77 Hitmen

Also, let's not forget that the Ishbias bought the Suns in 2023 - less than 3 years ago. It's not like they've had years and years of spending with poor results.

The price tag for the Fire's soccer stadium is up by $100M and now is listed as $750M. But there's no mention of Mansueto backing away from his stadium plan. Levy was announced today as having all the concessions at the new Fire stadium. “They’re going to work to engage local culinary talent, local restaurateurs, to bring some of the flavors from around the different 77 neighborhoods into the stadium,” https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/12/03/levy-food-service-new-chicago-fire-stadium/

The Ishbia brothers presumably are not idiots. In spending somewhere close to $2B for the White Sox, they surely know that this franchise has serious troubles and a change in modus operandi is a MUST for them. They also know that the Cubs have become even more dominant in Chicago, that Wrigley Field is more popular than ever after the Ricketts renovations, and that Rate Field is one of the more obsolete stadiums in the league at this point. He also knows that, while the Sox have a hard-core group of die hard fans that are as passionate as any fan base, the fanbase is not growing and, if anything, market share is probably shrinking. It's no accident that he told the Pope his intentions to put the Sox in a new stadium. He wouldn't have said this with the press listening if the dream of a new stadium was unlikely. He also knows very well that the state isn't handing them $1B for the stadium, either, so that leads me to believe he's looking to privately finance the stadium. Turning this team into a winner on the field is paramount, but at this point it has to be more than that unless the Sox can somehow win several pennants in quick succession. They've made mistakes with the Suns, but that doesn't mean they can't learn from their mistakes. At any rate, having them take over the White Sox seems like the best option possible that I can think of - certainly better than keeping the team in the Reinsdorf family after Jerry passes.

That was basically his point - this franchise could be a powerhouse if run the right way. But that's certainly not the case right now.

Ah yes, I forgot the Giants as one of the major market teams. They have the Bay Area all to themselves now. High-price area with a huge corporate presence and they play at one of the most popular ballparks in the league. I agree that SD is an interesting situation. Sort of a unique market - very popular ballpark, only city with a MLB but no NFL/NBA/NHL team, but also a metro area that's somewhat boxed in. Yeah, I'd consider SD, AZ, and SEA as mid-market. WAS should be too and perhaps DET. Colorado should be mid market, but they're obviously a total mess. Of course, we all know about the Sox. Should be major market team, but under JR's stewardship, he's managed to make them small market nested within the 3rd largest metro area.

1) As @caulfield12 said, the value gets reset for heirs. If I'm not mistaken, let's say your parents bought a vacation home decades ago for $200,000 and it's worth $700k now. If they pass, you inherit the property, and decide to sell it, your capital gains would be based on the value it had at the time you inherited it. You would not be subject to tax on the $500k increase in value of the property from the time your parents purchased it. 2) There's a lot more to generating revenue for a franchise than number of tickets sold. Local TV revenue, corporate sponsorship, luxury suites, and even price of the tickets are much higher in they are in the major markets than in Milwaukee and the State of Wisconsin. The Dodgers, for example, get over $300M per year in local TV revenue. The Brewers get about 1/10th of that. Plus, some teams generate revenue from the developments around their team's stadium (e.g.; Braves, Cubs, Cardinals) whereas Am Fam Field is surrounded by parking lots. Would the Brewers be losing money if they jacked up their payroll to major market level? None of us would know for sure unless MLB teams agreed to open their books (which they won't). But there was a report earlier explaining how the Pirates and Twins are losing money. At least the Twins ($400M) and White Sox (~$150M?) have a sizable debt. When the Brewers say this, it sounds plausible. When the Yankees say they're not making money, that's what I find hard to believe. Do I feel sorry for ANY of the rich MLB owners? NO. But I also find it an incredible coincidence that all the small market teams can't keep up with big market payroll while almost all the major market teams are able to spend big bucks on high-prices free agents. NYY, NYM, BOS, PHI, TOR, LAD, LAA, CHC, HOU, TEX, ATL - probably a couple of others I'm missing - these are the HAVES. Teams like MIL, TB, and CLE that actually try to win are the Have Nots. They're NOT going to spend $200M on players like Dylan Cease.

That's a bit of a defeatist attitude and, I know, I know, why wouldn't a Sox fan have a defeatist attitude. Sounds like something JR would say - he's not tone-deaf and out of touch, Sox fans are and they'll turn on the next owner no matter who it is. I know most sports team owners are unpopular to some degree, but I find it hard to believe that it's the Sox fans who are at fault and were being unfair for turning on Jerry Reinsdorf and Eddie Einhorn and that they're sure to apply the same level of vilification to the next owner.

