77 Hitmen

$86M contract? Too rich for our blood. It could go up to $131M? That's getting close to double the Sox biggest contract ever! Hopefully by the time the option year rolls around for this Soderstrom deal where it might surpass the $100M mark, the Sox will be under new ownership and we fans won't be staring in awe at some other team's $131M contract.

After the historically bad 2024 for our favorite team, this year gave us more excitement than I expected (on and off the field). Here's some positive highlights I can think of: - Sox win draft lottery will pick #1 overall next summer - Colson Montgomery hits 21 HRs in 71 games after being called up on July 4 - Sox sign Munetaka Murakami - Local, multibillionaire Justin Ishbia drops his bid to buy the Twins and enters into an agreement to (eventually) be the next owner of the White Sox - A die-hard Sox fan is elected Pope (I bet NOBODY had this on their bingo card!) - The guy in bullet #4 above suggests to the guy in bullet #5 above that the Sox will be getting a new stadium in the near future This isn't an all-inclusive list and please feel free to add to it. And yeah, I know the fact that the new Pope is a Sox fan isn't going to affect the fortunes of this franchise, but we've certainly had a lot of fun with it since the news broke in May.

Ha! I did totally forget about the Buffalo Sabres! You're right - there are 8 MLB/NFL/NBA/NHL teams that currently play in the state of New York. So, NY state has lost 6 teams over the years (w/ 2 of those still playing in the NYC metro), but still have 8 teams playing within the state boundaries. ....and I'm only counting those 4 sports leagues, of course - not MLS, WNBA, etc.

I assume you mean the Buffalo Braves, not the Sabres, but good catch! I had to look them up.....they're the LA Clippers now.

This is an interesting look at the MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL teams that Missouri has lost over the last 75 years. I can't think of another state that comes close. Maybe New York with the Giants (baseball), Dodgers, Rochester Royals (NBA), and Giants/Jets (NFL), with the last two teams, like the Chiefs, staying in the metro area. But the state of NY still has 7 teams from those 4 sports leagues.

Yeah, it's a sizable amount remaining to be paid for the SF renovations, too - something like $500M. In contrast, there's "only" about $50M still owed on Rate Field, which is about the amount spent on a relief pitcher. I know the McCaskeys don't own Soldier Field, but they're the ones who have benefited from the 2002 renovations and they'll see the valuation of their franchise skyrocket if a stadium complex is built in Arlington Heights. While I can certainly see the Bears ending up in NW Indiana and taking whatever money the IN state govt throws at them, a stadium complex at Arlington Park would be much more valuable to the McCaskeys than any location they'd end up with in NWI. No offense to my fellow Sox fans in NWI, but that Arlington Park location is golden. My guess is that if they worked out a plan for the Bears to pay off that Soldier Field debt, they'd get that infrastructure/property tax deal done with the state fairly quickly.

$500M in debt that the new limited partners will help pay down. That doesn't sound like accounting tricks to falsely show that (some) teams are losing money as some people claim. I wonder if other teams have a significant debt aside from the Twins and White Sox. This article discussed the 20% share and paying down a "significant amount" of the debt. I'm surprised it's not all the debt. https://puckettspond.com/new-minority-owners-bring-skills-and-hopes-of-energizing-the-twins-01kd1e61nr0d

The Twins have announced 3 new limited partners in their ownership group. Tom Pohlad is also taking over day-to-day operations of the ballclub from his brother. https://www.mlb.com/news/twins-ownership-group-welcomes-new-limited-partners

The reported location of their new stadium will be in the municipality of Kansas City, Kansas. Why would they drop "City" from their name when their home field will be literally in a town named Kansas City?

The Chiefs have announced that they are moving across state lines and into a new domed stadium and mixed-use district on the Kansas side of the KC metro area. It'll be in Kansas City, Kansas. There is currently a speedway, a casino, and a shopping mall at that location. https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/live-updates-kansas-officials-set-to-review-financing-plan-for-chiefs-stadium The Chiefs have been at Arrowhead Stadium since 1972, just about as long as the Bears have been at Soldier Field (1971).

That's been the criticism of the current Sox stadium for 35 years. That's why there are 3 luxury levels before you even get to row 1 of the upper deck at Rate Field. A new Sox stadium would almost certainly not have a 21 row hike to upper deck seats.

