77 Hitmen

The Padres play in a top-tier ballpark and have averaged fewer than 26k per game only once since Petco opened in 2004. They've drawn over 3M three years in a row and just missed 3M in 2022. They're also the only team in San Diego among the 4 major sports leagues. I can see why they're valued greater than the White Sox even though the Sox are in the 3rd largest market.

We all know that KW has too much of a temper and ego for this own good. But yeah, I mean it was only a few weeks ago that we were discussing the Sox vs. Thomas spat over their Black History month statement and KW has been gone for several years now. This organization simply does not tolerate former players who don't kiss the ring and it all comes down to the person in the organization who just became a nonagenarian.

I assume you meant to type south part of the lot. Looking at the rendering below, it doesn't appear to me that a Fire stadium would block much of the skyline view. I don't imagine the soccer structure would be any taller than the top of the upper deck of the Sox stadium and most of that view is blocked by the scoreboard in LF with a Mets player on it. And yeah, it'll be up to Ishbia. If he wants to privately finance a new stadium there, it'll probably get done. Only time will tell if that's what he wants to do.

KW contributed a lot toward this team leading up to the 2005 championship, but I'm so relieved that he's gone. As far as throwing former players under the bus who aren't total loyalists after they're gone, seems like par for the course for this team under Jerry Reinsdorf

Yeah, there are lots of people who look older than that who are in their 70s.

Yes, but it's not just about the most money either state is going to throw at them. It's also about which site offers the most potential for generating revenue streams and franchise valuation for the Bears. It looks to me like McCaskey still sees AH as the best location for that. Otherwise, this would all be over - the IN offer clearly bests the IL offer in that they'd be chipping in $1B toward the stadium itself. But that means saying goodbye to that massive 326 acre site at a prime location for development. My guess: If IL pushes through their legislation in the spring session without much delay, the Bears will take that and have earthmoving equipment ready to go at AH. If IL dicks around some more and fails to get a package done this spring, the Bears will tell them to drop dead and sign on to the IN deal. ....and yeah, Papa Bear would do the same thing. He was trying to get out of Soldier Field shorter after the Bears moved there in the early 70s.

Getting back to this question, though it may enrage anyone on SoxTalk who is apparently monitoring my post count, I found this article from last June a couple of weeks after the Fire made their stadium announcement. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/sports/mlb/chicago-white-sox/could-chicago-fire-fc-white-sox-stadium-projects-share-south-loop-site/3770673/ “There is a lot of room at the site,” David Baldwin, Fire FC’s President of Business Operations, told NBC Chicago’s Lexi Sutter. “Obviously we are the anchor tenant, (and) we’re really excited to catalyze this development. If it makes sense once our stadium is open for one of the other teams, if it makes sense at that point we are open to having a conversation down the road. and Related Midwest had said in a statement last year that they were “actively exploring the co-location of dual stadiums” for the two teams. It might not leave a lot of room for a sprawling entertainment district, but probably enough to have some development there. The riverfront and close to downtown location perhaps outweighs the need to create some sort of sprawling "White Sox Village" development like they'd need to do at a suburban location or even on the parking lots of the current stadium.

It looks like any updates on the Bears stadium saga will have to wait a few weeks. The IL House committee advanced the mega projects bill, but now the assembly is adjourned until March 18. IN's governor signed their stadium bill into law yesterday, but it looks like the Bears are willing to wait until the IL recess is over next month. https://abc7chicago.com/post/chicago-bears-news-illinois-indiana-lawmakers-taking-stadium-bills-thursday/18652916/

Definitely. Plus the 5% increase in the hotel tax if I'm not mistaken. I'm surprised the hospitality industry isn't complaining about that. Jackson Co, Missouri voters rejected a 3/8th cent sales tax for Chiefs and Royals stadium funding. But a 1% food tax for the Bears sailed through the IN legislature. Like others said, if the Bears do end up landing in AH, it'll be a win for everyone. IN working class taxpayers won't see their grocery bills go up, IN elected officials still got to embarrass IL, and the Arlington Park site is a great fit for the Bears.

