Wrigley Uncertain Too?

Now in this era of Cub uncertainty, even the fate of Wrigley Field is not certain. My first thought when hearing that the Tribune was hoping to pull Wrigley out of the deal was that maybe they were afraid Sam Zell would try to turn it into condos or something. But Wrigley has landmark status, and there is no way this can happen. The real move behind this must come from either Blagojevich, a true blue Cubs fan (wouldn't he love, as governor, to be technically in charge of Wrigley too?) or from Zell, who would rather not deal with any landmark properties.

As much as I am a believer in government's capacity to do good, and a skeptic of current ideas about small government and privatization, I still don't feel comfortable with the State taking over Wrigley Field. If that happens, the management of it will be done by bureaucrats who don't really care about the stadium or the team. The Cubs will be at odds with Wrigley's management.

The Tribune has maximized Wrigley's potential all these years out of a desire to turn a liability into an asset; when the Cubs didn't have lights before 1988, day baseball was glorified on TV, and shown on the Tribune's WGN. When the lights were installed, the neighborhood was able to work with the team to maintain a low number of night games. If the State of Illinois is in charge, it will be much more difficult to keep the day games, especially when the state cries poor.

Wrigley should be sold to someone who wants to profit off of its potential while doing his best to make sure he does not kill the golden goose. No government body should be put in charge of a priceless but aging building to be run for profit. Especially not this corrupt state, or worse yet, the city-unless you want corrupt Sox fans as Wrigley's new masters.