77 Hitmen

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.

Dallas/Ft. Worth is the 4th largest metro area in the US. 8.3M people vs. 9.4M in Chicago's metro. How are they mid market by any metric? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area

But that's the problem. In the NFL, Green Bay and KC can be powerhouses and nobody talks about them as small market teams. In MLB, it's gotten to the point where the only powerhouse franchises are in the top 12 or so markets. Everyone else has to either catch lightning in a bottle or keep tearing down and rebuilding like the Guardians and Rays do.

I disagree with this. Over the last 20 Super Bowl champs, here are the small market winners: Green Bay, Kansas City (x3), Tampa Bay, New Orleans, Pittsburgh. That's 7 times in 20 seasons. Plus 3 arguably "middle market" SB champs: Baltimore, Seattle, Denver. That's half the SB titles in the last 20 years that weren't in a top 12 market vs. only 4 out of 20 in MLB. If Kansas City and Tampa Bay are small markets in MLB, then they're small markets in other sports too. Green Bay/Milwaukee, too.

So, by your logic, the Brewers should be sold because they can't get past the big market teams to make it to the World Series. The Guardians should be sold, too. In fact, using this litmus test, about half the league (all smaller market teams) should be put up for sale. The Rays just got sold. What if the new owners can't get past the big market teams, either? Force them to put the team up for sale again? The Pohlads tried to sell the Twins and ran into issues with their $400M in debt. Two things can be true: their are some bad owners who just don't want to compete (Reinsdorf, Nutting, Fisher) and there's a systemic competitive balance problem in the league that is only getting worse.

Fun with statistics. We can cherry pick which ones to use to further our argument. Here's another way to look at the disparity problem in MLB by looking at all the recent World Series winners: 2025: Dodgers - BIG MARKET 2024: Dodgers - BIG MARKET 2023: Texas -- BIG MARKET 2022: Houston - BIG MARKET 2021: Atlanta - BIG MARKET 2020: Dodgers -- BIG MARKET 2019: Washington - Medium Market? 2018: Boston - BIG MARKET 2017: Houston - BIG MARKET 2016: Cubs - BIG MARKET 2015: KC - Small Market 2014: San Francisco - BIG MARKET 2013: Boston - BIG MARKET 2012: SF - BIG MARKET 2011: St. Louis - Medium Market (at the time, small market now) 2010: SF - BIG MARKET 2009: Yankees - BIG MARKET 2008: Philadelphia - BIG MARKET 2007: Boston - BIG MARKET 2006: St. Louis - Medium Market It's almost always the same top 10 or 12 big market teams that win the World Series. All but 4 times going back 2 decades. You just don't see this in the other major sports.