Oh, Curses! Another to Consider

With Cubs Seeking Revenue Boost, Wrigley Field Could Become a Name of the Past

CHICAGO -- There is no bigger nightmare scenario for a Chicago Cubs fan -- well, perhaps outside of seeing Steve Bartman come out of his self-imposed seclusion and reclaim his seat down the left field line (carrying a billy goat in one arm and a black cat in the other) -- than the following:

It is Opening Day 2011, and the Cubs, having gone 103 years without a World Series title, have returned home after being forced to play an entire season's worth of games at U.S. Cellular Field, home of the hated White Sox, while their own storied ballpark was renovated.

Fans arrive at the old ballyard and settle into their seats, bundled against the familiar chill off Lake Michigan, when suddenly the PA announcer says, "Greetings, fans, and welcome to SynComTel Field!"

Well, Cubs fans, we're not going to tell you that type of scenario is actually going to occur -- but we also can't tell you for certain that it won't. These are strange, transitional times for what is, by many measures, the National League's flagship franchise.

The sale of the Tribune Co., which owns the Cubs and Wrigley Field, to billionaire investor Sam Zell in December has put the franchise on an uncertain course. Zell has made clear his intention to sell both the team and the stadium, almost certainly in separate transactions, and has publicly raised the possibility of selling Wrigley Field's naming rights.

You can imagine how that news went over at the corner of Addison and Clark.

"There's a real fear around here that it's going to happen," said Joe Sroczynski, who operates a Web site called KeepItWrigley.org. "There's a lot of money on the table, and this team's management is shortsighted enough to take the money and trade in on the unique history of Wrigley Field."

Crane Kenney, the Cubs' chairman, understandably wishes to play down the possibility, saying: "There's nothing settled on that. Hey, I'm a fan. So no, I don't want the name to change.

"On the other hand, I have three responsibilities. The first is to deliver a World Series title to the fans. The second is for that to occur in this great ballpark at the corner of Clark and Addison. And the third responsibility is to keep the name of the ballpark Wrigley Field. But if compromising number three helps us accomplish one and two, I have to consider that."

To the Cubs, the naming rights issue is one part of a puzzle, in which the franchise must discover and develop new revenue streams out of an ancient building not really suited for expansion, in order to compete -- much as the Boston Red Sox have managed to do at Fenway Park.

To this point, the encroachment of modern marketing has been so gradual as to be almost imperceptible -- such as Under Armour ads amid the ivy on the outfield wall, and Bud Light's sponsorship of the newly renovated bleachers. The Cubs also fought to get the number of night games increased from 18 to 30 in 2004.

Among the highest of Kenney's priorities is upgrading the stadium's sky boxes. "I don't call them 'luxury suites,' " he quipped, "because they're neither luxurious nor sweet." He also cannot rule out the possibility of the Cubs having to play a season somewhere other than Wrigley, the most likely location being the White Sox' home on the South Side.

Wouldn't Kenney be worried, should ownership sell the naming rights, about perpetuating the supposed curse that has kept the Cubs title-less for going on a century now?

"I don't buy into the supernatural," he said.

On this count, he gets no argument from the folks behind KeepItWrigley.org.

"I don't believe in curses," Sroczynski said. "I believe in mismanagement."