It remains to be seen if this is a bad contract. If Toronto wins the WS next year with the help of Cease and then he's washed up during the last half of the contract, will it still be a bad contract?

Who is that in the middle of table 3? In fact, I could use help with a lot of these faces. Some are obvious.

Yep. As Sox fans, we've spent the last 20-30 years remarking at how certain free agent contracts have been terrible for that other team and that they're going to regret it. Meanwhile, the Sox have held the line at the $75M contract mark and have been one of the worst teams over the last 20 years in terms of making the playoffs and actually winning playoff games. I don't know about you guys, but I'm not going to pity these other franchises for their supposed stupidity, I'm going to ENVY them because we're stuck with the Sox organization's stupidity at how they do things.

Yes, but the Royals intend to leave Kauffman Stadium for a new ballpark at one of 3 possible sites. No matter where they land, it'll be a ballpark that's either downtown or built along with an entertainment district. https://www.kmbc.com/article/royals-fan-feedback-survey-future-stadium-kansas-city-2025/69240460 https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/46030983/mlb-ballparks-future-stadiums-kansas-city-royals-downtown-suburbs-village-model With two states (and 2 different counties on the Missouri side) pitted against each other, I think the chances of them getting something done are pretty good. The A's and Rays will end up with a new stadium/entertainment district development, too.

I'd say all but a handful of teams have figured this out. The ones with non-descript "nothing wrong with it" stadiums that don't have much else to do around them can probably be counted with one hand. The business model that JR created for himself 35 years ago at New Comiskey is sorely outdated.

The CBA expires in 53 weeks. Get ready for a lot of posturing by both sides over the next year.

You mean the same Jerry and Eddie who almost immediately bad-mouthed and alienated Bill Veeck, insulted Sox fans by vowing to get rid of the riff raff that was currently attending Sox games, told Sox fans the team was moving to pay TV and that they'd better get used to it, and let their popular broadcaster jump ship to the Cubs? You forgot to mention that part of the story.

Good points. It won't matter if they build a new stadium and/or move to a new location if the new owners continue to run this organization the way Reinsdorf has (especially over the last 20 years). Ishbia and his team need to rebuild the organization into a competent one, otherwise the Sox will continue to be an afterthought in Chicago no matter where they play. Honestly, I'd be thrilled if the Sox could somehow figure out a way to get consistently good attendance, win back market share, draw more than just die-hard generational fans, and generate robust revenue streams at the current location just by being better on the field. This would have to continue through ups and downs that most franchises go through, not just a short-lived boost by winning another pennant only to have attendance slide again the moment the team doesn't make the playoffs. I just think they'd continue to have nagging attendance issues with the current "it's not as bad as people think" ballpark and its mostly parking lots surroundings. Could they find lasting success by building Comiskey III across the street and turning the area into a thriving entertainment district to attract today's fans? I have serious doubts, but I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong.

It seems like this has been discussed several times in this thread and it's been stated repeatedly that even if the Sox built a new stadium at the 78, there almost certainly will be parking available for people who can't or won't take public transportation to the game. Now, it won't be the same number of parking spots as at Rate Field and it won't be on acres of surface lots and it won't cater to people who won't go to games unless the stadium has ample surface lots and is right next to an expressway, but I think it's time to put the rest the notion that a hypothetic stadium at the 78 (or anywhere else) would leave fans with nowhere to park and would only be accessible by mass transit. To your last point, you said transportation has never been a problem at 35th & Shields. Yeah, but has that really helped with attendance over the years? Since the new park opened, I believe Sox attendance has been 15th or lower in MLB all but the opening years of 1991-94 and 2006. Even when they were playing well a number of other seasons between 2000-2010, attendance was lackluster given the team's level of performance. They won 88 games in 2010 and were still 17th in MLB in attendance. https://www.thebaseballcube.com/content/mlb_attendance/ Are there downsides if they do indeed move to a new stadium at the 78? Yes. It won't be as convenient for fans driving in as the current park is. Each site has its pros and cons and will leave some fans unhappy. Same with possible suburban sites. It'll be up to the Ishbias to decide where they want to spend their money on this franchise. Maybe they'll decide to build a new park at 35th St and try to create an entertainment district around it.

So, about 3x as much debt as the Sox. Nonetheless, that sale may have gone through if Jerry didn't approach him with an opportunity to buy the Sox.

He could build a new stadium on the north side of 35th St. on the site of Old Comiskey. Does ISFA own that land? If so, he'd have to buy the land from them and also tear down the existing ramps, bar, and gift shop structure while Rate Field is still open to build a new stadium there. IMO, if he's going to build a new stadium, it's either going to build it at the 78 or the site of Old Comiskey. If he does choose the Old Comiskey site, it does make me wonder why he'd spend $1B+ to build at the exact same location that has somewhat problematic for the Sox for decades. Sure, it would erase all the oft-discussed design flaws of the current stadium, but you are still stuck with the nagging issue of a location where there isn't much else for fans to do before and after games. He'd have to build an entertainment district built along with the new park. That would be costly and he'd have to be confident that building an entertainment district from scratch there will actually succeed since the businesses will have to draw people the 280 days each year when the Sox aren't playing at home.

