All Activity

Would still rather watch than Hill.

JR is probably looking all this money and tax breaks Indiana is offering to move the Bears and saying let's move the Sox to the Region.

it's crazy to think about how recently McKenzie and Manoah were on top of the pitching world

It was really good. Vietnam one is still the best IMO.

Yes.

Charlotte fodder to replace the previous Charlotte fodder (Dominic Fletcher, Will Robertson, et al.).

Does mean the Sox have a seat at the table?

I just finished watching Ken Burns' American Revolution documentary on PBS....great show by the way! The map they show of Boston during the colonial period is incredible. The amount of the current city that is infill is almost hard to believe.

I seriously shouldn't dignify this nonsense with a response and give more oxygen to your diatribes, but here it goes: 1) You have no right to tell me what to post. I'll leave that to the mods and I assume they'll chime in if I say something objectionable. If talking about a proposed stadium at the 78 angers you so much, you are free to ignore this thread. 2) The post that I made about that triggered you so badly was in response to a comment another poster made about the 78. Otherwise, the current discussion is about the Bears recent announcement, which is newsworthy. 3) Nothing anyone on this site says for or against a Sox stadium at the 78 is going to change the outcome of what the next White Sox owner wants to do with a ballpark going forward. It'll be ownership's decision and they aren't turning to Soxtalk for advice. The only recent news we have to go on is what he told the Pope at the Vatican.

Does this guy have a pulse? I'm not interested enough to find out if he's a good defensive OF. He hits LH and does a little of everything at the plate. If somebody wants to look up his splits, I'd look at the findings to see if he kills righties. if nobody looks it up, I'll survive.

To be frank, you are taking the financing failure of projects to mean that something can't be built on the site, and that couldn't be more wrong. Having literally sat on Planning Commissions for about a decade, and being involved in the planning process for major projects, most of them never get built because of being able to raise financing, not because of soil or whatever else you are pushing here. Pretty sure that is not going to be the problem here with the guy who owns the Fire. Realistically all of the site remediation stuff is what costs will be pushed off on to the state and city as a redevelopment site to get this property back on the tax rolls at a massive number. This is what they love to put under the category of "infrastructure" we hear so much about. And for the record I am pretty sure the freaking One World Trade Center site weighs more per square foot than any other building project that could be put on the 78, and the WTC complex is literally the old Hudson River bank that was filled in over the centuries. They found a 17th century boat when they put the pilons in for the new WTC. Pretty sure the engineers can handle this.

I left this topic alone but wondered why one poster in particular kept posting on this hundreds of times. Meanwhile you cannot let one post of mine go by without chiming in. You cite skyscrapers which present entirely different foundation requirements and cost parameters per sq. ft., but that has nothing to do with what is required at the 78. Of course almost any building can be built almost anywhere. So what? Recall that the U of I suddenly cancelled plans to build on the 78 citing among other things, the ballooning costs of construction. The Developer left taxpayers holding the bag for 30 Million in unpaid contractor bills. There was a deal breaker in that case. Frankly, I don't know how much more in additional costs could be a deal breaker for Mansuetso/the Fire or any project on that site. You suggested that added costs will not be a deal breaker. How so? Is Mansueto all in, regardless of costs? That would be an unusual approach for any businessman/developer. You failed to address the other points I made, but oh well ... maybe let it go. I don't really want to engage you further.

Yanks don’t have a director right now.

Wouldn’t have minded taking a shot on him.

Getting your top signing (ranked #2 in the class by MLB) sniped a month before the period opens, yikes

At least I can properly root for him to figure it out now that he's not a Guardian

He’s a bench guy on a one year deal making $1.25 million. He is replacing 40 year old Justin Turner. I doubt the Cubs are looking at him as anything but that.

Yeah the Sox aren’t getting him, and honestly, I’m not too mad about that given his nerve issues.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/12/cardinals-still-interested-in-rotation-addition.html Cardinals for now seem more determined to put together their semi-competitive rotation...

What happened to the steady drumbeat of Murakami hype? Only 4 days away and counting.

https://www.draysbay.com/2023/3/9/23633373/2023-draysbay-community-prospect-list-no-30 Peters was the 29th rated Rays' prospect three years ago lol. Meadiocre #1. Just ahead of Chandler Simpson and old friend utility guy Tristan Gray.

I don't know why you keep going to this well, but most of the gigantic buildings of downtown Manhattan, a large portion of downtown San Francisco, as well as most of the buildings past Michigan Avenue in Chicago are built on fill. There is enough bedrock below which is accessible enough to build foundations for thousand foot tall buildings on, let alone a ballpark. None of what you posted is a dealbreaker, and is dealt with on sites all over the nation for much more complex buildings.

Tyler Glasnow next? Anyone Rays-adjacent?