Why the Cubs Can Never Leave Wrigley Field

When you think of the Chicago Cubs, one of baseball's oldest franchises, you are instantly swallowed by memories and images of Harry Carey,  seventh inning stretches, day games in the warm summer sun, historic Wrigley Field and its assets such as Ivy, and a hand operated scoreboard, and just having a good time. There is nothing wrong with that, but what you also think of is the "curse of the billy goat", the 1969 Cubs' late season collapse against the miracle Mets, Steve Bartman and 1908. That, however, is something wrong.

The former is the reason why the Chicago Cubs can never leave Wrigley Field. Wrigley Field is the Cubs' greatest asset. People from all over the world come to catch a ballgame there. If the Cubs didn't play at Wrigley Field, the Cubs would have nothing to sell.

Lets go back in time for a bit. During the 1960s and 1970s teams starting leaving their old ballparks and started moving into the "cookie cutter" stadiums. As was the case in Washington, Atlanta, Houston, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and Minneapolis. This lead to the end of the jewel box stadiums such as Forbes Field, Crosley Field, Shibe Park, Sportsman's Park, and League Park. This left Comiskey Park, Fenway Park, Tiger Stadium, and Wrigley Field, and with the lone exception of Kauffman Stadium opening up in 1973, as the only baseball only park until New Comiskey Park was christened in 1991.

Lets say that the NFL's Chicago Bears, and the Chicago Cubs both decided to leave Wrigley Field in 1970, and instead of the Bears moving to Soldier Field, the two teams teamed up and built a cookie cutter stadium somewhere in town. Fast forward a bit to opening day 1984, the Cubs haven't been to a playoff game since 1945, since 1972 the only non-losing season the Cubs had was in 1977 and that's with a .500 record. The collapse of 1969 is still a close memory, and finally: all the old Cubs' greats are long retired; Ernie Banks, Ron Santo, Billy Williams, and Don Kessinger. But instead of beautiful Wrigley Field, the Cubs play at a stadium similar to Veterans park, or Three Rivers. With all due respect, the Cubs wouldn't draw anyone on those premises.

But, its because of the Tribune Company, and WGN, that allowed the Cubs to seize control of the city. When WGN became a superstation in 1984, Harry Carey's seventh inning stretches, day ballgames, and the spin machine of Wrigley Field the Cubs became a huge attraction. From 1984-1993 the Cubs drew 16,937,216 which averages to about 1,693,721 a season. But, from 1974-1983 the Cubs only drew 12, 191,554 which averages about 1,219,155 a season. In 1981 the Cubs only drew 565,637. But as the team slowly started to get better in 1982, and 1983, and with the emergence of WGN as a Superstaion the Cubs would be able to become the money machine they are.

For most of the rest of the 1980s and 1990s the Cubs would continue to flirt with .500, but usually were below it posting losing seasons in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, and 1999. Attendance was still up though. 

Tom Ricketts, the current owner of the Cubs, knows that he cannot leave Wrigleyville. A move to the suburbs would be disastrous. A ballpark in the nothern burbs, or even a new park downtown wouldn't have the appeal that Wrigley has. Sure, its a Chicago ballpark so people would come out, and it would make money, but there would be pressure to win. When people come to your ballpark regardless of the teams appearance, there is zero incentive to win. 

This is a luxury the Cubs have. The crosstown White Sox don't have that, they White Sox know they have to at least try to be competitive to get people to come out the games. White Sox fans get called out for that, but given the two choices. But which is better? Under the radar, potentially good, and reasonable prices (in theory, White Sox ticket prices prior to 2013 were really, really, steep) or root for the lovable losers and dish out a lot of money for tickets?

If the Cubs had been able to seal the deal in 1945, or 2003, then it wouldn't matter honestly. But curse of the billy goat became the Cubs' biggest blessing.

1961: Winners and Losers

For decades baseball was a pretty stagnant thing when it came to its teams. When the National League recognized the American League as an actual Major League in 1901 and then adopted the World Series in 1903, baseball was pretty much a stalwart. From 1903 until 1952 the original 16 teams played in the same cities. In the American League you had the Boston Red Sox, Chicago White Sox, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, New York Yankees (played as the Baltimore Orioles from 1901-1902), St. Lois Browns (Played as the Milwaukee Brewers in 1901), Philadelphia Athletics, and Washington Senators.