I'm not sure why Ishbia would have pulled out of buying the Twins because he wanted to spend upwards of $1B on a new stadium. All things being equal, I'd think he'd prefer a team that already played in a well-liked stadium in a downtown location. For all the problems the Twins have, Target Field isn't one of them. It isn't bottom 3-5 like you pointed out is the situation with the Sox. Otherwise I agree that the Twins big debt load was another reason to pick the Sox over them....though I don't know how much debt the Sox have compared to the Twins. To @southsider2k5 and @PaleAleSox's points, not only is Chicago a bigger market, but it's Ishbia's hometown. He flat out said so to the media the other day. "If done right" is exactly the problem with the Sox. The incoming owner has his work cut out for him. Not only does he need to rebuild this organization from the ground up but he's coming in as the stadium issue comes to a head with the lease expiring in 2029. In order to make inroads against the Cubs in Chicago, they'll need the Sox to be a top-notch organization playing at a world-class stadium. Right now, they are near the bottom of the league for both.

Are there other developers involved at the site other than Related Midwest? I haven't heard Related Midwest shut the door on a Sox stadium there as far as I know. Interesting that Garfien initially said 2 stadiums wouldn't fit there but then was told it could work. That doesn't sound like the Sox are giving up on the site. I like Chuck, but he's essentially a Sox employee. He's not an independent journalist who is going to criticize or contradict the organization. I guess we'll all find out soon enough. Ishbia sure seems to have a new stadium somewhere in mind. Who knows, perhaps it'll be at 35th St. on the site of Old Comiskey. A new stadium there would also have to include some sort of "entertainment district" development because he ain't spending over a $1B on a new stadium only to keep it surrounded by acres of surface lots when much of the rest of the sports world is moving away from that business model.

Who are the people in the know? City officials? Land developers? I'm not questioning your info, but I'm curious because the Sox sure seem to be still talking as if they still have aspirations for a stadium at the 78. I think it was Brooks Boyer who said so in a press release this summer. The soccer stadium will take up about 10 acres and some other MLB parks take up about 15 acres. Of course, as you said, there are other things that need to go around such facilities, so it's not as simple as adding up acreage until you get to 62 (the total acres at the 78 site).

Because fans want to go to an MLB stadium where loud jets fly overhead every few minutes?

I seriously can't think of any viable options for the Sox other than the current site or the 78. Anything else would be a step down from 35th & Shields. The Soldier Field and Michael Reese sites are NOT better locations than the current site. I know some fans will insist that they should move to the suburbs - Arlington Park (w/ the Bears) or somewhere SW like Tinley Park, but I really don't see that as a successful option even if it would be more convenient for a segment of the fan base. I will be shocked if Ishbia decides to pour $1B into a stadium way out in the suburbs.

The deal has been officially announced. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/19/mlb-media-rights-deals-nbc-espn-netflix.html Some interesting items from the deal: - MLB returns to NBC after a quarter century absence. Previously, NBC had been nearly synonymous with national telecasts going back to the first televised game in 1939. - NBC will now have a Sunday night pro sports telecasts all year long with Sunday Night Football being joined by a Sunday night NBA game after the NFL season ends and then Sunday Night Baseball after the NBA season ends and the baseball coverage will go until the NFL season starts up again. NBC will also broadcast a prime-time Monday night game on Labor Day - Early season Sunday Night Baseball games will be on Peacock instead of NBC. - First game of the season (Giants vs. Yankees) will be on Netflix - ESPN buys MLB.TV and will have the streaming rights to all out of market games. - ESPN also buys the in-market streaming rights for the Padres, Rockies, D-Backs, Guardians, Twins, and Mariners

This isn't stadium related, so I decided to post it here. I found this encouraging from the Greenberg article about Ishbia's meeting with the Pope: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6820934/2025/11/19/pope-leo-justin-ishbia-white-sox-invite/ “I have met with, except for one, every Major League Baseball owner,” he said, declining to name the lone holdout. “Before I was fortunate enough to have this deal with Jerry come together, one of my goals — and I’m a goals nerd — in calendar year ’23 and calendar year ’24 was to, either in person or via Zoom, meet with every Major League Baseball owner just so I could learn and get to know them a little bit over a period of time. And so, I accomplished that goal, except for one. Yeah, I’m in listening mode.”