MLB Stadiums

[bosrs1]

Pretty much every baseball team is satisfied with where they play with the exception of the A's, Rays, Marlins who are getting a new stadium, and Toronto. All the 70's stadiums have basically been transformed like Kaufmann and Angel. The classics wont be leaving anytime soon Dodger, Wrigley, Fenway. Other than that everyone is happy with their ballpark.

Actually I don't think I've heard much about Toronto being unhappy with theirs either now that you mention it.

[omnivore]

The Rays will get a new park or move within a few years. No way MLB wants them languishing down there with the Marlins anchored now into a new park.

[crashcarson15]

Pretty much every baseball team is satisfied with where they play with the exception of the A's, Rays, Marlins who are getting a new stadium, and Toronto. All the 70's stadiums have basically been transformed like Kaufmann and Angel. The classics wont be leaving anytime soon Dodger, Wrigley, Fenway. Other than that everyone is happy with their ballpark.

Actually I don't think I've heard much about Toronto being unhappy with theirs either now that you mention it.

I've heard a lot of people want an outdoor park and that there's a chance that they could have one in the next 5 or 10 years... Pretty sure I've read that here before.

[Gothamite]

The Rays will get a new park or move within a few years. No way MLB wants them languishing down there with the Marlins anchored now into a new park.

They can't move. If they could, they'd already be gone.

They have decades left on their St pete lease, and all the apologists say that nobody will go so long as the park isn't in Tampa. Catch-22.

After the Coyotes, the Rays are the one team I think HAS to move. The fans have clearly stated that they don't want the team in both cases. The situations are actually eerily similar - talented young team (even more so in the case of the Rays) playing before whole sections of empty seats. But it won't be easy getting them out of their bad market.

[infrared41]

Pretty much every baseball team is satisfied with where they play with the exception of the A's, Rays, Marlins who are getting a new stadium, and Toronto. All the 70's stadiums have basically been transformed like Kaufmann and Angel. The classics wont be leaving anytime soon Dodger, Wrigley, Fenway. Other than that everyone is happy with their ballpark.

Since we're on the topic (sort of)...

Am I the only one here who wonders of Wrigley and Fenway are nothing more than outdated -holes? When it comes to baseball, I'm all about tradition but it seems to me that those two parks may have outlived their usefulness. I've never been to either of them so I can't speak from experience. I have however spent many an evening at old Tiger Stadium. The history and tradition there was great; for about two games. After the novelty wore off, Tiger Stadium was just a cramped stadium with lousy sight lines and awful restrooms.

People I know who have been to Wrigley and Fenway say you should go see a game at either place for the history. Then they say you should never go back because, other than the history, everything about the two places sucks.

[bosrs1]

Pretty much every baseball team is satisfied with where they play with the exception of the A's, Rays, Marlins who are getting a new stadium, and Toronto. All the 70's stadiums have basically been transformed like Kaufmann and Angel. The classics wont be leaving anytime soon Dodger, Wrigley, Fenway. Other than that everyone is happy with their ballpark.

Since we're on the topic (sort of)...

Am I the only one here who wonders of Wrigley and Fenway are nothing more than outdated -holes? When it comes to baseball, I'm all about tradition but it seems to me that those two parks may have outlived their usefulness. I've never been to either of them so I can't speak from experience. I have however spent many an evening at old Tiger Stadium. The history and tradition there was great; for about two games. After the novelty wore off, Tiger Stadium was just a cramped stadium with lousy sight lines and awful restrooms.

People I know who have been to Wrigley and Fenway say you should go see a game at either place for the history. Then they say you should never go back because, other than the history, everything about the two places sucks.

I've been to Fenway and since it's renovation I see no reason why it should be replaced. It's a very nice park that embodies all the traits the new stadiums are so desperate to emulate. The fans love it too. And most importantly it sells out almost every night over the last 15 years and has enabled the Sox to be the second richest team in MLB.

[bosrs1]

Pretty much every baseball team is satisfied with where they play with the exception of the A's, Rays, Marlins who are getting a new stadium, and Toronto. All the 70's stadiums have basically been transformed like Kaufmann and Angel. The classics wont be leaving anytime soon Dodger, Wrigley, Fenway. Other than that everyone is happy with their ballpark.

