Chicago Cubs: What plan is the best for the team?

Wrigley Field, Chicago Cubs (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Wrigley Field, Chicago Cubs (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images) /
2 of 4
Chicago Cubs
An aerial drone view of Globe Life Field, Chicago Cubs (Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images) /

Chicago Cubs: The three-city plan

Chase Field, Globe Life Field and Miami Marlins Park with surrounding spring training parks. That sounds nice, doesn’t it? Accept it’s not Wrigley Field–with or without fans. The tri-city or three-city plan includes the ballparks mentioned above, plus several in the surrounding area.

Phoenix, Arlington and Tampa/St. Petersburg would act as host cities. The three ballparks have the ability to shut or they have a dome. They have good turf and would be able to ‘weather the storm,’ so to speak. So what is the objection? Please, sit down, and I tell you a tale.

First off, the Rangers would be rewarded handsomely with this deal. Ray Davis had the opportunity to serve on the MLB Executive Committee, rubbing elbows with Rob Manfred. The ‘reward’ shouldn’t seem too far fetched.

Secondly, the warm weather will come to Arlington. Texas is smack dab in the center of the country. And if the weather doesn’t hold? It’ll be played under the roof. And the biggest reason to not use this plan? Location.

So what do you say for Houston as a host city? Well, it’s not likely to happen. While Arlington would be a convenient commute from Houston, the sign-stealing scandal might not be how they want to reward them. So out is Houston. And in the end, the three-city deal is out, as well.