waltwilliams

Good points, Lip -- didn't realize Hemond had six winning seasons. I agree with the fact that Hemond had to contend with the financial problems of both the Allyn and Veeck ownership groups. And he really should be championed for his work in '71 after he was hired, when the team was an afterthought. But he was also fortunate to be around for the one period when JR was willing to spend money -- the early 80s, which led to the Winning Ugly team. But that team quickly fizzled after '83, partly because Hemond didn't acquire/develop enough talent around his high-profile free agent acquisitions.. His early 70s acquisitions of people like Dick Allen and Stan Bahnsen were great, but those teams weren't deep at all. Once Dick went down with injuries in '73, that team fizzled too. And don't forget, as great as Dick was, he didn't last long. And the guy he was traded for -- Tommy John -- pitched at a high level for another 16 years (after his famous surgery, of course). Perhaps "overrated" is too harsh for Hemond, but pretty much all Sox GMs had to deal with parsimonious owners. I think ultimately KW and the 50s/60s GMs were able to accomplish more with less than Roland Hemond.

I don't disagree on the overall losing culture of Chicago teams, but those 50s/60s Sox teams were actually really good. They just had the misfortune (like everyone else in the league) of playing at the same time as the NY Yankees of the 50s and 60s, when they were at their most dominant.

They went to the World Series in 1959. It was much harder to get to the postseason in the 50s and 60s. There were no playoffs back then, just the regular season decided the AL and NL champs. Most of those 50s/60s teams would have made the playoffs under the current system.

I think the organization began its free-fall when Kenny Williams was kicked upstairs and replaced as GM by Rick Hahn. He had his detractors, but KW was arguably the greatest GM in Sox history, winning a WS and three AL Central titles during his run as GM from 2001 to 2012. They finished second in five other seasons and at .500 or better nine times under Kenny, putting together a 1,014-931 record during his stint as GM. The KW teams were great fun to watch, even when flawed. And that showed by attendance, which averaged at around 2.5 million between 2005 and 2011. KW was an excellent evaluator of major league talent, and was able to acquire undervalued talent who made a difference -- A.J. Pierzynski, Jermaine Dye, Freddy Garcia, Carlos Quentin, Juan Uribe and dozens more. Imagine if he had been able to swing the deal with the Marlins for Miguel Cabrera for (reportedly) Josh Fields, Gio Gonzales and (maybe) Jon Garland back in 2007! KW had that deal sewed up - the only reason that didn't happen is because JR didn't want to take on Dontrelle Willis's salary, which the Marlins insisted on. The Tigers did accept that salary, and the rest is history. But the bottom dropped out under Hahn, who had only one really good year during his tenure -- 2021. (I don't count the Covid year). Despite having higher annual budgets than KW, Hahn's teams underperformed year after year. He followed up KW's stellar run with a 716-846 record, a barren farm system and consistently dwindling attendance. KW was much more effective than the overrated Roland Hemond as GM. Only Ron Schueler and the late 40s/50s/early 60s GMs (Frank Lane, Chuck Comiskey, Hank Greenberg, Ed Short) could approach Kenny's record. (Larry Himes built the great early 90s teams, but was forced out before he could enjoy their success).

Yep, exactly. I'm wondering if this is why JR is buying up so much property around the UC. Perhaps part of that land goes toward expansion of the Stadium Network's broadcast facilities, which right now occupies a tiny sliver of space inside the United Center: https://chicago.suntimes.com/the-watchdogs/2024/02/22/jerry-reinsdorf-united-center-parking-lots-purchasing-white-sox-south-loop-ballpark

Yeah, but have you ever been to Dodger Stadium? There is literally nothing except parking lots around Chavez Ravine, and the downtown LA area that is close to Dodger Stadium is pretty sketchy. Yet they lead both leagues in attendance year after year. Or Yankee Stadium -- the South Bronx is better now than it was 30 years (like a South Side stadium we all know and love), but would you want to hang out there after a game? Nope. Yet they are the top AL draw year after year. Citi Field in Queens, same thing. Yet the second team in NYC still consistently draws over 2.5 million. Sox Park may have its issues (the terrible initial suburban design of the park before the 2003 remodeling, of course, being the main problem). But it's still the best stadium for transit in the city by far, what with two L lines and a Metra station near it, and an expressway literally adjacent to it.

