77 Hitmen

Fine. Let that 121 record stand as a monument to the incompetence of this team's ownership and front office.

Yeah, several of the comments to the article say the radio host who said this is a loud-mouthed blowhard. I know, shocking that this is the case for a local sports radio host. Hey, I'd take Benetti back in exchange for Schriffen straight up in a heartbeat. But that'll never happen while Jerry is still owner.

That's a fair point, but I find the "whataboutism" by a local sports reporter in reaction to the incredible feat of a perfect game completely unnecessary.

Wow, I didn't realize that. Based on some quick, unverified googling, it sounds like he's the only player in MLB history that has accomplished 27 up/27 down three times. The only other pitcher who did it twice was Sandy Koufax. Is that accurate? Putting on my Sox fan chip on my shoulder: I bet if a Cubs pitcher accomplished that feat 3x, someone would have written a folk song about it. If a Red Sox pitcher accomplished it, maybe Ken Burns would have done a documentary about it. /removing chip off of shoulder.

At least you didn't mention doing the white smoke when a stadium deal at the 78 is done. 🙃

Franchise value is mentioned in the article. One problem with looking at franchise value is that it's not a liquid asset. It'll enrich the owners or their families when the franchise is sold, but until then it doesn't cover operating expenses.

Here's an article from March that takes a look at two teams (Pirates and Twins) that are losing money and one team (Braves) that is making money. One key factor discussed is the local TV revenue and how it's declined significantly for the 2 money-losing teams in the article. And the $595 revenue total for the Braves doesn't include revenue from the entertainment district by their stadium, which pushed their revenue up to $662M according to the separate article linked in this one. https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/what-the-pirates-twins-finances-reveal-about-mlbs-revenue-divide/

How much does the new Comcast deal give them? I'd imagine it's not even close to what they were getting from the RSN deal a few years ago. I don't know what the answer is going forward. I'd imagine teams with huge fan bases can still make a decent amount of money from TV/RSN deals and direct-streaming subscriptions, but this is a huge problem for everyone else, including the White Sox.

AJ speaks out against slights by ESPN against the 2005 team: https://www.si.com/mlb/whitesox/news/aj-pierzynski-calls-out-espn-for-disrespect-toward-chicago-white-sox-2005-world-series-team-bobby-jenks

I can't imagine making a crack that some guy "throws like a girl" to my daughter without her losing a ton of respect for me. The thing is, someone doesn't need to have a daughter to think such a comment is wrong. I don't know about others, but I try to live my life in such a way that I don't go around thinking anything that doesn't affect me personally doesn't matter.

I agree. Something has to give. The Dodgers and Mets have payrolls well over $300M while the Twins have $450M in debt. It was reported that the Sox have debt too as Ishbia will be infusing cash into the team over the next 2 years in part to pay down that debt. I'd imagine it's not just the Twins and Sox who are in debt, it only became public because of upcoming changes in ownership. The RSN cash stream is broken for many teams while other teams like the Braves are now raking in huge $$ with developments around their ballpark. That doesn't mean I think the union should totally capitulate to the owners demands or that I think that one side is right and another side is wrong, but the current dynamics in the league is not sustainable and I think it's only getting worse. And I know I said earlier that I won't lose sleep if there's a lockout because the Sox are dead in the water through at least 2027 anyway IMO, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in what's happening.

The view looking out from home plate toward the outfield has to be one of the worst in baseball. Other than the scoreboards, all you see is a bunch of giant advertisements that look like 3 huge expressway billboards framed by an "erector set" looking structure. It was much worse before they installed the Kids Zone and the Fan Deck. Back then it was 4 giant billboards on either side of the scoreboards and then what looked like the roof of a tool shed in the batter's eye section. The kids area and Fan Deck sure did help improve the aesthetics, but even post-renovation it's still a very bland, symmetrical view that is one of the most unremarkable in MLB. And yeah, EVERY ballpark as lots of ads in the outfield at our park, they really dominate the view at Rate Field. They're blended in much more nicely in most other parks. This one thing isn't a make-or-break issue for Rate Field, but these issues sure add up.

Anyone who is surprised by this really hasn't been paying attention to how this organization has been run over the last 15-20 years.

