Wednesday, September 17, 2008

One Weekend in Milwaukee and...

...Cubs warm to idea of new park

How come this didn't come up the 400 other times they've played at Miller Park? OK so it's probably more like 50. But still. If they started on the planning now, by the time they'd get it done, all these players would be gone. So suck it up & play.

I don't even want to imagine the can of worms building a new Wrigley would open up. Wrigleyville or somewhere else? Play in Sox Park or Miller Park or just kinda tour the midwest? I just have one requirement, the new stadium better have a retractable roof on it...

Tear it down?
Should the Cubs abandon Wrigley and build a modern facility like Miller Park?
Yes (1275 responses) 40.0%
No (1915 responses) 60.0%
3190 total responses (Results not scientific, but profoundly moronic)

6 comments:

k-mad said...

I guess Fung won't be happy to hear that the Twins are moving from the Dinger Dome to an outdoor ballpark. I'll let him supply the observation about Minneapolis in April.

Zambrano was obviously drunk after Sunday's game.

Smiff said...

Of course, Fung is wrong again. Retractable roof stadiums SUCK. When you're in one you feel like you're still indoors with the roof open. For a day game, most of the playing field is covered in shadows. They have to be contructed in such a way that if you're sitting in the upper deck, you can't see parts of the outfield. They are difficult to build (remember the several workers who were killed when a crane collasped at Miller Park?) and more expensive. Give me an OUTDOOR park with an open outfield any day over these roofed monstrosities. So a couple games get rained out a year and have to be made up, boo hoo.

And dere's no way a retractable roof stadium can be built at the current site of Wrigley Field. It would be three times the size and take up several city blocks. So have fun driving out to phokking Schaumburg or some shit.

Fungster said...

Of course they're more difficult to build. Duh! That's why they don't. Of course they're more expensive to build. Duh! That's why they don't. Though having rainouts is also expensive, it would be interesting to see whether over the life of a stadium revenue lost from rainouts was more than putting a retractable roof on. But feeling like you're indoors? Really? That's a reason not to build them? What's so wrong with "feeling" like you're indoors? If you mean the wind isn't as much of a factor, that I can understand. But WTP does it matter what it "feels" like when you're in the stands?

So the Cubs must be really good, if they have such a good record despite the cramped clubhouse. Or maybe that's part of home field advantage - the cubbies are used to their sucky clubhouse, whereas the opposition isn't. Remember how over at Iowa they used to paint the visiting clubhouse pink? Same thing. So like Smiff me says phokk em. Though I would like to be able to pee in a urinal as opposed to a trough...

k-mad said...

Though I would like to be able to pee in a urinal as opposed to a trough...

So this is what it all boils down to. He would dismantle our cultural heritage just for a little privacy while he urinates.

Smiff said...

Fung is a simple man with simple pleasures.

Smiff said...

Fung, if you want to feel like you're sitting inside in the shaodows, go ahead. But Smiff would rather be sitting outside in the sun, like God intended baseball to be played.