Wrigley Field's Humongous Scoreboard
If I could only draw one tenth as well as Tim Souers. I'd draw a Gi-normous Scoreboard in centerfield that shrouded the entire 44th ward in a shadow darker than a solar eclipse.
Holy Cow! The Scoreboard that Overshadowed the 44th Ward. I'm talkin' Godzilla's shadow over Tokyo.
This little Aldermanic war of words was in today's Sun-Times:
Alderman Tom Tunney (44th) has made a bold suggestion to the Cubs: replace the iconic landmarked center field scoreboard with a video scoreboard that would generate millions without blocking anybody’s view.
“Put it in center field. Make it as big as you want,”
Holy Mackerel. Mess with the landmark status scoreboard? Alderman Tunney, how soon you forget. You legislated so that should never happen (unless the gi-normous scoreboard is compatible with the historic character of the field).
Mor-on the zany alderman and his puffy chest lingo, after the jump...
More from the Sun-Times piece: Chicago-based sports marketing consultant Marc Ganis likened Tunney’s scoreboard demolition idea to...
“...ripping out the ivy and putting scoreboards on the outfield walls.” The “desperate ploy” is proof-positive of “where the alderman’s loyalties lie,” Ganis said.
“If the scoreboard is not important to Tunney or the Landmarks Commission, it should not have been landmarked in the first place. But, it is entirely inappropriate to trade something that’s landmarked to protect a private business that’s the largest contributor to a local politician."
Wrigley Field was landmarked by Chicago's city council in January 2004 but it's not every square inch of the ballpark that's landmarked. It turns out only the four exterior walls, the grandstands, bleachers, roofs, the marquee sign and the centerfield scoreboard, plus brick walls and ivy were in the decree. Some things can be changed by the Cubs without city approval. One that can not be changed by the Cubs is the scoreboard, contrary to what the Alderman suggested today.
Of course Alderman Tunney knows this, as he was a part of the city council back then. In 2004, the Cubs wanted to renovate the bleachers, a project eventually approved that expanded the bleachers to overhang the external walls of the ballpark over the sidewalks of Sheffield and Waveland avenues. The bleachers are landmarked. The city council approved the project (with naturally a few political concessions including remote parking with shuttle buses, supplemental trash pickup and access to Lakeshore Drive at Addison).
Sherman, set the WayBack to 2004...
"Alderman Tom Tunney, who represents the 44th Ward, said the landmark designation would neither permit nor prohibit bleacher expansion. Tunney said only the City Council can approve a bleacher expansion over the sidewalk behind the bleachers. The Landmarks Commission would have the authority to review any approved expansion to ensure the design is compatible with the historic character of the field."
These most recent Tom Tunney antics come in the face of a proposal by NW Suburban Rosemont's Mayor Brad Stephens to give 25 acres of land for the Cubs to develop a ballpark complex. The parcel at Balmoral and the the Tri-State Tollway. Rosemont is a train stop on the Blue line train that shuttles from downtown Chicago to O'Hare. One of the Rosemont perks includes a lower 3% amusement tax (Chicago just raised that tax to 9% plus a Cook county tax upping the total amusement tax to 12%). David Kaplan wrote about this with some interesting math as om $75-100 million in revenues not going to the Cubs.
• Revenue generated by the rooftop owners: $24 million – 17 percent = $4 million (The Cubs receive 17 percent of revenue)
• Signage restrictions: $20-30 million
• Amusement taxes paid in 2011: $17 million
• Addt'l. night games (Avg. in MLB is 57): $1 million addt'l. per game = $27 million
• Street Festivals and more concerts: (Could have naming rights if a consistent number is allowed each season) = $10 million estimate.
So the threat of Rosemont just might unseat the alderman. Rhetoric from Rosemont's Mayor Stephens:
“Rosemont is very pro-development and we have a long history of experience dealing with big business," Stephens said. "From my position, you have a wealthy family willing to pay all of the costs of a major renovation project, which will bring a tremendous number of jobs to the community.
“However, they are not getting cooperation from the neighborhood. Even if the Cubs get a deal done now, what will happen when they need something else a year or two years down the road? This will not be the last time the community or the alderman will be difficult to deal with. The Cubs will never have those kinds of problems if they move to Rosemont."
