Moving the Friendly Confines?

Photo from a game I went to in 2009.

As an 8 year old I made my first pilgrimage to Wrigley Field. It was 1998, and I remember kind of being in awe of the entire trip there. The ride on the L was something special especially once we were above ground on the Red Line and saw the ballpark in the distance. Even with the troughs in the men's bathrooms, the concrete that wasn't quite as bad as it is now, and the posts blocking view of the game, Wrigley and the area around it has a certain charm you can't really get anywhere else. It's part of what has kept me coming back at least once every year since, along with my love for the Cubs.

And yet even with all that, I'm starting to find myself more in favor with ideas of relocation to a nearby town than I would have guessed. Monday saw a Comcast Sportsnet report about Rosemont mayor Brad Stephens offering a tract of land for the Cubs to use if they wanted to make the move. Right now no one seems to be taking the offer very seriously, but a Tribune writer did entertain the thought in an editorial.

The biggest obstacle I see here obviously lies with cost. Right now owner Tom Ricketts has a $500 million plan to renovate the park, including a complex built across the street on Clark. A brand new one is probably going to cost a lot more than that (probably in the neighborhood of a billion) and I understand and agree with the reluctance of taxpayers to want to foot the bill for a new stadium despite owners nationwide pulling the same fast one over on their neighbors (random biased note that is semi-related: this is why more teams should have similar ownerships to those of the Green Bay Packers, but legally we can't. This should change).

If the cost of a new place is not an issue (and since the land wouldn't cost anything), then I think it's worth it to at least publicly flirt with the idea and see if you can force the city's hand. The Cubs are the only team in the bigs with the issues of needing to cooperate with rooftop vendors across the street as well as having landmark restrictions limiting advertising. As much as I like not being bombarded by advertising everywhere, I'm also not actively looking for it as I'm usually paying attention to the game, so it's not really an issue for me there. That's more of a TV revenue thing, and would allow for more money to stream in.

The trickiest part is with some of the fans who go to Cubs games for the experience of going to Wrigley Field or for the "yuppies" as a lot of people call them who go just to get drunk (which is a waste of money... just saying). Just the prospect of a new ballpark is usually enough to get people to come. Putting it in a decent spot like Rosemont where you have O'Hare in the neighborhood, plus tentative access to public transportation there makes it a pretty attractive and not terribly inconvenient destination (assuming traffic doesn't end up awful because of this, which it usually is in that area during the evening rush anyway).

I'm not saying the Cubs absolutely have to move out there or absolutely have to stay. Whatever Tom Ricketts decides is the best course of action for the club is good enough for me, and hopefully the decision helps the club in the long run (and brings titles. Those are important). Either way, anyone who says they will stop being a Cubs fan if they move is not a true Cubs fan and should stop claiming as such. Yes, Wrigley is a part of the mystique of the Cubs franchise, but true Cubs fans will support them whether they're at Clark and Addison or in Rosemont. If you can get the city of Chicago to go along with renovation plans mostly unhindered and modernize Wrigley into less of a crumbling old relic, go for it. If not, and you can get a deal good for the franchise elsewhere in Chicagoland, don't be afraid to pull the trigger.

I love Wrigley Field as much as any Cubs fan. But if Chicago wants to play hardball, why not try to beat them at it?