Anytime someone talks about the Chicago Cubs, my first thoughts always float back to the many summers I spent at Wrigley Field watching the Cubs play. To me, the two have always gone together. One would not be the same without the other.

So, when the Ricketts family purchased the Cubs and talk began to circulate about the age of Wrigley Field and the need for a change, I was heartbroken. The Cubs just wouldn’t be the same without Wrigley Field and I know I am not the only fan to feel this way.

I live on the other side of the country now and have not been to Wrigley Field in quite a few years. I am sure that time has not been kind but the idea of demolishing it and starting from the ground up is just not an idea that sites well with me.

There are too many memories there. Memories of the “Bleacher Bums” back in the 80s and Harry Caray belting out “Take me out to the Ballgame.” There is too much history in the ivy to let it be taken away.

This is a ball park that is set in the heart of the city as well as in the hearts of the fans. This is a ball park that, despite its aging nature, still has fan’s willing to pay top dollar to come and watch their team win or lose.

While I understand the arguments that Wrigley Field does not provide the state-of-the-art facilities that other teams have, there are ways to remedy that without losing the history this ball park provides to the fans.

Keep the field, the bricks and the ivy and that amazing scoreboard that still operates manually. Keep the historic marquis sign. Leave the bleachers just the way they are so the “bums” home remains unchanged. Then, remodel the remaining ball park. Update the facilities and the clubhouses. Revamp the stadium seating and increase them. Create more space for more fans to come and see the games.

Add restaurants and state of the art food venders. Do all you can to increase the revenue capabilities of the ball park and help create a winning team but keep the qualities that make Wrigley Field the piece of history it is.

This can all be done while preserving the history and memories of the fans. Once the remodel is complete, replace the marquis sign out front and its game on. It was my first game at Wrigley Field that gave me my love of baseball and the Cubs and I hope it is around to the same for many more generations of fans.

Deborah Braconnier is a former athlete and softball player. She has followed the Chicago Cubs since she was a teenager and remembers watching Ryne Sandberg and team from the bleachers in Wrigley Field and having player’s posters all over her wall. Working now as a freelance writer, she brings her love of sports together with her writing. Follow her on Twitter @fwcdeborah.

Note: This article was written by a Yahoo! contributor. Sign up here to start publishing your own sports content.

As a lifelong Chicago Cubs fan and a patron of Wrigley Field, the question of what to do with Wrigley is sticky one to be sure for me. I’ve really thought about it a lot over the last few years (as if the culmination of my thoughts would actually influence anything). In the eyes of many Cubs fans, to even bring up the possibility of the Chicago Cubs building a new stadium is quite simply blasphemy —and I’ll suspect many of you who read this will feel similarly. That’s OK. You should. Wrigley has a lot to offer the world of baseball and the abandonment of it shouldn’t happen without a weighing of options and factors.

Wrigley is filled with baseball tradition. This fact should come as no surprise to anyone. It’s also a great place to watch baseball. However, from a Cubs perspective, I’m not really sure what we’re holding on to. Sure, there have been some timeless memories there, but overall, it’s been a disastrous run of it since the Cubs first played there in 1916 —though it opened in 1914. Surely if the New York Yankees can move into a new “Yankee Stadium” after all the legendary memories that unfolded at the old stadium, the Cubs could handle leaving Wrigley behind—which is littered with heartache, heartbreak, and the “lovable losers” label.

There is also a practical baseball reasoning for leaving. While I will readily admit much of the Cubs trouble has come from poor management over the years, how Wrigley as a field “plays” is another huge issue that seems to get overlooked when referencing the Cubs success —or lack thereof. It’s well documented: The wind blows in, pitching wins; the wind blows out, hitting. This inconsistency makes it increasingly difficult to build a team around —given they’re playing 81 games there a year. If you build a team for pitching, there are games at Wrigley that will undermine any pitcher when the wind blows out. The same goes in the opposite direction on offense. The Cubs become the ones that need to adjust—adjust in their home ballpark. That is what doesn’t make sense.

Don’t misread anything I’m writing, I love Wrigley Field. I fully understand the value and love of tradition. However, I don’t think it impossible to build a new stadium and take much of the physical tradition with. As for the less tangible forms of tradition that can’t come along, most of it isn’t worth remembering.

