Wrigley Field: Professional Sports' Senile Grandfather

Yesterday I wrote that it's a travesty that Sam Zell is looking to sell naming rights of Wrigley Field. While I still wholeheartedly believe that Zell is a moron, and while I also believe that my buddy Dan's idea to take a dump on his windshield is fantastic, some clarification is in order.

The Cubs need a new field. It's true. How am I so sure? I made a list of pros and cons; and as Tina Fey will tell you, a solid pro/con list yields worlds of information.

Pros of Wrigley Field:
1. Tradition
2. Ivy

3. Scoreboard

Cons of Wrigley Field:
1a. The aforementioned 'tradition' has given us a century of losing teams
1b. Curses and crybaby players
2a. The always-present smell of urine, perhaps due to..
2b. The pig trough urinals
3. Sitting and watching a game is uncomfortable, which is far from ideal
4. Old Style
5. Below-average food
6. Bar scene that's only enjoyable if you're wearing your frat jacket
7. Where's the jumbotron?
8. Really, the only stats you're giving me are avg, hr, and rbi? Is this 1940? Are the Germans in Poland?
9. Ok, so where do I park?
10. Seriously...WHERE THE HELL DO I PARK??
11. 7th Inning Stretch Celebrity Singers

Wrigley Stadium. What an idiot. As you can see, the cons far outweigh the pros here. The Cubs need a new place to play. Wrigley would still stand, of course. It's a historical landmark at this point. And by the way, it's officially time to get a new facility when the one you're using has already been deemed a historical landmark. Good lord.

Look, if this were the 1960s and 70s and every new stadium was a domed eyesore with astroturf inside, I'd be singing a different tune. But we are in a glorious era of stadium design. Every new construction tries to outdo the previous best. New parks are a beautiful place to watch a game, there's ample parking(hellooooo, tailgating!), the food is delicious, and the latest technology is implemented in the form of kickass jumbotrons that hold the attention spans of even the most rabid of baseball destesters. Plus, if your team blows(Washington in 2008, Milwaukee in 2001, the Cubs in 20??) a new stadium brainwashes the fans, son! It's an instant seat-seller!

As I mentioned above, there's way too much terrible history to keep playing in Wrigley Field. If you combine the old-balls architecture, the awful smell, and the horrendous events that have kept the Cubs from hoisting a World Series trophy for a whole...damn...century...well, why in the world are we still playing there? It's ugly and it's a bitch! Time to throw her to the curb!

I can hear all you naysayers now. "Blasphemy! How dare you, L Tray? What about the scoreboard? For God's sakes, what about the IVY???? WAAAAAAA!!!"

Shut up. I've talked to so many people that want to keep Wrigley open for those two reasons alone. Scoreboard and ivy. Are you kidding me? I'm fairly certain it wouldn't be rocket science to have another ivy-covered wall and a similar(aka improved) scoreboard in a new stadium. What's that? It won't be the same? That's right. As you take in the sights, your other senses won't be assaulted by the delicacies of a 96-year-old stadium.

So where do we build the new stadium? I don't care. The suburbs. The city. On Lake Michigan(that'd be sweet). Anywhere but where it is now. To clarify, I stand by what I wrote yesterday. If the Cubs have to play in Wrigley, it needs to be named Wrigley. It's tradition. It's what's kept the Cubs as sports' punch line for so long. But if a new stadium is built, I am perfectly fine with the naming rights being sold to the highest bidder. Name it Bartman Field, if possible. That'd be a nice middle finger extended to tradition.