The Chicago Cubs are 26-39, would be in last place if the Houston Astros were transferred to the the AL West midseason and feature a GM/manager combo at the top of every hot seat list.
So, naturally, it's time for everyone to talk about how much Wrigley Field sucks. Peter Gammons fired the first salvo owner, calling it "a dump" that's tying the hands of ownership. Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen, the preeminent Wrigley critic, chuckled in agreement with Gammo's assessment and now Sun-Times columnist Rick Morrissey is doing his best over-the-top-rope clothesline on the topic:
The best thing about Wrigley is the ivy on the outfield walls and the hand-operated scoreboard towering over center field. You can have the rest of it. It's a great park when you're looking at the field from your seat. It's not so great on the way to and from your seat.
Newsflash to everyone in the line for the wrecking ball: Wrigley Field hasn't been that great on the way to and from your seat for a long time now. Fenway Park, despite all of the nice renovations that Chicagoans drool over and demand, still isn't. Both parks were built nearly a century ago for a fanbase that was significantly slimmer and just a tad less accustomed to things like flat-screen televisions and overstuffed sofas.
But both continue to endure because, like beach cruiser bicycles and wooden roller coasters, we're willing to sacrifice comfort for the thrills of nostalgia. They also both still stand, in part, because both teams were successful on the field and at the gate during a time when the ballpark boom was in full swing. (Would either locale have been able to resist the siren call of a new park if Pedro Martinez and Sammy Sosa hadn't come along? If Harry Caray hadn't made Wrigley a tourist destination or Ted Williams wasn't there to remind New Englanders that Fenway was worth renovating, not rebuilding?)
So as thousands of athletes with nothing else to say have said: It is what it is.
But that's not to say recognize the need for big changes around Wrigley Field — currently a pipedream with taxpayers currently unwilling to foot any of the bill — or question its long-term viability as a big revenue stream. I'm just saying it's completely asinine to point out the park's flaws now that the team's record has turned the lights on and started to cut in on the beer buzz. Does anyone really think we wouldn't still be hearing the usual poetic odes to the corner of Clark and Addison if the team's record read 39-26?
Thing is, it's going to get better before it gets worse because this is the Ricketts family's big chance. With enough people looking around and questioning the accommodations — which, again, need a freshener just like they did during the 97-win season in 2008 and during the 2003 and '04 campaigns — there is a big opportunity for ownership to divert the public's gaze from other things in need of urgent repair. Namely a front office that can't evaluate or sign talent, a large-market payroll that plays like it belongs in Des Moines and a debt service incurred when the Ricketts overpaid for a team and a ballpark they apparently neglected to have a home inspector/accountant check out.
The Cubs aren't in first place, which is why we're talking about Wrigley's age in the first place.
沒有留言:
張貼留言