You're close, but I just checked BaseballReference.com and the Sox had higher attendance in 91 and 92 and then the Cubs had higher attendance in 93. The Cubs also had higher attendance in 94, but had more home games as the Sox had a (barely) higher per-game average. But remember, in '94 the Sox were coming off a 94-win AL West title season and were cruising to another division title while the Cubs were coming off a 4th place finish and were in LAST PLACE when the season abruptly ended. The fact that the numbers were even close shows that there already were problems before the strike. https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/attend.shtml https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/attend.shtml But your point is taken. This idea that the Sox were humming along and everything was just fine and nothing pre-1994 (SportsVision, Harry becoming the ultimate Cubs PR man, threat to move, botched new stadium design) had any impact on the market share dynamics in Chicago is simply not true. 1993 - only the 3rd year of the new ballpark and they had a 94-win division title season and still couldn't outdraw the 4th place Cubs. Was the 1994 the worst of the Reinsdorf PR debacles? I'd agree YES, but it definitely didn't start there....and it didn't end there either.

Certainly. Just look at where the Sox are playing this weekend. Many people consider PNC Park the best stadium in MLB. It's at least often in the top 2 with Oracle Park. But the Pirates have been bottom feeders for a generation now and that beautiful ballpark seems wasted. They don't even have to be the Yankees or Dodgers. Can you imagine if it was the Rays organization who was playing there the last 2 decades? I bet they'd be packing the place in. And we all know that JR has run the White Sox over the last 15 years like we were the Pittsburgh Pirates 2.0. However, I firmly believe BOTH things are needed - a winning team and a stadium that brings people into the park. Look at the Braves. Since New Comiskey opened, they've won 6 pennants, 2 WS titles, and too many division titles and playoff berths to keep track of. They also opened a new ballpark 5 years AFTER New Comiskey which didn't get pounded with criticism like the Sox stadium did. And yet, they decided to leave Turner Field after only 20 years for a new ballpark and entertainment district. Have they regretted that? Hardly. Since moving to Truist Park, they've been raking in the dough and their franchise valuation has gone up 250% (according to this article:) https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/45392359/2025-mlb-ballpark-village-truist-park-battery-atlanta-future-business-cities-build

I really do have mixed feelings about whether I want them to stay at the current park or move to the 78. They did indeed do a decent job with the ballpark renovations about 20 years ago. Just looking at pictures from the park in the 90s to what it looked like post renovations shows me that it was a HUGE improvement. I also have a lot of fond memories of seeing exciting games at the park over the years and bringing my kids there when they were little. But the issues you list are true....and they are glaring ones even if it's a "nice ballpark." For your first point, this is absolutely the case when you ask most people outside the die-hard Sox fan base. Seeing MLB ballpark review articles is not fun for Sox fans as our stadium does indeed almost always rank near the bottom - even from critics who aren't enamored with Wrigley and Fenway. With the Oakland Coliseum gone from MLB and Tropicana Field soon to be gone too, Rate Field is basically battling it out with Chase Field in Phoenix for the bottom in most reviews I read. And I know some hard core fans will say "who cares?".....well, IMO it does matter when you need to fight hard to get people to spend their entertainment dollars on your team. We'll see what the Ishbias do when the ballpark lease is up in 2029, but I for one am not interested in spending another 30 years arguing with the rest of the world that our ballpark is "not as bad as you think" and "is actually kind of nice." Not exactly ringing endorsements in a league full of charming ballparks surrounded by vibrant entertainment areas.

I don't see that happening unless they do a massive renovation to the existing park. If they stick with Rate Field for a few more decades, it'll be as much a "classic" park as Kaufmann Stadium (1973) and Angel Stadium (1966) are now. After "New Comiskey" opened, there were two seismic shifts in MLB stadium designs. The first was building "retro" parks which started only 1 year after New Comiskey opened. The other seismic shift was teams developing the area around ballparks to attract fans before and after games that started about 10-15 years ago. Rate Field is a nice place to see a game. I like going to games there, but it misses out on these two major trends in the last 30 years. And Bridgeport near the park is indeed really nice, but that's not enough to draw more fans to games these days. My question is whether the area would support a year-round entertainment district if the new Sox owners want to stay put and develop some of the land around the existing park. I honestly don't know.