Yep, I watched the most recent Geoffrey Baer lakefront show and Michigan Ave was right on the lakefront in the mid-1800s. There's a discussion about this beginning at around 5:25 in the video below. Later in the show, they talk about the whole Streeterville area that was basically a sandbar. But it doesn't matter how many times this is explained. One particular poster will continue to throw a tantrum whenever someone suggests that a structure can be built on the 78.

Use the Popemobile for pitching changes.

I wonder if Ishbia would be willing to inject more money into the MLB payroll if it really did turn out that the Sox were a top FA or two away from competing in 2029 and JR hasn't handed over ownership yet at that point. Being able to hit the ground running with a highly competitive team when he finally does take over would probably be ideal for him.

I'll also note, without commenting on whether I approve of the Governor or not, that he's up for reelection in 2026. As much as I'd like to see a Bears deal in AH done, him not wanting to be seen as giving the McCaskeys a huge tax relief isn't being stupid. As far as I can tell, public reaction (on both end of the political spectrum) has been unfavorable towards a Bears stadium deal. Maybe that'll change if an Indiana stadium deal seems imminent, and it might get to that point, but not right now. At the end of the day, if I had to choose between only 1 team (Sox or Bears) getting a deal done for a new stadium, I'll gladly take the Sox resolving their stadium situation over the Bears any day.

Lining up Justin Ishbia as the next owner of the team and taking action before Ishbia went ahead and bought the Twins. If this indeed goes through, I'll give JR kudos for making this happen. Double kudos if this leads to a privately-financed new stadium for the ballclub. The team also did win the World Series under his ownership. As much as there was a "lightning in a bottle" component to their championship in 2005, Jerry was still the owner and this obviously was the crowning achievement of his ownership.

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.

If the Ishbias commit to privately financing a baseball stadium there, I sure hope so.

You don't think they'd find a buyer for 300 acres of prime, undeveloped real estate close to 2 major expressways and a Metra stop? Did they overpay for the land? Serious question, I'm not being facetious. What does that kind of parcel right in the heart of a thriving area go for?

I think landing the Bears would be a major coup for the State of Indiana and Northwest Indiana. I expect their politicians would move heaven and earth to get a deal done and NO Indiana elected officials are going to lose an election for bringing the Bears to their area. In fact, I expect the opposite would be true - Indiana politicians from both sides of the aisle will have a field day telling their constituents how they got the iconic Chicago Bears to relocate across state lines. IMHO opinion, it would be a gigantic black eye to Chicago and the State of Illinois to lose the Bears. It would just reaffirm to everyone that people and businesses are fleeing the city and state because it's not friendly to businesses. Other cities and states get major projects done while Illinois/Cook County is where projects like this go to die so that politicians can say they stuck it to business owners because they're rich. It would be different if the Bears were asking for public funding for the stadium itself. But for a state to blunder its way out of an NFL franchise and $2B in private investment for the stadium itself because they won't budge on infrastructure spending and property tax relief sends a bad signal to the business community. Oh, and Illinois and Cook County can say goodbye to a lot of Taylor Swift-type mega concerts, NCAA tournaments, etc. if NW Indiana builds a climate-controlled 65k seat fixed-roof stadium. It won't only be about the 9 or 10 Bears games per season they're losing.

Rumor has it there is a state whose borders come right up to the Chicago city limits and is within the Chicago TV market. Maybe someone could fact-check that.

Okay, you've mentioned the 5 franchises out of 30 with bad owners that everyone knows about. Of course, then there's of the top 12 or so teams from the biggest markets that can hand out insane contracts. What about the other half of teams in the league? Move them to some inferior league? May as well roll back MLB to the original number of franchises at 16 for the biggest markets and push cities like Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cleveland, Minnesota, Cincinnati, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, etc. to some sub-par league. The Brewers payroll is equivalent to the Dodgers luxury tax, so they'll be in this second rate league for sure. Terrible idea, just awful.

Perhaps baseball will devolve into a regional sport if the competitive imbalance isn't addressed somehow. A sport that fans in the biggest markets follow, but sharply declining interest in the bottom half markets.