The Chicago solution should be simple. I remember that old Chicago slogan, the City that Works. Yes, we know how Chicago works. Tom Ricketts just needs to grease Alderman Tunney's palm with more $$ than the rooftoppers. If Tom Ricketts has budgeted $300 million for the renovations, then I'd say they just need to budget $18 million toward the Alderman's Swiss bank account based campaign fund every election year. Tom Ricketts can call it a wash after Alfonso Soriano's contract comes off the books. Finally, the Mayor and City can take their cut from all those outfield electronic ad revenues. Ah, Carl Sandberg would be proud. Chicago, once again City of Big Shoulders and Bigger Scoreboards.
I am right there with you closing in on 60.
I don't care that much about "mortgaging" one player who is not only blocked by two guys, but is not ready to hit the majors for at least a couple years.
There is no reason why this team, this year, can't have a real shot at something NONE of us have experienced.
Further, I don't feel that even if they fall short that they have ruined their farm system.
I have made my opinion clear here, with others, Warren was shit on the Cubs save one spot start.
Trading for Warren, Warren sucking, getting Warren back for Chapman plus 3 prospects, sounds like Revenge of The Yankees on the former Boston executive. Old rivalries never die.
I pray to the heavens above Chapman doesn't suck for some reason, or he'll be booed out of town faster than a Todd Hundley revival meeting.
I'm kind of nostalgic for the Schwarber-for-Miller rumors.
This offseason, after some ridiculous playoff run and Chapman saving every game from here until the end of the postseason striking out 27/9innings, I welcome anyone to quote this thread and call me a dummy: I hate this trade, and my hate is 2 parts Chapman makes this team less likeable and 1 part that's a ridiculous overpay for 30 regular season innings and, at tops, 10 postseason innings. Already hoping they don't extend him.
btw...Thanks AZ Phil. I'm really enjoying your take on this trade.
I'm a bit disappointed on the Warren experience. Essentially they gave Castro away for crickets (OK, well they signed Zobrist with the Castro salary dump). Otherwise one might look at it as Chapman for Castro and our #1 minors prospect (Torres) + McKinney/Crawford. Seems pricey for a 2 month rental. We will see if this price tag is that steep in a relative way based on the remaining deadline deals for relievers.
Yep. One of the great things about this team (in addition to being really good at baseball) was the "likable" factor. Feels a bit different now. Who knows...maybe Chapman will be the king of the dance parties.
Here are some possible corresponding minor league moves we might see in the aftermath of the Chapman trade:
SOUTH BEND to MYRTLE BEACH: OF Donnie Dewees and INF Bryant Flete
EUGENE to SOUTH BEND: OF Robert Garcia and INF Vimael Machin
There is really no reason to replace Billy McKinney at Tennessee because both Chris Coghlan and Jorge Soler are doing their rehab at Tennessee.
And there are plenty of pitchers at Iowa. No need to replace Warren at AAA. .
I am 70 years old. The Cubs last played in the World Series in 1945. I was born in 1946. I hate to lose a prospect like Torres, but when the opportunity is there to get that World Series ring, you go for it. This was the idea in stock piling all this young talent. I would like to see Reddick added now and the Cubbies should be done.
I would expect Richard to accept an optional assignment because based on how he's played this season, there is a decent chance that he won't find work elsewhere. Rather stay and potentially get a ring. Same goes for Coghlan since he's struggled mightily this year.
Edwards should not go down. He's pitched very well and Maddon is very impressed with him. I would expect Grimm to go down for Cahill so he can get back on track (he's pitched better in July, but he's not getting enough appearances).
chitownmvp01: Indeed Clayton Richard would seem to be odd man out once Chapman reports, but Richard might accept a minor league assignment if he is promised a return to Chicago on 9/1 when MLB Active List rosters expand (Richard has minor league ioptions left).
The only player in the deal that would cause me a second thought is Gleyber Torres.
McKinney and Crawford are decent prospects but both are redundant/replaceable in the system and Warren was really only a middle-reliever or #6 starter, so to me it's really just Torres for Chapman.
There is no Comp pick for players traded mid-season. 2+ months of Chapman is it.
to get one of the best you have to give up one/some of your best...but it's a bit painful to watch the system's best prospect walk for any 2-3 month rental, especially one that's not an everyday player.
I assume Chapman will replace Richard on the roster, but who goes down when Cahill gets activated? Maybe Grimm?
And when Soler and Coghlan get healthy, how do they fit them on the roster when they're ready to be activated?
We are giving up a lot, but it's not like we're trading Addison Russell for 2+ months of Jason Hammel. When impact players become available, they are going to cost you. The other bids could also have been high.
Having Chapman as a rental is potentially less disruptive than having him come in with an extension in place.