It depends on how much Sox ownership is willing to pay for the stadium itself. They'll have to privately fund most, if not all of it. If they're counting on public money for the stadium itself (not infrastructure), they aren't going to get it and they'll be at Rate Field long-term. If the Ishbias want to bankroll a stadium at the 78, i'd like to think approval would go through as quickly as it did for the Fire. But, this is Chicago we're talking about.

I'm surprised there has seemed to be no pushback from Lake and Porter Co. residents for the proposed 1% increase in the food and beverage tax to pay for a Bears stadium. If IL were quickly passing a 1% tax on groceries for Cook and DuPage County residents to give the McCaskeys a sweetheart stadium deal, I wouldn't be happy with that. I'm not going to fault IL officials for refusing to match that.

While this is encouraging, I'll be assured of this when there's an official announcement from the Bears and specifically George McCaskey. There are two things that can still scuttle any deal: The first is Kevin Warren who last time IL announced progress, responded by cancelling their next meeting so that he could make a bombshell announcement about Indiana. I'm not going to underestimate his ability to generate more drama and derail any progress made. The second is Chicago lawmakers who seem to be of the attitude that any business that goes outside the city limits may as well just go and leave the state altogether because "it ain't Chicago". Maybe the enticement of making state funds available to help transition Soldier Field to a post-Bears era will get them on board.

So, I assume this means you aren't wishing him a happy 90th birthday today?

If this video is accurate, the Twins are now only making $5M in TV revenue vs. $55M before the RSN model imploded and the $330M/year that the Dodgers are making on TV revenue.

This is why I'll be very surprised if the Ishbias decide to just stick with There's Nothing Wrong with It Field long-term and let the team continue to be an afterthought in Chicago. The Ballpark at Arlington didn't last because playing outdoors in the intense summer heat in Texas turned out to be problematic for them as far as getting fans to come out to the game when it's 100 out. This video gives a pretty good explanation of why Turner Field didn't last. Lack of things to do around the stadium was part of it, but accessibility was a problem too. It also explains why a new ballpark out in the suburbs works for Atlanta and I don't think the same applies to Chicago.

Angel Stadium turns 60 this year and I have never heard a soul fawn over it as a charming, classic stadium because of its age. I don't expect the Sox can just wait a few more decade for Rate Field suddenly be considered a revered classic. Camden Yards is only 1 year newer than Rate Field with Coors Field ('95), Oracle Park ('00), and PNC Park ('01) being built all within a decade of "New Comiskey". I cannot envision a scenario were Rate Field leapfrogs those facilities to achieve such a venerated status based on its age. As far as the 2033 ASG goes, the Sox certainly have to be frontrunners to get that no matter where they play. They got the 50th game and it'll have been 30 years since the last time they hosted at that point. No doubt the Ishbias and MLB would much rather the team have a new ballpark to showcase by then. The A's, Rays, and Royals will be waiting their turn to host the ASG at their new parks. But that's 7 years off - plenty of time to build a new stadium by then.

Part of the reason why the Royals ballot initiative failed a couple of years ago was that downtown businesses were concerned about what a new ballpark would mean for them. It sounds like they are now warming up to the idea of a downtown KC ballpark. https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/royals-stadium-talks-continue-as-some-in-kcmo-warm-to-washington-square-park-location

I wish that wasn't the case. I'm actually one of those fans who generally just wants to go to the park, see the game, and then go home. But that's not what many people want in their gameday experience these days. I haven't been to as many other ballparks as @southsider2k5, but I've been to enough to see how much of a difference location and ballpark design makes. What I'm rooting for is for the Sox to consistently draw well so that they can have the resources to become and stay competitive in MLB. If they could do that at the current ballpark and location, that would be great. But the current ballpark situation creates challenges to that.

The Royals want out of Kauffman Stadium. I know the stadium issue has been a bit of a debacle in KC, but I'd be shocked if they're still at Kauffman after their lease is up in 2030. It also looks like they've ruled out a potential suburban stadium location on a huge campus in Overland Park and that their focus now is to build something in downtown KC.

