Suave and charming Trib owner Sam Zell announced yesterday that he plans to sell the Cubs and Wrigley Field separately, and that he has no problem with the idea of selling naming rights to Wrigley, as well.
Now, as a Cubs fan (and baseball semi-purist in general), my immediate reaction to Zell's statement is to recoil in horror, and perhaps curl up in a fetal position while dry-heaving uncontrollably. But then again, it's worth remembering that Wrigley Field wasn't always called Wrigley Field. When the place was originally built in 1914 for the Chicago Whales of the short-lived Federal League, it was known as Weeghman Park. The Cubs moved in for the 1916 season, and from 1920-26 it was known simply as Cubs Park. Thereafter, it was renamed for Cubs owner and chewing gum magnate William Wrigley, Jr — thus essentially turning the Cubs' home into the world's biggest (and most famous) advertisement for Wrigley's gum.
The problem, as I see it, is that most modern corporate ballpark names have absolutely nothing to do with the communities that said parks are in. When you hear the words "Wrigley Field," visions of both the ballpark and the surrounding Chicago neighborhoods immediately come to mind. When you hear "US Cellular Field," you think of phones (or possibly cancer). I mean, how many of you even know where Bank One Ballpark is located?
Ultimately, I'm not completely opposed to the corporate re-naming of Wrigley Field, so long as the corporation has some kind of obvious long-term tie to Chicago. Mr. Beef Field? Old Style Park? Lincoln Park Towing Stadium? Those would all be totally acceptable to me.
Wow, Bacino's. Mmm. Takes me way back. Cecilia lived just three blocks south of there.
Posted by: stu | February 28, 2008 at 07:49 PM
White Palace System Field?
Posted by: Carole Pixler | February 28, 2008 at 09:15 PM