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 $$ than the rooftoppers. If Tom Ricketts has budgeted $300 million for the renovations, then I'd say they just need to budget $18 million toward the Alderman's Swiss bank account based campaign fund every election year. Tom Ricketts can call it a wash after Alfonso Soriano's contract comes off the books. Finally, the Mayor and City can take their cut from all those outfield electronic ad revenues. Ah, Carl Sandberg would be proud. Chicago, once again City of Big Shoulders and Bigger Scoreboards.
I'd prefer it not happen too.
it's a hell of a blockbuster, but it's for a guy who pitches 1/3rd of a season at an extreme premium considering the guy being traded and if the early extension $$$ rumors are true.
it's one of those things that is bringing a guy at the top his game, but something is nagging me that this trade piece could have been put to better use.
a huge part of me is all "hell yeah, top of the line producer"...another part of me is "hmm, that for that?"
Still don't want. Kinda hope they can't work out the extension.
obviously not, and I'm sure they did their homework...just hope they have some better answers than the Yankees
Chapman 12+ Career WAR. Currently 4.7:1 k-BB. With Rondon/Chapman/Strop/Nathan/Montgomery/Wood...Its the best pen I can recall other than Sutter or Lee Smith handling things themselves.
Its gonna suck if he gets injured, and it appears he's not the greatest of characters.
But, he'll have another Cuban to hang out with on the team.
I agree with the names you mention but there are lots of names being tossed around still and there's that small matter of Chapman agreeing to the extension.
Heyman, Wiatt, and Sharma are definitely reliable sources. Wiatt and Sharma have a ton of connections with the FO, and Heyman is one of the national guys who usually breaks stories first along with Rosenthal and Passan.
Twitter is even more nonsensical with names and rumors than usual right now. I'd wait for a real confirmation from someone reputable at this point before getting too worked up.
a'ite then. i mean, at least they're getting one of the best at a young/durable age even if there's a heavy price to pay for it.
i pretty much assumed this would be one of the last kinds of things they'd do...give up a top prospect (probably the best in the system) to get 1/2(ish) year of a reliever followed by multiple years locked in at his market value.
i wonder if there's other players going back/forth, too.
i mean, it's not like it's a horrible thing...this is just something that seems out of profile.
Suspend him for the rest of the year and get him ready for the Schwarber era?
Sadahev Sharma says the names are done. Torres and other parts for Chapman only.
i liked it better when Cubs were really good and likeable.
will be very curious how and if they address the DV incident.
We are coming into the realm of, ""this ain't the old Cubbies...", with the printing money machine coming online. They'll be able to handle it.
15m a year for 65-70 innings...phew.
i mean, technically he's worth it, but wow...the cubs? a'ite.
Heyman is reporting Trees + for Chapman is almost done. Rian Wiatt at BP Wrigleyville reports that the agreement is waiting on Chapman to agree to a 4-year, $60 million extension that is contingent on the trade.