In a book on the history of ballparks I was reading that the cubs, or whatever team they used to be called way back when. They played ball in the old West side grounds. I'm making an observation that something similar to that park and location would be the only legitimate way to truly replace Wrigley Field. It would have to be a complete throwback and yet have some characteristics of Wrigley. I know tons of people would probably disagree because of the scene in Wrigleyville, but it just might be able to be re-created in the suburbs and with a few more conveniences.Does this make sense to anyone? Can you say: today's attendance 65,252 What an awesome spectacle it could create.
2006-08-10 16:44:35 · 14 answers · asked by mannymota 2 in Sports ➔ Baseball
I honestly don't think that Wrigley should be replaced. I also feel that Yankee Stadium and Fenway should always stay as they are, although Yankee Stadium has already been replaced. I think that baseball should have stayed as a National pastime where we could watch the game, remember great players of the past, and not have to pay an arm and a leg to get into the stadium. Unfortunately Baseball is losing its touch of magic. Instead of remember great athletes and amazing stories and accomplishments we are going to remember steroids and scandals. Baseball seems to be losing its future, It really should hang on to its past.
2006-08-10 16:53:16 · answer #1 · answered by jerbaby2002 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I just visited Wrigley for the first time this past summer. It was the most amazing experience I have ever had at a ballpark. I saw the Mets play the Cubs, and it was incredible. The feeling at the park cannot be described. I don't think it should ever be replaced. It has too much history and is considered one of the best places to visit in the US.
2006-08-11 04:22:25 · answer #2 · answered by . 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm not a Cubs fan, but it would be nice to keep a few of the old ballparks, like Wrigley Field and Fenway.......Yankee would have been nice but that's gonna go.
Wrigley is unique with it's ivy wall and everything....they should keep it for as long as possible.
2006-08-11 00:20:56 · answer #3 · answered by brewbeer212 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Cubs have not won the World Series since the moved into Wrigley. Forget about billy goats and Steve Bartman - it's their ballpark that's cursed.
2006-08-11 00:34:13 · answer #4 · answered by JerH1 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Everything eventually has to be replaced but why not just rebuild the exact same structure but with modern materials. That way they can gte rid of those posts that block views.
I do think, if anything, the ballpark has to remain in Chicago per se. Moving the Cubs to the northern 'burbs may be moving them closer to its fan base but it'll lose that unique atmosphere.
2006-08-11 00:04:40 · answer #5 · answered by fugutastic 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm a Yankee fan and I'm upset that the Yankees are leaving the house that ruth built. No the cubs shouldn't its the history of the game and how baseball has been passed through ages.
2006-08-10 23:58:04 · answer #6 · answered by monte_x2 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Even if they move it to a stadium with seating for 65000 it's not like the stadium will be filled up anyway. If you ever come to California go see an Angel or Dodger game. Both teams average about fifty thousand a game.
2006-08-11 12:50:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It would take something away from Chicago to move The Friendly Confines away from Wrigleyville .
2006-08-10 23:52:12 · answer #8 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no way wrigley field is just fine the way it is y should it be replaced. don't fix what's not broken
2006-08-11 17:22:56 · answer #9 · answered by jeangray26 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are too few historic (original) parks remaining.
KEEP WRIGLEY!
2006-08-11 01:09:57 · answer #10 · answered by leehoustonjr@prodigy.net 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