I think this gets the whole "listicles" thing totally backwards. It isn't that potential paying customers are just sitting back and waiting for some online ranking of ballparks to decide whether or not to catch a game at Rate Field. It's that the rankings that are out there generally reflect what people think about MLB stadiums throughout the league. There's a reason why Rate Field is consistently ranked near the bottom, it's because that's how people outside of diehard Sox fans generally feel about the place. It's one thing to convince people that the place is much better than it used to be (true), not as bad as people think (true), a nice enough place to see an MLB game (true), and that there's nothing "dangerous" about the neighborhood (true). It's quite another to convince them that Rate Field is a must-see place that they want to devote their limited entertainment budget to (both money and time) unless the Sox are in contention for a pennant. Sure, you can find write ups out there that take unfair, ignorant swipes at Sox Park because they're just going on reputation. But that isn't what's causing attendance problems for the Sox and they aren't the only ones ranking the place near the bottom of the league.

Here's the story directly on the Fox 32 website. You can download the slides too. https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/exclusive-chicago-park-district-pitches-630-million-plan-post-bears-soldier-field Sounds like a good use for Soldier Field after the Bears leave. Already, there's more to its existence than 10-12 Bears games a year. To be fair, some of those major acts they're relying on such as Taylor Swift and Beyonce concerts might take place at the Bears new dome stadium instead of Soldier Field, but there will still be interest in major acts performing right in the heart of Chicago.

No need to stop at 2013. You can go back all the way to 1995 - as soon as the new ballpark bounce ended. The Sox have ranked higher than 15th in MLB attendance only once in those 3 decades - 2006 when they were reigning WS champs. All the talk about how much fans just love having a stadium right off the expressway and surrounded by parking lots isn't supported by the numbers. Which other teams are emulating even a single aspect of what the Sox have when designing their stadiums and surroundings in even the slightest way? Absolutely none. People can get apoplectic, resort to ad hominem arguments, and slap laugh emojis all over the forum to their hearts desire....it still doesn't change the reality of the Sox stadium situation. Neither does anecdotal stories about how great the place is for individual fans. I used to be one of those fans with a huge chip on my shoulder whenever someone dissed Sox Park - blaming it on Cubs fans or people brainwashed by the Cub-loving, Sox-hating media. At some point, I realized that "rest of the world is wrong and we die-hard Sox fans are right" way of thinking was just me living in denial.

That sure beats paying the exorbitant tolls. I'd still wonder how well they'd do drawing enough fans there such that it's a better location than 35th St. At least it's on the right side of town as far as fan bases goes vs. Arlington Heights, but it doesn't sound like an improvement over the current location to me. MLB is arguably the most difficult of the 4 major sports for drawing enough fans. Twice as many home dates as the NBA and NHL with the expectation these days that teams average at least 25k per game - which would put them just barely over 2M for the season - to avoid concerns about attendance problems. And of course an NFL team only has about 10 games per year mostly on Sundays. The Bears will sell out every game no matter where they build their stadium.

I guess the question for the team is why would moving to a ballpark at Wolf Lake would be better at drawing a sufficient number of fans than the current location. For whatever reason, enough people don't want to bother taking the Red Line a few stops south to see the Sox now. Are enough fans who don't already live in NW Indiana going to bother going down to Hammond to see the Sox play 81 times a year? It's right off of I-90, but are they going to drive there and pay $25 in tolls round trip on the Skyway and Toll Road to see the Sox play?

FWIW, a few months ago (and I'm sure I wouldn't be able to find a link for this), Chuck Garfien initially said that the Fire stadium means the Sox are out of the picture at the 78, but in a later discussion, he said he had been told there is room for both a Fire and Sox stadium at the site. This suggests to me that perhaps someone on the team corrected him because they're still considering the site. There's definitely enough room for a baseball stadium, but yeah, I don't know how much room that leaves for some sort of entertainment district. According to Mr. Google, the St. Louis ballpark village is about 10 acres. I've never been there, but I believe that includes things apartments, office space, and a hotel. With its location in the South Loop, they probably don't need to dedicate a ton of space for on the 78 for a housing, office space, or a hotel. As far as what would happen to Rate Field if the Sox build a new ballpark on the north side of 35 St? That's ISFA's problem. The Sox don't own Rate Field and aren't bound to the place once their lease expires. Even the debt for the stadium is relatively small ($50M) and could conceivably be paid off by the time the current lease is up.