Skip to content

The Red Sox scuttle plans to bring the right field fence in

Jan 6, 2011, 9:51 AM EST

Image (1) fenway_park_bullpen.jpg for post 156

You’ll recall back in October the Red Sox sought approval from the Boston Landmarks Commission to widen Fenway Park’s bullpen by about nine feet which, in turn, would have made hitting homers to right nine feet easier.  They have released a statement, however, saying they’ve changed their minds:

“The Red Sox recently sent a letter to the Secretary of State’s office withdrawing a request to consider expansion of the right field bullpen area this off-season. As we moved through the review process over the last several months, issues arose regarding implementation that required additional discussion and consideration of other design possibilities.  Given the tight construction timeline we are operating on to have the ballpark ready for Opening Day 2011, and the fact that we’re already deep into the off-season, plus the impact any work on the bullpen area would have on other work currently being done on the right field seating bowl, we decided to take this project off the table for 2010-2011 off-season.  We are going to review the feedback received during this process, and determine the next best steps.  It is still on our radar screen, but there is no immediate timetable for this project and, as we do on an annual basis, we will review all potential off-season projects as we get closer to the end of next season.”

Unless and until I’m told otherwise, I’m going to assume that it was all a big scam designed to lure Carl Crawford, who desperately wanted a short porch, and now that he’s signed, they’re pulling the rug out from under him.

  1. Jonny 5 - Jan 6, 2011 at 10:04 AM

    What can we do to make sure Fenway and Wrigley exist for our grandchildrens grandchildren? I’m still sick over Yankee stadium. I’m in love with antiquities and would love to see our nations historical sites preserved for all time.

    • scapistron - Jan 6, 2011 at 10:27 AM

      Fenway is terrible. I love the sox and all, but I just can’t justify paying to get into the place to watch a game. It just is not a good venue for actually watching the game. Half of the seats do not even point you towards the action on the field, unless of course you think watching the right and center fielder scratch their balls action. Add in the size of the seats and aisles and the 100+ layers of paint on everything and it is just not appealing.

      I don’t really fault the ownership group for not looking into a new alternative. Why buy a brand new cow when the current one gives you more than enough milk. I thought it would have been nice to play the 100th season in Fenway and then move into a new park the following season.

      • Jonny 5 - Jan 6, 2011 at 10:57 AM

        I don’t care about the viewing experience nearly as much as the experience of sitting in an important part of baseball history. If you want to be all cozy during a game you sit at home. I love 100 plus years of paint, I love the history. Sure it’s not a primo place for the game when compared to newer venues, but the history is much more valuable. To be just as uncomfortable as they were 100+ years ago should be an honor imo, it is to me anyway.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 6, 2011 at 11:05 AM

        To be just as uncomfortable as they were 100+ years ago should be an honor imo, it is to me anyway.

        Good luck to you. I’ve sat everywhere in Fenway save the Monster seats, and the only comfortable seating is the new areas. Along the right field line, you have seats set up for a male smaller than 5’6″ and 150lbs. The seats face the outfield so you are constantly turned toward the plate, hopefully not in an obstructed view area.

      • BC - Jan 6, 2011 at 11:22 AM

        Fenway is 100 times better than it was say, 15 years ago. Much cleaner, better amenities. Sure, you have to pay $50 or something for a bleacher seat, but going to an event in any of the five major sports (I’m counting NASCAR) is going to kill your wallet.

      • Jonny 5 - Jan 6, 2011 at 11:33 AM

        Copo, don’t be a big spoiled baby about it :P. It’s a small amount of suffering. Just know that I’ve driven through the pine barrens on roads not big enough for my truck and made of sand, requiring 4 wheel drive, just to see the historical Batsto village. I scratched my “baby” all to sh!t in the process too. All because I didn’t want to miss the abandoned non accessable parts. I endured much “complaining” from the wife in the process which outweighs any neck cramp Fenway has to offer. Because it’s how I am. I don’t mind suffering some for Fenway, and obviously you didn’t either or you wouldn’t have gone.

        The drive was worth it, and so was the sand I still find in my truck. I found some really cool swimming holes in the process, remote and unused, private in a way.

