Real life has made writing about sports a secondary concern over the last couple of months.  But I'm back now.  Let's recap what has opened in the past two months of baseball's offseason, good and bad.  Japan won its second World Baseball Classic.  Manny Ramirez (finally) re-signed with the Dodgers.  Alex Rodriguez (sort of) admitted to using performance enhancing drugs, a first for a high-profile baseball star.  The inimitable Curt Schilling--a sure-fire Hall of Famer--retired.  New York City has two brand new ballparks opening within the next two weeks.  Many analysts are predicting that the New York Mets will win the World Series.  But more than all these noteworthy things, there is one thing that has caught my attention.

Let me first state that it's unusual and not highly recommended to refer to Ronald Reagan in the headline of a piece of sports "editorial journalism."  Reagan, near the end of his Presidency, famously demanded of then Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall."  He was, of course, speaking of the Berlin Wall, the physical symbol of Eastern-bloc Communism and the "Iron Curtain."

Enough with the history lesson.

Last Saturday, one of the Chicago Cubs' most fascinating personalities (and dominant pitchers), Carlos Zambrano, told a reporter, in light of the fancy new ballparks in New York City, "You wish that Chicago'd build a new stadium for the Cubs."  Predictably, Cubs fans were in a tizzy, and Zambrano has been forced by his handlers to retract his statement.

But is Zambrano's "wish" that bad of an idea?  Am I a heretic for thinking this?  Well, to be perfectly honest: as a St. Louis Cardinals fan, I root, every year, for the Cubs' Championship drought to continue.  But as a fan of baseball, and someone who can be persuaded, especially when plied with enough alcohol, to accept the "reality" of curses, I think it would do the Cubs, and the world of baseball, good if they tore down the stadium that has broken their hearts for the last 95 years.  That's right: 95 years.  There's something rotten in Wrigley Field (as an English literature doctorate, I'm obligated to make at least one cheesy Shakespeare reference every now and again).  Even the verbally unrestrained Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen ridiculed the stadium last year, suggesting it was overrun with rats.  Now, admittedly, I've never been there before.  But going there, it seems, is, for many people, especially non-Chicagoans, like stepping into a time capsule, like a Parthenon for baseball.  Sure, it's historic, but only because it's old, not because, like the old Yankee Stadium (aka "The House that Ruth Built"), it has rich tapestry of legendary sports lore.  It's known for swirly winds, a billy goat, and a blown 3-1 playoff series lead blamed on a fan in the stands.  How many of those Ryne Sandberg home runs that ended up in the netting in left-centerfield do you really remember?  That's what I thought.

A new stadium for the Cubs would wipe away a century worth of disappointment, and present the team with a tabula rasa.  There should be no room in a team's vocabulary for the phrase  "lovable loser."  So, sure, Zambrano might have spoken with too many Red Bulls in his system.  But it's something the Cubs should seriously consider if they want to move forward.  With Piniella as their coach, and a stable of solid talent (Soriano, Marmol, Soto), they have a solid baseball foundation.  Now they need a real foundation that doesn't stink of disappointment, as much as it pains me to say it (especially as a Cardinals fan).