Agreed on your 1 and 2. As far as the parking lots, I don't think the problem is that the parking lots exist as a convenience to driving customers, it's that pretty much all there is around the immediate ballpark area at Rate Field is parking lots. The economics of getting people to MLB games and deriving enough revenue for MLB teams to compete has changed significantly in recent years. In order to compete for entertainment dollars these days, teams are finding more and more that just relying on die hard fans who want nothing more than to drive up to the stadium, perhaps tailgate, see the game, and then drive home immediately afterwards is simply not enough. That may have worked 25 years ago with drawing Gen X and Boomer fans, but not today with Millennial and Gen Z fans. And I'm a Gen Xer, but the oldest Gen Xers are turning 60 this year. We're not the future demographics teams are looking towards. Also, with their RSN gravy train imploding, teams are looking for other ways to get revenue. Just look at what the Braves did with their baseball "village" and how much money Ricketts poured into developing Gallagher Way. The Phillies and Mets are also redeveloping a chunk of the parking lots around their stadiums. I believe the Orioles are looking to do the same for the area just outside the much-loved Camden Yards. Losing tailgating if they move to the 78 would indeed suck. There would parking if they moved to the 78, but most likely garages and not surface lots. But, to be honest, I don't see catering to the hardcore tailgating fans vs. developing an entertainment zone as being a good economic model for the new owners for the next 30-40 years. And Ishbia could very well decide that he doesn't want to pay up $1B or so for a new stadium and will keep the team at 35th St. long-term, but even then I'd be surprised if he did that and didn't develop a big portion of the surface lots into something to bring in more fans before and after games and throughout the year.

I think it's pretty clear to everyone that the only way the Sox are getting a new stadium is if they pay most, if not all, of it themselves. However, unlike with Reinsdorf, it's not out of the question to think that the Ishbias would indeed do that. We just don't know because they have said anything publicly about it one way or another. And yes, they could also decide to buy and develop the parking lots around the current park. I think that's the LEAST they will do moving forward.

And many other teams want to follow what the Braves did. I doubt there's a MLB team out there that thinks the key to future financial success is to have the stadium surrounded by acres of parking lots. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/45392359/2025-mlb-ballpark-village-truist-park-battery-atlanta-future-business-cities-build

What I'd like to know about is the reports that some teams (including the White Sox) have accumulated a sizable amount of debt. One of the earmarks for the infusion of cash by Ishbia into this organization over the next 2 years is reportedly to pay down the team's debt. Also, wasn't it mentioned in another thread that the Twins have a sizable debt? What is causing these teams to go into debt? Was it from operating expense during Covid? The collapse of money flowing in from RSNs? Other factors? And if teams aren't making money, why are the payrolls of some teams approaching the stratosphere? Are some owners like Steve Cohen (Mets) and Mark Walter (Dodgers) dipping into their personal fortunes to bankroll their teams? Or is it that some teams (mostly in the biggest markets) are still raking in the dough while other teams are struggling with revenue streams drying up? I know some teams like the Braves and Cubs are bringing in a lot of money from the entertainment developments around their ballpark. I'm not asking this as someone who is pro-owners or pro-players union, I just want to know what's really going on with the economics of MLB as we head to a possible in a year and a half.

Ain't that the truth! Yep, it only became "lovable" after it was gone. It never had the same mass appeal of Wrigley or Fenway (I'd say Tiger Stadium was more along the lines of Comiskey). And part of why we remember Old Comiskey so fondly is because Jerry & Co. botched the design of the new ballpark so badly.

Yep, this won't be a repeat 1994 for me when JR shot down the Sox championship hopes. Even the 2022 lockout was worrisome when the Sox were supposedly entering the prime of their contention window. I'm not rooting for a shutdown in 2027, I'm just not going too be too bothered by it if it happens. It's not like it'll destroy the Sox playoff chances. Like I said, we already have a 6-page discussion about that in another thread. Something will have to give as baseball's economics are shifting quickly, especially with the collapse of their RSN gravy train. I have no idea what the solution is though. I doubt that a salary cap is the answer.

Maybe if I had a shred of hope of the Sox being good again in the next 3 or 4 years (we already have a 6 page thread about that), I'd actually share in this "ominous" feeling. As it stands, I'm not going to lose sleep over it because IMO, my favorite team has been unwatchable for going on 3 years now with no end in sight by 2027.

When I saw the thread title, I honestly wondered if this was going to be about "what have been been" if DeBartolo bought the White Sox in 1981 (his purchase was blocked by MLB) instead of Jerry and Eddie. I guess I'm going back too far. 🤣