Based on his comments about Wrigley Field over the weekend, it doesn’t sound as if the Cubs will be on the list of teams that Albert Pujols puts together if/when he becomes a free agent after the 2011 season.

From the Chicago Tribune:

“The history and the field is all good,” he said. “I always look forward to play (here) because it’s a great rivalry. (But) the playing field and all that, it’s not in the best condition you know. You’re glad you don’t have to play here for the whole year.”

The field is freaking 96 years old, so it makes sense that it doesn’t offer the best playing surface (especially when compared to some of the newer stadiums around the league). But I wonder what Pujols means specifically. Is the grass to slow or too fast? Does the dirt not hold together? Is the field unkempt? I wonder if more players share Pujols’ opinion of Wrigley, or if this isn’t a case of a St. Louis player having fun while taking a shot at something Chicago is proud of.

From a fan’s point of view, Wrigley will always be a historic landmark. It’s become a tourist attraction to most hardcore baseball fans and it’s always fun to catch a game in the middle of the day while drinking with the rest of the bleacher bums. The place is old, but it’s hard to argue against its place in baseball history.

Photo from fOTOGLIF