Did the Cardinals really need a new stadium?
Did the Cardinals really need a new stadium?
-
HDMAVS760CA
- Senior
- Posts: 629
- And1: 22
- Joined: May 13, 2006
- Location: ONTARIO, CA
-
Did the Cardinals really need a new stadium?
I felt that they didn't. They coulda renovated it more. Especially after the Rams moved into the dome. St. Louis is considered a great baseball town. They had a football stadium that they played in & are capable of selling out the football stadium. With their rich tradition they coulda done more 2 have stuff of players from Cardinals past, like the Yankees. I know they had something that had the numbers of Cards players retired, maybe have statues of retired Cards players. Not just one. Or there were things that couldn't be seen, where it was necessary that the Cards needed a new park. I seen some pics of the new stadium. I like it, I mainly like that the Gateway Arch can be seen. I like when new stadiums have a view of certain monuments the city has. So did they need one? You got other teams whose stadiums were around since 1912 like wrigley, tiger, & fenway.
-
mizzoupacers
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 6,120
- And1: 12
- Joined: May 27, 2004
Well the Cardinals didn't NEED a new stadium--historically they have been a very successful franchise with a big following, and the old stadium did nothing to impede that.
That said, IMO the new Busch Stadium is a big improvement over old Busch.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the old stadium and have tons of fond memories of it. The team and the fans and the atmosphere they create is about a zillion times more important than the building itself, and old Busch had a great atmosphere.
But New Busch has those things too, and it is not a cookie-cutter, multipurpose stadium built of dull gray cement. I like seeing the downtown skyline in the background, and there are all kinds of tributes to past Cardinals glory, I'm not sure what you are talking about there. It's only going to get better when they finish building "Cardinal Village" where the old stadium used to be, that's going to be great.
No complaints from me about the new stadium. I think it was a sensible business decision, and for Cardinals fans an improvement so far as I am concerned.
That said, IMO the new Busch Stadium is a big improvement over old Busch.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the old stadium and have tons of fond memories of it. The team and the fans and the atmosphere they create is about a zillion times more important than the building itself, and old Busch had a great atmosphere.
But New Busch has those things too, and it is not a cookie-cutter, multipurpose stadium built of dull gray cement. I like seeing the downtown skyline in the background, and there are all kinds of tributes to past Cardinals glory, I'm not sure what you are talking about there. It's only going to get better when they finish building "Cardinal Village" where the old stadium used to be, that's going to be great.
No complaints from me about the new stadium. I think it was a sensible business decision, and for Cardinals fans an improvement so far as I am concerned.
-
bigboy1234
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,116
- And1: 7
- Joined: May 29, 2006
Like mizzou said, we didn't NEED one, but this one is definitely a huge upgrade, and once ballpark village is done it's going to be even better.
Actually Comerica has only been open since 2000. Wrigley and Fenway are both a lot more historic than Busch II, that only been around since 1967 so it was both not really historically and didn't look great.
Also, it was an easy decision for the public, because almost all of it was privately financed.
You got other teams whose stadiums were around since 1912 like wrigley, tiger, & fenway.
Actually Comerica has only been open since 2000. Wrigley and Fenway are both a lot more historic than Busch II, that only been around since 1967 so it was both not really historically and didn't look great.
Also, it was an easy decision for the public, because almost all of it was privately financed.
-
old skool
- General Manager
- Posts: 7,761
- And1: 3,511
- Joined: Jul 07, 2005
- Location: Chi
Wrigley is a noxious dump, kept alive only by misplaced nostalgia and a rockin' neighborhood that overshadows performance on the field.
What is historic about Wrigley Field? Ruth pointing to the bleachers in the dusk? The Sam G. releasing the goat? The College of Coaches? The Bartman play? Musial's 3000th hit?
In forty years, the 1966 Busch Stadium had more big moments. Ozzie's "Go Crazy Folks" homer off the Dodgers. Ozzie's back flips. World Series victories in 1967 and 1982. The Red Sox sweep in 2004. A total of six World Series in forty years, five of which went seven games. Hall of Fame careers of Gibson, Brock, Ozzie. The year Brock set the career stolen base record? Those are all great moments in baseball history. Wrigley is a sideshow, by comparison.
The 1966 Busch Stadium was dinosaur. It was not a good ballpark for baseball. Ok, but not good. The new Busch will make the team money and improve it's competitive situation. The symmetrical artificial turf arenas of the 1960's are all being phased out. They have outlived their usefulness.
oLd sKool
What is historic about Wrigley Field? Ruth pointing to the bleachers in the dusk? The Sam G. releasing the goat? The College of Coaches? The Bartman play? Musial's 3000th hit?
In forty years, the 1966 Busch Stadium had more big moments. Ozzie's "Go Crazy Folks" homer off the Dodgers. Ozzie's back flips. World Series victories in 1967 and 1982. The Red Sox sweep in 2004. A total of six World Series in forty years, five of which went seven games. Hall of Fame careers of Gibson, Brock, Ozzie. The year Brock set the career stolen base record? Those are all great moments in baseball history. Wrigley is a sideshow, by comparison.
The 1966 Busch Stadium was dinosaur. It was not a good ballpark for baseball. Ok, but not good. The new Busch will make the team money and improve it's competitive situation. The symmetrical artificial turf arenas of the 1960's are all being phased out. They have outlived their usefulness.
oLd sKool
-
mizzoupacers
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 6,120
- And1: 12
- Joined: May 27, 2004
^ That reminds me of a joke. I've probably told it before, but I don't know that many jokes and this one is one of my favorites:
What's the difference between the Cardinals and the Cubs?
The Cardinals have won a championship in their new stadium.
(Get it? The Cubs have never won a championship in the entire time they have been playing at Wrigley.)
Looks like that joke could be safe for another year. Man, if this is how the Cubs are going to represent the NL Central, we're going to have to vote them out of office next year.
What's the difference between the Cardinals and the Cubs?
The Cardinals have won a championship in their new stadium.
(Get it? The Cubs have never won a championship in the entire time they have been playing at Wrigley.)
Looks like that joke could be safe for another year. Man, if this is how the Cubs are going to represent the NL Central, we're going to have to vote them out of office next year.
-
HDMAVS760CA
- Senior
- Posts: 629
- And1: 22
- Joined: May 13, 2006
- Location: ONTARIO, CA
-
mizzoupacers wrote:
But New Busch has those things too, and it is not a cookie-cutter, multipurpose stadium built of dull gray cement. I like seeing the downtown skyline in the background, and there are all kinds of tributes to past Cardinals glory, I'm not sure what you are talking about there.
I think I was talking about some pennants that had the numbers of retired Cardinals players, that was it.