Actually I don't think I've heard much about Toronto being unhappy with theirs either now that you mention it.

I've heard a lot of people want an outdoor park and that there's a chance that they could have one in the next 5 or 10 years... Pretty sure I've read that here before.

But don't they have an outdoor park already if they open the retractable roof? I think you're thinking of the Rays. They're the only team left indoors.

[Bmac]

Pretty much every baseball team is satisfied with where they play with the exception of the A's, Rays, Marlins who are getting a new stadium, and Toronto. All the 70's stadiums have basically been transformed like Kaufmann and Angel. The classics wont be leaving anytime soon Dodger, Wrigley, Fenway. Other than that everyone is happy with their ballpark.

Since we're on the topic (sort of)...

Am I the only one here who wonders of Wrigley and Fenway are nothing more than outdated -holes? When it comes to baseball, I'm all about tradition but it seems to me that those two parks may have outlived their usefulness. I've never been to either of them so I can't speak from experience. I have however spent many an evening at old Tiger Stadium. The history and tradition there was great; for about two games. After the novelty wore off, Tiger Stadium was just a cramped stadium with lousy sight lines and awful restrooms.

People I know who have been to Wrigley and Fenway say you should go see a game at either place for the history. Then they say you should never go back because, other than the history, everything about the two places sucks.

Yeah, that's pretty much dead on. Wrigley was great for the atmosphere and tradition. It was cool to be there. But the actual watching of the game was bad. I had pretty good seats and I still couldn't see past the upper deck overhang. It's a wonderful ballpark to visit sometime, but not great for games. I think a modernized Wrigley Field II would be good.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Pretty much every baseball team is satisfied with where they play with the exception of the A's, Rays, Marlins who are getting a new stadium, and Toronto. All the 70's stadiums have basically been transformed like Kaufmann and Angel. The classics wont be leaving anytime soon Dodger, Wrigley, Fenway. Other than that everyone is happy with their ballpark.

Since we're on the topic (sort of)...

Am I the only one here who wonders of Wrigley and Fenway are nothing more than outdated -holes? When it comes to baseball, I'm all about tradition but it seems to me that those two parks may have outlived their usefulness. I've never been to either of them so I can't speak from experience. I have however spent many an evening at old Tiger Stadium. The history and tradition there was great; for about two games. After the novelty wore off, Tiger Stadium was just a cramped stadium with lousy sight lines and awful restrooms.

People I know who have been to Wrigley and Fenway say you should go see a game at either place for the history. Then they say you should never go back because, other than the history, everything about the two places sucks.

Yeah, that's pretty much dead on. Wrigley was great for the atmosphere and tradition. It was cool to be there. But the actual watching of the game was bad. I had pretty good seats and I still couldn't see past the upper deck overhang. It's a wonderful ballpark to visit sometime, but not great for games. I think a modernized Wrigley Field II would be good.

I can't really argue. When I went to Fenway for the first time in 2002, I was shocked at how outdated it felt with chain-link fences rusting everywhere and wooden chairs that were about 2/3s the size of Wrigley's. However, I've been told they brought it up to date now with the renovations, so now Wrigley is the outdated one in need of renovations that keep being promised and are never delivered.

"All" Wrigley needs is the grandstand replaced. The bleachers, aside from the very top center and scoreboard, are 5 years old. That was a replacement, not a renovation. If they do the same for the grandstand and preserve that view, no one will care. No one marvels at the great concourses or the wait time to get out, they like the view from their seat (despite the additions of towering bleacher systems on rooftops that used to only have lawn chairs). That's the atmosphere.

Also I'll give you a seating hint: stay away from the 200s unless you are in the corners of the outfield or you won't see the scoreboard or a fly ball due to the overhang mentioned above (they now have flat-screens pinned to the back of the suites you're staring at, though). ANY seat in the upper deck is better and probably cheaper, though they've been rectiying that lately. Short of sitting directly behind a pole, only one spot on the field is usually obscured by it, and an easy move of the head fixes that in most cases. It always surprises me how many people sit in those crappy seats just to be in the lower deck, but I think most just don't know.

All that said, the first time I went to Miller Park it felt like a mall, but now I go and think, "Chicago needs one of these." Maybe I've been to too many freezing Opening Days at Wrigley and after sitting at Miller with it snowing outside... but I digress. It's a short drive away.