The real problem is that the team has been horrible for the past 15 years. At their current location, the Sox were the first team in the city to draw 2 million (in 1983 and 1984). And during the years of promise during and after the World Series championship from 2005 to 2011, they were averaging 2.5 million, which is reasonable for a team in the smallest of the two-team towns (not counting the Bay Area). People will continue to make their way to South Armour Square as long as the team is good. This is true of most teams, especially in the AL Central. If the team sucks, fans won't go -- if the team is good, especially for a number of years, then the fans will go.

Pilsen and Chinatown are just as close to current Sox Park as they are to the 78. That said, it's actually kind of touching that you are so enthusiastic about this botched proposal from JR. I'd be more excited too, if if weren't exclusively publicly financed. We've all been through this before with JR -- it's a shame he takes us for granted and considers us to be complete tools.

The fact that 90s rappers wore Sox gear has nothing to do with whether or not tourists will go to see a Sox game.

That explains it -- you're old (like me). So you look at the Sox as they were in the Go-Go era. Well, it's not that way anymore. The Sox will never be co-equals to the Cubs -- that ship sailed 30 years ago. Wrigley Field is one of the premier destinations in sports -- it's a fact and we can't change that. And new baseball-only stadiums don't necessarily move the needle anymore. PNC Park in Pittsburgh is lauded as one of the most beautiful facilities in baseball, located right next to the river, with beautiful views of the skyline. And they've drawn worse than the Sox for almost the entire time the Pirates have played there, because the team consistently sucks. The Sox can draw well anywhere that they play (the current Sox Park or somewhere new), but the team has to win. It was that way 70 years ago, and it's that way today. I honestly don't care where the Sox play -- I'm fine with Armour Square (the actual neighborhood that the Sox play in now). Or I'm fine with the 78. I don't agree with an entirely publicly funded facility -- it's wasteful and counter-productive. And, if the Bears are indeed partially paying for their stadium, than that's makes more financial sense than some bells-and-whistles baseball-only park for a sport with a fan base that continues to get older.

I'm guessing you're not from Chicago.

The Bears have always maintained that they want their new stadium to be privately financed -- McCaskey is quoted saying this during a public forum in Arlington Heights a few years ago: https://blockclubchicago.org/2022/09/09/bears-plan-for-5-billion-stadium-campus-doesnt-include-retractable-roof-and-would-need-public-funding-team-says/. The public money they want is for infrastructure -- similar to how SoFi Stadium was built in LA. If that's still the case, then a privately funded domed stadium for the Bears (and other events) is a much easier sell than an entirely publicly funded stadium for the second MLB team in town, which has no real name recognition outside of Chicago and won't move the tourism needle at all, unlike Wrigley Field. True, the Bears only play eight games a year. But there's also the potential for other big events like Super Bowl, Final Four and concerts (where they would successfully compete with Reinsdorf's United Center, especially for bigger acts). Also, a domed stadium could conceivably be used for spillover convention-related events. In this current financial climate, no new stadiums really make sense for Chicago. But a domed stadium for the Bears and other events makes much more sense than an unnecessary baseball-only facility for a mediocre organization in a sport with an aging fan base.

On the contrary, it's the perfect place for TA, especially with the Angels hiring Ron Washington as manager. Nightengale says they'd move him to second base if they sign him.

You are such a lame idiot. Can't stand your posts

I'm guessing you don't live in Chicago. If they move to Orland/Tinley, they'll draw less than the A's. They'll be cutting off all their non-Southwest suburban fans, since you can only get down there basically by expressway (I-57/I-80). Imagine trying to make it down there for a weekday night game -- it would be a major chore. They'd be better off moving out of town completely than moving down to the Southwest suburbs.