Save Wrigley Field?

First appeared on July 24, 2013
in The Lebanon Reporter

When I was in seventh grade we circulated a petition asking one of our lunch ladies to try different deodorant, and while we generated some much needed hygienic awareness amongst many classmates and picked up a lot of signatures, we also got detention, stern lectures from both Administration and our parents, as well as the coldest hamburgers you could imagine.

So when I received a request recently to sign a petition to “Save Wrigley Field” I was somewhat confused. After all Wrigley does predate the discovery of dirt, so what could it possibly need saving from? Apparently Wrigley needs saving from itself.

Cubs ownership wants to institute $500 million in renovations to Wrigley. This demand has sparked a wrestling match between Rooftop Owners, one crabby Alderman, the Landmarks Commission and the Mayor of Chicago. According to plans, the exterior will be restored to 1938 status, a year the Cubs were swept in the World Series which is in itself surprising on multiple levels.
Wrigley is already a local landmark, but will work to achieve National Landmark Status while implementing the renovations simultaneously. The most impressive aspect of the project is that it will all be done with private money.

But as negotiations floundered, Tom Ricketts knew the trump card lay in the pocket of his David Beckham Collection, double breasted, Armani suit lined with the fur of the rare and endangered Pamir Spotted Zebra all along. But does the owner of the Chicago Cubs really want to go down in history as the man who tore down Wrigley? Did he pay $900 million for the team just to have the chance at writing an even darker chapter of history in what has already been a genuinely lackluster and laughable existence?

I suppose it’s fitting the Ricketts and the Cubs found each other considering the Ricketts family is ranked 371 out of the 400 Wealthiest People according to Forbes, this of course places them near last on the list and that’s where the team has been languishing since the day the Ricketts bought them.

Being one of only a handful who could pay cash for the Space Shuttle is proof Tom Ricketts is undoubtedly a smart man. Surely then he understands 97.8% of Cubs Fans are so because of Wrigley Field. Does anyone really believe Cubs Fans actually follow their team? The same one that hasn’t won a World Series since Teddy Roosevelt was President? The one that hasn’t appeared in a World Series since we were dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Cubs Fans live for Wrigley. They are fans because the Cubs are one of the last franchises left who embrace losing. OK, so maybe it’s not so much the losing as it is the belief that a World Series title can only be fully appreciated if preceded by a lifetime of
extreme heartache and disappointment first.

It’s the pomp and circumstance that lures Cubs Fans out in droves year after year. The fact the Cubs happen to play baseball at Wrigley Field is secondary and serves only to force people to hang around a bit longer than normal for fear of appearing rude.
Cubs Fans embrace Wrigley for all that the park stands for. Things like the Ivy, pad-less brick walls, occasional chunks of concrete falling from the ceiling of the grandstands and Bleacher Bums fumbling their way through the Seventh Inning Stretch while sharing overpriced refreshments with the heads, shoulders and laps of their fellow man. For all of mankind, the sooner those in high places realize the rare gem they have in Wrigley the better.


ATTENTION WRITERS FOR CHILDREN-Deborah Halverson of DearEditor.com is offering a free substantive edit of any WIP (Picture, MG or YA up to 80,000 words only). Simply visit her blog at DearEditor.com and register to win, and while you're there SUBSCRIBE!! It is a very useful blog for anyone looking to become a stronger writer. VISIT AND REGISTER BEFORE AUGUST 12TH!!

© 2013 Eric Walker Williams

Dazed and Confused: The Legacy of David Stern

First appeared on July 3, 2013
in The Lebanon Reporter

David Stern seems like a legacy guy. There’s nothing wrong with legacy guys of course, unless they elbow women and children aside on their way to the life boat claiming they’ve ‘yet to fulfill their legacy’ that is. So as Stern climbs some stacked milk crates to board his trusty steed and steer himself into the sunset after 30 years as NBA League Commissioner, the part-time pretend sports columnist in all of us must wonder, what is his legacy?

When he assumed his post during the winter of 1984, the league was fumbling its way through a dark period. The Bird and Magic rivalry hadn’t hit its stride yet and the NBA had little more than some really tight uniforms, arenas that openly encouraged smoking and a former ABA star to hang its hat on. Nobody can argue Stern’s entrance marked an upturn in the fortunes of the league. However, what drove this surge in popularity is extremely debatable. Was it Stern’s steady hand, cunning business sense and flair for marketing or was it simply some dynamic basketball being played by two teams that were both piloted by mega-stars who legitimately hated losing to each other?

In his time as Commissioner, Stern’s experiences have run the gamut. He was accused of rigging the 1985 draft lottery that helped the Knicks land Patrick Ewing and later caused major unrest amongst players when the voices in his head told him to switch to a new basketball, thus replacing the one that had previously been in use for 37 years. During his tenure, 6 franchises had to relocate, the players’ wardrobe became subject to mandate, one referee was thrown in Federal prison and there were a total of four work stoppages.

Under Stern’s watch television contracts exploded, the league added 7 franchises, basketball became a global game which saw the infusion of talent from every inhabited continent and a luxury tax was put in place to try and prevent teams from adopting the New York Yankee blueprint for success.

But for all he’s done, Stern’s legacy may struggle to escape the shadow of today’s game. For when the Commissioner’s time comes and Saint Peter jingles the Keys to the Kingdom before him, the question “Is the NBA better off now than it was 30 years ago?” is sure to arise. In terms of pure economics the answer is technically yes, but when it comes to overall product quality, the answer must be a resounding no.

The influx of young talent has changed both the quality and style of professional basketball. Even the unorganized masses who staunchly oppose Stern, including those who ambush telemarketers with a well rehearsed anti-Stern rant or spend their free time tossing darts at a life size Fathead of the Commissioner they inexplicably keep pasted to their living room wall, have to admit he showed some cognizant understanding of basketball when recognizing inexperienced players are bad for business. For proof one need look no further than his instituting the infamous “One and Done” rule during the 2005 collective bargaining agreement.

Still it portends of large issues. Stern leaves behind a world where teams burn through coaches as if they were employees of a temp agency instead of experienced professors of basketball who know what’s best for the young men they lead. Stern’s legacy appears to be having created a system where players dictate most front office moves including which coaches to hire and players to pursue. This is a business model most fans are going to grow tired of quickly and one no well placed smile or anecdote will excuse.