This morning I linked Ozzie Guillen’s colorful take on Wrigley Field. Last week Deadspin did its Deadspiny thing with the place. Of course, neither Ozzie nor Deadspin can be said to represent mainstream sentiment (the latter hates everything; the former lives for chaos), so this morning Stu Courtney of the Sun-Times takes up the subject. After noting the pros and cons (its a hard place to work but a magical place to play; its a good place to watch a ballgame, but when you have to use the word “urine” to describe the ambiance, something is amiss) he asks the fans’ opinion:
What’s your take on Wrigley: shrine or dump? Is it an enjoyable place to watch a game? Would you like to see it modernized with a Jumbotron, an automated scoreboard and more family-friendly features that would make it easier to bring the kids? How would you rate it compared to other big-league ballparks, such as the Cell?
Taking everything into consideration, what’s your vote on Wrigley Field: thumbs up or thumbs down?
OK, maybe Courtney is trying to stir up crap too, because no one in their right mind wants a Jumbotron, dot races, a plethora of kids’ promotions, and all of that jazz, do they?
How about this: a structural rehab, whatever can be done to expand clubhouses and make them more comfortable, and a minimalist, conservative approach to any expansions or upgrades a la what has happened to Fenway Park over the past handful of years. If it means that the Cubs play on the south side, in Milwaukee or, hell, in Grant Park for a year, fine, but the goal should obviously be to fix what’s broken, not “modernize” it in the aspirational sense of the term.