While in the National League you had the Boston Braves, Brooklyn Dodgers, Chicago Cubs, Cincinnati Reds, New York Giants, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, and St. Louis Cardinals. Obviously, teams would move since then. In 1953 the Boston Braves moed to Milwaukee to become the Milwaukee Braves. In 1954 the Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Orioles. In 1955 the Philadelphia A’s moved to Kansas City, and in 1961 the original Washington Senators moved to Minnesota to become the Twins. 

Expansion would happen in 1961 as the American League would get a brand new Washington Senators team (these Senators would eventually moved to Texas in 1971 and become the Rangers), and the California Angels. Fans of these two new teams had to be excited, but their teams would be precedence on whom to model.

So, let us take a look back into the spring of 1961, and evaluate the original 16 MLB franchises and rank them. If you’re wondering if I arbitrarily chose 1961, I did not. I chose it because it would be a fair judgement. The 16 teams had been playing for 60 years in baseball.

  American League Rankings:

1. New York Yankees – 18 World Series titles, 29 AL Pennants 
2. Kansas City/Philadelphia A’s – 5 World Series / 8 AL Pennants 
3. Detroit Tigers – 2 World Series, 7 AL Pennants 
4. Cleveland Indians – 2 World Series, 3 AL Pennants 
5. Boston Red Sox – 5 World Series Titles, 11 AL Pennants 
6. Chicago White Sox – 2 World Series, 5 AL Pennants 
7. Minnesota Twins/Washington Senators – 1 World Series, 3 AL Pennants 
8. Baltimore Orioles/St. Louis Browns – 0 World Series, 1 AL Pennant 

So, looking at this the numbers may seem kind of messed up, let me explain. Despite having 5 World Series titles, the Red Sox are placed 6th due to that whole not winning anything since 1918, which was entering year 44 in 1962. Same with Chicago, they hadn't won a World Series since 1917. Luckily, the saving grace for the disgraced Sox teams was the fact that the Browns/Orioles have never won a World Series until this point, and the Senators hadn't won a World Series since 1924.

 National League Ranking:

1. St. Louis Cardinals – 6 World Series, 9 NL Pennants 
2. San Francisco/New York Giants – 5 World Series, 14 NL Pennants 
3. Pittsburgh Pirates – 3 World Series, 5 NL Pennants 
4. Los Angeles/Brooklyn Dodgers – 2 World Series, 10 NL Pennants 
5. Milwaukee/Boston Braves – 2 World Series, 4 NL Pennants 
6. Cincinnati Reds – 2 World Series, 3 NL Pennants 
7. Chicago Cubs – 2 World Series, 10 NL Pennants 
8. Philadelphia Phillies – 0 World Series, 2 NL Pennants. 

 As with the A’s and Red Sox, I gave the Reds the nod over the Cubs because of that whole 1908 thing (which was entering year 53). But I did put the Cubs over the Phillies because even though it had been 53 years, quantity over quality at that point.

 Looking back it all, its kind of crazy that after 59 years of baseball that two franchises never won it at that point. And that three teams would be in droughts. Meaning that from 1918 through 1960 only 11 teams were winning titles. Looking forward though, things would get better for some. The Red Sox, and White Sox would end their droughts in back to back seasons (2004, and 2005). The Phillies would finally win their first title in 1980. The title-less Orioles would have great success in the 1960s through the early 1980s winning 3 titles (1966, 1970, 1983) and 6 Pennants (1966, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1979, 1983) in a 17 season stretch. In 2010, the San Francisco Giants would win their first World Series since moving to the Bay Area.

For the downers: The Chicago Cubs are still waiting for another World Series title. The Indians have won two pennants since (1995, and 1997) but haven’t won a World Series since 1948. Its too hard to gauge teams now. With expansion happening in 1961, 1962, 1969, 1977, 1993, and 1998. Granted some of these teams have had good seasons in their infancy. Arizona would win a World Series in 2001 after being activated in 1998. And the Marlins would win a World Series in 1997 (and again in 2003) after being activated in 1993.