      • JBerardi - Jan 6, 2011 at 4:12 PM

        I love me some Fenway. I understand that it’s not the most modern comfortable park ever, but it’s problems are overrated. The only really bad seating situation is the right field boxes, and those are being renovated this year. The grandstand seats are fine, the bleacher seats are fine, and all the fancy expensive seats (that you can move down into with impunity in my experience) are great. The REAL selling point for me is the fans, though. It’s a sellout every night, you’re crammed in there, you make friends at every game, and the energy level is constantly high. Oh yeah, and the team wins a huge number of home games.

        You can talk about the seats or the amenities or whatever, but the bottom line is that I’ve always greatly enjoyed my time at there.

    • dirtyharry1971 - Jan 9, 2011 at 3:03 AM

      why keep fagway around? thats the worse stadium in history, its a little backyard that made hitters much better than they really are. Id be the first to blow it up with everyone sitting in the stands, screw fagway

  2. belichickrulz - Jan 6, 2011 at 11:02 AM

    Funny how none of the nostalgia nuts came out against the demolition of Schaefer/Sullivan Stadium, but Fenway gets them all worked up. Fenway has long since lost it’s usefulness as a modern facility. The current ownership has done an amazing job making it as comfortable as possible, but it’s still terrible. Save it as a museum and hold old-time ball games there. But please, give the fans of Boston a modern facility that we can be proud of. We survived the loss of the Boston Garden, we can survive a new ballpark, too.

    • Joe - Jan 6, 2011 at 12:16 PM

      What exactly was historically significant about Schaefer Stadium?

  3. BC - Jan 6, 2011 at 11:19 AM

    They sent a letter to Hillary Clinton to withdraw the request? Wow, talk about bureaucracy.

  4. marshmallowsnake - Jan 6, 2011 at 11:40 AM

    Fenway, while historic…really needs to go. I am a Sox fan that grew up in that park, and I know it needs to go. The Yankees were able to get rid of their ancient place…the Sox need to get rid of theirs. Spend some money on acuiring some land and get it done…even though it will never happen!

    • paulie102704 - Jan 6, 2011 at 11:48 AM

      they are replacing the RF grandstand seats this winter with similar ones that have been installed int he park. They are bigger, and will be facing the field now. They lose some overall seats because of it, but it has been the plan all along. The Fenway viewing experience has drastically improved, and after the last set of updates are done, it will be better than half the stadiums in the country. I have been tothe new and old Yankee Stadium, and history and all that aside, the new stadium SUCKS with bad sight lines and a very sanitized experience. They should have taken some of the notes from how Camden was built. If I had a choice between the new YS or Fenway 2012, give me Fenway 2.0 anyday of the week….Now build me an updated Camden Yards in the Fens and we can talk about a new stadium. But overall, the changes they have made (other than ridiculously priced beers), have been tremendous….

      • thinman61 - Jan 6, 2011 at 12:09 PM

        And God damn the MLB schedulers for not planning any weekend Sox/O’s series in Baltimore in 2011. :(

    • scapistron - Jan 6, 2011 at 11:48 AM

      The hell with acquiring land, that just won’t happen in this town. They could fill in part of the harbor though, wouldn’t be the first time we’ve done that around here.

      • marshmallowsnake - Jan 6, 2011 at 12:12 PM

        True…it won’t happen. This is why MLB wanted McCourt to get the Sox…so he could use some of his property up there as a site for a possible stadium.

      • BC - Jan 6, 2011 at 12:44 PM

        Shut down Logan and put Fenway there.

      • paulie102704 - Jan 6, 2011 at 12:53 PM

        McCourt offered to sell some of his south boston land he has down near the Seaport even after Henry outbid him, and was debunked. Would have beena peerfect spot for a new stadium. Now the Sox can wait for McCourt to go belly up and they can get his land at auction and build Camden Yards NE.

        And who the hell could possibly use Kaufman/Foxboro Stadium as a comparison to Fenway??! Those places had zero redeeming quality….wow get over it…

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. M. Cabrera (4301)
  2. W. Myers (3505)
  3. M. Kemp (3316)
  4. M. Morse (2520)
  5. W. Miley (2497)
  1. C. Headley (2436)
  2. J. Lester (2401)
  3. M. Scherzer (2107)
  4. J. Upton (2037)
  5. J. Kang (2033)