Wrigley Field celebrates 100th anniversary as Cubs owner mulls how to make it look less like Wrigley Field

Today is the 100th anniversary of the first game at Wrigley Field, and I hope everyone is tuning in, because those 1914 Federal League uniforms are pretty cool, even if the uniform numbers are an anachronism:

fed-uniNot pictured, of course, is the not-at-all-1914-throwback scoreboard that Chicago Cubs owner Tom Ricketts is champing at the bit to build, but holding off on for now because of the thicket of lawsuits he must navigate first. The Associated Press tackles this subject today, coming to the conclusion that video screens make it easier to see replays, fans don’t all like them regardless, Wrigley Field had a moving walkway in the 1950s, young people love to take selfies, wait, what were we talking about again?


7 comments on “Wrigley Field celebrates 100th anniversary as Cubs owner mulls how to make it look less like Wrigley Field

  1. Aside from the fact that most of the Federal League’s owners are be turning in their graves at the thought of being “honoured” by MLB… it looks like quite the celebration. And Hey! Who doesn’t love those classic Arizona Diamondback unis? Ok, so they are actually somebody else’s uniforms (Kansas City’s federal league team), but so long as you squint really hard and try not to think about when Arizona joined MLB…

    If that doesn’t turn your crank, Selig showed up too… but no doubt that has more to do with leaning on rooftop owners to promise not to sue Ricketts, or maybe on the city of Chicago to do MLB’s bidding (again).

  2. Wrigley is a mess. The fans need to admit that place is a hole and get it condemned. It’s the only stadium I’d donate money to Kickstarter to get replaced. Lord knows, the fans buy enough of that terrible beer for $7 a pop, that should more than pay for a new place. It’s not a shocker the Cubs haven’t won in years, what decent free agent would dare volunteer to have that hole for their home stadium?

  3. “It’s not a shocker the Cubs haven’t won in years, what decent free agent would dare volunteer to have that hole for their home stadium?”

    Yes because everybody suddenly decided to go to the Mets organization after Citi Field was built…..oh wait no they don’t because we are still a flaming mess that might not even breach 90 wins.

    Seriously stop blaming the stadium. Its only half the problem.

  4. I’d suggest Wrigley’s dimensions are part of the problem but opposing teams have no problem winning there. They still play half of their home games in the daytime. But I still think it’s just bad luck & drafting. Basically, both Chicago teams (old vs modern) only get free agents if they pay too much for them.

  5. @John Bladen

    Most of the Federal League owners were actually bought out rather generously by the AL/NL owners. Some of them (particularly the Baltimore franchise, which ended up suing rather famously) got ripped off, but many of the Federal League owners would probably be fine with being honored given the price or existing franchise shares they got.

  6. As I recall, there were two FL owners (in Stl and Chicago) who made it “over the fence” (bought MLB clubs). While some of did accept the offered buyouts, others were left to the wolves (as it were). I would say the definition of ‘generous’ buyouts depends very much on whether you were the payer or payee.

    In the winter of 1914-15, the Federal league filed an antitrust action against the National and American leagues. The case was delayed for quite some time while the presiding judge (one K. M. Landis – what? You thought Comiskey & co picked his name out of thin air when looking for a new commissioner 5 yrs later?) attempted to get the parties to negotiate a settlement – not an uncommon practice, even today.

    A year later, after the 1915 season, the resolve of most of the Fed league owners had been broken and four clubs were bought out by the NL/AL. Two owners (as noted above) bought MLB clubs, and two failed (KC and Baltimore, the latter refused their settlement offer and sued. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/259/200/case.html)

    We cannot know what was in the minds of Powers etc when they dreamed up the Federal League. Perhaps it was, as with the AFL, an effort to force a merger more or less from the beginning. Or perhaps the original 8 owners (and their successors) really dreamed of competing with the other leagues on even footing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

147,607 Spambots Blocked by Simple Comments

HTML tags are not allowed.