Major League Baseball stadiums that have tradition are few and far between.

The days of history, prestige, and lure are dwindling with each passing year as the new, luxurious baseball venues have replaced these older stadiums that were on the decline.

I get asked all the time to rate stadiums and state my opinion on whether or not they need to be replaced and or renovated, causing the contemplating to begin.

getty images

So I pose the following comparison.  Bigger dump of a stadium, Wrigley Field or the Metrodome?

Some may contend right off the bat that the Metrodome would be the favorite to take home the crown, considering it is no longer used as a baseball stadium.  True, but one must look further than its current state to figure out the plausible answer.

Wrigley Field has its downfalls that are just as apparent as the Metrodome, starting with it entering its 99th year in existence.

The aging effects on Wrigley are clear, which has prompted its $500 million renovations proposal that would remove the hand held scoreboard and replace it with an enormous electronic video screen that would be three times the current one amid many new additions.  Furthermore, in the renovation proposal, the Cubs would increase their night home games to 40 in order to create more TV revenue.

This revenue would help in maintaining the new renovations which I would assume would be to replace the old wooden seating and bleachers in the outfields. Its 2013 folks, benches went out in the 80's with big hair and mullets.

Having been to games at both the Metrodome and Wrigley, its clear that the better views experience leans in the direction of the Metrodome as well.

I understand the age of the Dome, the made for football arguments and even the bad selection of food and beer throughout.  The difference for me is the ability to watch any game, on any day, no matter the weather in 70 degree, controlled weather.

I have never understood the argument that playing indoors is not how baseball should be played.  Completely disagree... I can't explain how many times that I have watched baseball games in April, even into May where the outside temperatures were as low as 32 degrees yet I was able to enjoy the MLB in the "friendly confines" of the Metrodome in shorts and a Twins shirt.

I will always argue that as un-appealing some people find the Metrodome, I find Wrigley Field to be the same context as they appear the Metrodome.

Instead of renovating the Wrigley, the new ownership group should of thought about demolition instead and built a new stadium.  Start new, begin new, move on from the curse.  Maybe the curse isn't with the Cubs, but more so Wrigley itself...

The Metrodome certainly isn't the stadium of now and maybe it never was, but one thing it does have over the new Target Field is a dome. Something that Minnesotan's, Twins Fans and the team itself would of benefited from.

So my answer to my original question, is clearly, Wrigley Field is the definitely the bigger dump than the Metrodome.