[Gothamite]

Wanna trade? I hate Miller Park; it's everything I dislike about modem ballparks.

I'd rather be cold and sit in a small seat outdoors than watch my game in a sterile aircraft hanger.

[TBGKon]

The Rays will get a new park or move within a few years. No way MLB wants them languishing down there with the Marlins anchored now into a new park.

True, but remember that it took the Marlins just shy of 20 years to get said new ballpark. The Rays are entering year 13.

[Gothamite]

The Rays' lease runs through 2027. St Pete isn't going to let them out of it so they can play in Tampa. That will severely hamper their search for a new ballpark, since their scope is limited to one city.

They'll have to find a way to fix their failed market, not run to a new one.

[bosrs1]

The Rays' lease runs through 2027. St Pete isn't going to let them out of it so they can play in Tampa. That will severely hamper their search for a new ballpark, since their scope is limited to one city.

They'll have to find a way to fix their failed market, not run to a new one.

Is it really a "failed market" though. Their attendance isn't that far off the league average despite playing in a downed space ship with no big name players. If anything I'd say they've finally established themselves in their market.

Plus regarding their stadium push, every indication is that they want an outdoor stadium. To which I ask, why? Why in the name of all that is holy would you want to play outside in Florida during the summer? Have they never actually felt the oppressive humidity? I mean look at their cross state rivals in Miami, they were drawing as low as 500 people a game outside and were desperate to get inside in their new park. And you want to build one that is either pure outdoors or has that "sail" roof that does nothing to protect people from the heat and humidity? Are you freakin nuts?! *end rant*

[CC97]

Pretty much every baseball team is satisfied with where they play with the exception of the A's, Rays, Marlins who are getting a new stadium, and Toronto. All the 70's stadiums have basically been transformed like Kaufmann and Angel. The classics wont be leaving anytime soon Dodger, Wrigley, Fenway. Other than that everyone is happy with their ballpark.

Actually I don't think I've heard much about Toronto being unhappy with theirs either now that you mention it.

I've heard a lot of people want an outdoor park and that there's a chance that they could have one in the next 5 or 10 years... Pretty sure I've read that here before.

Not happening... the only way Toronto's getting a new stadium is if an NFL team comes to town and they get the new stadium all to themselves leaving the Jays in the Rogers Centre

[BBTV]

I've been to Wrigley a few times, and went to Fenway last summer. I was by myself, so I was just talking to random people who were sitting around me. They were all season ticket holders and had all had been to CBP the last time the Red Sox played there, and said that despite the history and everything, they'd trade parks in a heartbeat. Basically, once the one-time novelty wears off, it's a hole. They liked being able to see the field from the concourse no matter where you were at, the width of the concourses, the number of bathrooms, the sightlines, the efficiencies provided by the technology used in the food / beer stands, etc. Having those types of conveniences doesn't take away from the actual baseball experience at all (you could argue that there are other things that take away from it, but that's a different discussion.) I think that Wrigley is much better than Fenway, but still could use a major renovation to bring it up to even close to the level of some newer parks. I'd hate to see either park go, but as a fan, once you get past the history, you're really not getting nearly as much for your money as at the newer parks.

[bosrs1]

I've been to Wrigley a few times, and went to Fenway last summer. I was by myself, so I was just talking to random people who were sitting around me. They were all season ticket holders and had all had been to CBP the last time the Red Sox played there, and said that despite the history and everything, they'd trade parks in a heartbeat. Basically, once the one-time novelty wears off, it's a hole. They liked being able to see the field from the concourse no matter where you were at, the width of the concourses, the number of bathrooms, the sightlines, the efficiencies provided by the technology used in the food / beer stands, etc. Having those types of conveniences doesn't take away from the actual baseball experience at all (you could argue that there are other things that take away from it, but that's a different discussion.) I think that Wrigley is much better than Fenway, but still could use a major renovation to bring it up to even close to the level of some newer parks. I'd hate to see either park go, but as a fan, once you get past the history, you're really not getting nearly as much for your money as at the newer parks.