Brian is a lifelong Chicago Cubs fan, having lived in Illinois his entire life and having followed Major League Baseball throughout. If you enjoy his writing, despite it being just another opinion, follow him on Twitter @bdavis_sports

Sources

History of Wrigley Field

Note: This article was written by a Yahoo! contributor. Sign up here to start publishing your own sports content.

Are you left-handed? Maybe you should apply for a position with the Chicago Cubs. Unlike Jim Hendry, it seems like Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer are quite welcoming to such an abnormality.

Maybe Carlos Zambrano’s ambidexterity has something to do with the opportunity that he’s been given to work his way back into the Cubs’ good graces following his faux-retirement fiasco in August of 2011?

Seriously though, the Cubs are reportedly interested in signing another left-handed player. They’ve already added Ian Stewart and David DeJesus either by free agency or trade. Both players are left-handed hitters (not necessarily throwers). Now, the Cubs could be interested in free-agent pitcher Paul Maholm.

Maholm, 29, was 6-14 with the Pittsburgh Pirates in 2011. Don’t let the record deceive you; he had a 3.66 ERA and 1.29 WHIP. His record was more of the fact that he was a victim of the Pirates’ inability to score runs.

Maholm had a 53-73 record with a 4.36 ERA in seven seasons with the Pirates. He’s a sinker-ball pitcher who had one of the National League’s (NL) lowest ratios for home-runs per nine innings (HR/9). Groundball pitchers are usually preferred in Chicago because Wrigley Field is a hitters-friendly ballpark and a flyball pitcher is always at risk in the “Windy City.”

Maholm has made 11 career appearances (all starts) in Wrigley Field. He was 6-2 with a complete-game shutout. Maholm surrendered seven home runs in 64 innings pitched. He also had a 5.48 ERA and 1.34 WHIP.

Maholm made $6.25 million in 2011. It isn’t yet known how much money he’s asking for. The Cubs are already stuck with lucrative contracts on a few pitchers, most notably Ryan Dempster and Zambrano. Both pitchers are hoping to improve upon their disappointing seasons in 2011.

I love the idea of adding a left-handed starting pitcher. I also think that Maholm could be a fine middle-of-the-rotation addition, comparable to Ted Lilly. The only other options that I could see on the 40-man roster are James Russell or Sean Marshall. I really don’t want to revisit the Russell experiment. I also don’t think the Cubs would consider moving Marshall out of his setup role unless he was promoted to closer.

Just like DeJesus and Stewart, Maholm wouldn’t be the flashy transaction that a Prince Fielder signing would be. The one thing that concerns me with Maholm is his ERA in those 11 games at Wrigley Field. A 5.48 ERA does raise a red flag with me. That’s why I wouldn’t give him more money than what he got with the Pirates. He really shouldn’t be more than a No. 4 starter who gives the Cubs a left-handed presence in their starting rotation.

To be fair, he fared well in Wrigley Field in 2011. He surrendered no runs and had a WHIP of 0.64 in 15.2 innings pitched (two starts).

Signing Maholm would give the Cubs a projected starting rotation that would include Matt Garza, Dempster, Zambrano, Maholm, and either Jeff Samardzija, Randy Wells, Andrew Cashner or Rodrigo Lopez as the No. 5 starter. That’s assuming that Zambrano returns and Garza isn’t traded.

Joshua Huffman grew up in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula as a Green Bay Packers and Chicago Cubs enthusiast. He immediately gained an admiration for Cubs fans after watching numerous games on WGN during the mid-90s. His favorite Cubs moment was Kerry Wood’s(notes) 1-hitter, 20K extravaganza that was only denied of a no-hitter by Kevin Orie’s defensive blunder. As a Packers and Cubs fan, he suffered through Steve Bartman and “4th & 26″ in a span of three months.

More from Yahoo! Contributor Network

Chicago Cubs Would Trade Ace Pitcher Matt Garza? Um, Why? Fan’s Take

Milwaukee Brewers Reportedly Sign Former Chicago Cubs’ Third Baseman Aramis Ramirez: Cub Fan’s Take

Hallelujah! Albert Pujols is Out of the National League: Chicago Cub Fan’s Take

Chicago Cubs Trade Tyler Colvin and DJ LeMahieu to Colorado Rockies: Fan’s Take

Christmas Day NFL Games Since 2005: NFL Fan’s Flashback

Note: This article was written by a Yahoo! contributor. Sign up here to start publishing your own sports content.