoming one of the most exciting and anticipated of the Cubs prospects.
Vogelbach may be only a few years away from getting a shot at a big league roster. The problem is, for the Cubs, he plays first base, a position that is firmly in the more than capable hands of Anthony Rizzo.
So what do the Cubs do with him?
*********************************
Over the last few years, the noise about the National League adopting the DH has increased. I personally hate the DH. Yes, I like seeing pitchers hit. I don't know why. I like pitching and defense. I like boring baseball. I'm a dork too.
But, it's time for that to be moved aside. The NL needs to adopt the DH. It's time.
The National League is the only major baseball league in the world that still has pitchers hit. The DH is a rule that is not going to go away. For the National League to hold on to the rule of having pitchers hit accomplishes nothing. No league that has switched to the DH is ever going to go back to having pitchers hit and the National League is not proving that its style of baseball is immensely superior to the baseball played in leagues with the DH.
In fact, in Major League play, the National League teams are at a distinct disadvantage. While American League teams have a dedicated designated hitter on their roster, the National League teams must use a bench player to fulfill the role when the rule is in use during the season and in the World Series.
To that point, the truth is, Major League Baseball is not an organization divided into 2 distinct "leagues" anymore. The labels "American League" and "National League" are really nothing more than that...labels. The two "leagues" are really nothing more than conferences like in basketball, football or hockey. There is one major baseball league. Bud Selig has dismantled the two league system by introducing inter-league play, combining the umpires of both leagues into a single group and closing the two league offices.
The only thing left that really separates the two leagues is the rules set. No major sports league has different rule sets split between the different teams.
That's the most important part of this argument now...rule sets really should be consistent in all of Major League Baseball.
Do I like the DH? No. Do I like inter-league play? No. Do I like that both the National League and American League have been combined into a single entity? No.
Unfortunately for me, it is to the point where I, and everyone who agrees with me, must accept that those three things are not going to change. As a result, it is time for the NL to adopt the DH.
And when that happens, the Cubs will have a place on their roster for Dan Vogelbach.
Vogelbach may be only a few years away from getting a shot at a big league roster. The problem is, for the Cubs, he plays first base, a position that is firmly in the more than capable hands of Anthony Rizzo.
So what do the Cubs do with him?
*********************************
Over the last few years, the noise about the National League adopting the DH has increased. I personally hate the DH. Yes, I like seeing pitchers hit. I don't know why. I like pitching and defense. I like boring baseball. I'm a dork too.
But, it's time for that to be moved aside. The NL needs to adopt the DH. It's time.
The National League is the only major baseball league in the world that still has pitchers hit. The DH is a rule that is not going to go away. For the National League to hold on to the rule of having pitchers hit accomplishes nothing. No league that has switched to the DH is ever going to go back to having pitchers hit and the National League is not proving that its style of baseball is immensely superior to the baseball played in leagues with the DH.
In fact, in Major League play, the National League teams are at a distinct disadvantage. While American League teams have a dedicated designated hitter on their roster, the National League teams must use a bench player to fulfill the role when the rule is in use during the season and in the World Series.
To that point, the truth is, Major League Baseball is not an organization divided into 2 distinct "leagues" anymore. The labels "American League" and "National League" are really nothing more than that...labels. The two "leagues" are really nothing more than conferences like in basketball, football or hockey. There is one major baseball league. Bud Selig has dismantled the two league system by introducing inter-league play, combining the umpires of both leagues into a single group and closing the two league offices.
The only thing left that really separates the two leagues is the rules set. No major sports league has different rule sets split between the different teams.
That's the most important part of this argument now...rule sets really should be consistent in all of Major League Baseball.
Do I like the DH? No. Do I like inter-league play? No. Do I like that both the National League and American League have been combined into a single entity? No.
Unfortunately for me, it is to the point where I, and everyone who agrees with me, must accept that those three things are not going to change. As a result, it is time for the NL to adopt the DH.
And when that happens, the Cubs will have a place on their roster for Dan Vogelbach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)