Well they better get used to it. Fenway isn't going anywhere for at least 40 years according to the Henry ownership group. And that assumes they don't just renovate it again in 2050. Guess it depends on what fans you talk to. The ones I've gone with have admittedly all been over 35 yrs old, but they all say they'd never trade it for anything. It's got a charm and a sense of permanence that the other stadiums just can't match. And the gameday experience wasn't bad either. Then again I didn't sit under the overhang on the first deck because I know better .

[infrared41]

I've been to Wrigley a few times, and went to Fenway last summer. I was by myself, so I was just talking to random people who were sitting around me. They were all season ticket holders and had all had been to CBP the last time the Red Sox played there, and said that despite the history and everything, they'd trade parks in a heartbeat. Basically, once the one-time novelty wears off, it's a hole. They liked being able to see the field from the concourse no matter where you were at, the width of the concourses, the number of bathrooms, the sightlines, the efficiencies provided by the technology used in the food / beer stands, etc. Having those types of conveniences doesn't take away from the actual baseball experience at all (you could argue that there are other things that take away from it, but that's a different discussion.) I think that Wrigley is much better than Fenway, but still could use a major renovation to bring it up to even close to the level of some newer parks. I'd hate to see either park go, but as a fan, once you get past the history, you're really not getting nearly as much for your money as at the newer parks.

Exactly. From an architectural standpoint would it be that difficult to build a new Fenway or Wrigley? Isn't the new Yankee Stadium basically an updated copy of the old one? Citi Field incorporated aspects of Ebbets Field. Why not build new parks with all the same quirks, the Green Monster, the ivory, the centerfield scoreboard, etc., but with all the new technology and amenities?

[McCall]

I've been to Wrigley a few times, and went to Fenway last summer. I was by myself, so I was just talking to random people who were sitting around me. They were all season ticket holders and had all had been to CBP the last time the Red Sox played there, and said that despite the history and everything, they'd trade parks in a heartbeat. Basically, once the one-time novelty wears off, it's a hole. They liked being able to see the field from the concourse no matter where you were at, the width of the concourses, the number of bathrooms, the sightlines, the efficiencies provided by the technology used in the food / beer stands, etc. Having those types of conveniences doesn't take away from the actual baseball experience at all (you could argue that there are other things that take away from it, but that's a different discussion.) I think that Wrigley is much better than Fenway, but still could use a major renovation to bring it up to even close to the level of some newer parks. I'd hate to see either park go, but as a fan, once you get past the history, you're really not getting nearly as much for your money as at the newer parks.

Exactly. From an architectural standpoint would it be that difficult to build a new Fenway or Wrigley? Isn't the new Yankee Stadium basically an updated copy of the old one? Citi Field incorporated aspects of Ebbets Field. Why not build new parks with all the same quirks, the Green Monster, the ivory, the centerfield scoreboard, etc., but with all the new technology and amenities?

Here's the page from ballparks.com when they were looking at building a New Fenway Park.

My dad and two of my brothers went to Wrigley a few years ago when they played the Cardinals. They said it was "charming" and if you had the oppurtunity to go you should take it for the historical factor, but it's not really a place you'd wanna keep going to on a regular basis. Though we're not loyal Cubs fans so it's kind of an outsider's opinion.

And the Rays proposed stadium had the retractable netting thing that would prevent rainouts but not necessarily the heat. But it was to be built in St. Petersburg. They put it on hold while they checked out other sites, all in St. Pete, so they could very well get a new one in the coming years without violating the lease. They haven't really looked into crossing the bay.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Dp

[CubsFanBudMan]

Wanna trade? I hate Miller Park; it's everything I dislike about modem ballparks.

I'd rather be cold and sit in a small seat outdoors than watch my game in a sterile aircraft hanger.

Well, no. But Wrigley does need work. It's time to fix it before they have to move it to the suburbs. If that means playing for a year at the Cell, so be it.

But I have my doubts, as two separate owners can't even build a small "triangle" building next door that was guaranteed as part of the bleacher reconstruction five years ago. That building would improve the area around the park immensely and provide an entryway like Baltimore near the warehouse. Instead, they want to jam some beer tents out on Sheffield. The new owners are so cheap they're waiting for a handout before they make a move.

Anyway, I used to think the same way about Miller Park, but it's grown on me as a third "Chicago" option. The great seats I've had might have swayed me as well. Maybe the Cubs experience is just finally starting to wear on me.