77 Hitmen

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. 🤣

According to other articles, Zalupski's preference for a new Rays stadium is indeed Tampa over St. Pete. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/rays/2025/07/15/tampa-bay-rays-sale-agreement-1-7-billion/85204333007/

I missed that part in the article. But, I'm confused about this statement: According to The Athletic, Zalupski is expected to keep the team in the Tampa Bay area, and he has a “strong preference” to remain in Tampa rather than move to St. Petersburg. What does that last part mean? The team is already in St. Pete. At any rate, isn't the old stadium deal dead? So, Zalupski would have to work out a new stadium deal even if they're staying in the Tampa Bay area.

Reinsdorf has the option to sell beginning in 2029 but then in 2034, it's Ishbia who can exercise the option to buy. So, Jerry could drag this out until 2034 if he wanted to....assuming he lives to age 98.

The article says the Rays were valued at $1.25B in March. Quite a jump for a franchise whose stadium situation is a total mess. Plus, whoever buys them is going to have to pay up a huge chunk of money towards a new stadium somewhere. The Orioles were sold last year for $1.7B and their stadium is beloved and isn't going anywhere. But there are only so many teams to buy for billionaires who want to join the exclusive club of MLB ownership. I wonder if Reinsdorf and Ishbia have a price locked in place (with adjustments for inflation) for purchase of the Sox. I would have to think so, otherwise franchise price could really skyrocket by 2034 (the first year Ishbia has the option to buy).

And to be clear, there almost certainly is going to be some change to the "stadium situation" as team ownership gets handed over in a few years since the current lease is up in 2029 and I doubt there's simply going to be a new long-term "sweetheart" lease that incentivizes mediocre performance. This doesn't mean the team is certainly moving to the 78. My guess is that there's a good chance that the new owners keep the Sox at 35th and Shields long-term. But if anyone thinks this won't come with major changes to the current park and the acres of parking surrounding it, you aren't paying attention to the current economics of stadiums and their surroundings. Heck, that could even mean a new retro-style stadium on the site of Old Comiskey. Maybe that alternative isn't likely, but it's more plausible than just keeping the same status quo for the next 30 years.

In case you haven't heard, there's are super-rich billionaire brothers lined up to be the next Sox owners. I think it's very clear to everyone at this point that the notion of Jerry getting the state to build him a new stadium with $1B in public money is dead, including to Reinsdorf himself. Going forward, it'll all depend on what the Ishbias want to do with the stadium situation in preparation of them assuming control of the franchise between 2029 and 2034. I don't think it's a coincidence that the window for Ishbia taking control starts the same year that the current lease is up.

^ This sums it all up for me. The Sox will never be "consistently competitive" again (as the OP asked) as long as JR is in charge. Period. This organization is bad in so many ways and there's no quick fix until Jerry's no longer owner and there's a major fundamental change to how it is operated. Right now it's rotten to the core. We're stuck in baseball hell at least until Ishbia takes over and then we just have to hope he makes dramatic changes and actually hires competent people to run this team. That's not guaranteed to work, but it can't be worse than how things are going now. Until Jerry's no longer owner, any talk of which band-aids to slap on this team to make it legitimately competitive is simply a waste of my time.

The Bears have sent out a survey to fans about various costs and amenities at a new stadium: https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/2025/07/12/bears-test-waters-on-fan-appetite-for-amenities-exorbitant-prices-at-potential-new-stadium https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/07/10/bears-send-out-stadium-survey-to-season-ticket-holders/

Absolutely.

IMHO, I'd rather that Ishbia's infusion of capital goes to shoring up the organization instead of worrying about high-priced FAs at least through 2026. And I hope that part of this infusion goes towards settling the ballpark situation after the lease is up 2029. Whether it's getting a new park built at the 78 or having major changes at 35th and Shields, something needs to be done.

Ah yes, the good old "the Sox play in a crime infested hellhole" trope.

Yep, last I checked the Cubs play under the same Mayor and Governor and same set of taxes. And I've never heard of them having a hard time attracting free agents because of all the things that some people hate about Chicago and Illinois. And I'd hazard to guess that there are lots of "idiot" mayors and governers out there across the MLB cities.

This is quite baffling to me. Very frustrating to us fans, too. This is how a team makes it to 121 losses. I can't figure out the logic in this long-standing approach. Perhaps Jerry is just philosophically opposed to spending more money than minimally necessary on this kind of thing. He's also very insular and wants to hire loyalists, not the best front office talent that money can buy. At any rate, I have always thought the way he's approached operating this team is "penny wise and dollar foolish". He has allowed the major league payroll to rise to the top 10, so it's not that he never wants to spend money on anything.

Here's a link to that story (for those who have a NY Times subscription): https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6484590/2025/07/09/mlbpa-bruce-meyer-rob-manfred-salary-cap/

The Reinsdorf era can't end soon enough for me. At least he might be doing one good thing for this franchise on his way out in getting a local, deep-pocketed billionaire lined up to be the next owner.

You make a strong argument for the 1994 debacle being the worst among PR blunders. It's just sad IMO that we Sox fans have so many PR debacles to choose from and debate which is worse in the Reinsdorf era. All of these events are cumulative and not only one terrible move that led to the franchise's current situation even if JR being the ringleader for cancelling the 1994 season while the Sox were World Series contenders takes the cake. I just disagree that all the other factors had zero % impact on the Sox market share. The Cubs on WGN/Sox on SportsVision with Harry as the Cubs' pied piper era had zero % impact on market share? I have a hard time believing that.

You'll have to forgive us, it's difficult for long-suffering Sox fans to keep track of all the ways Jerry has damaged the Sox market share in Chicago. Maybe a handy pocket guide or flow chart for the first 10,000 fans through the turnstiles to watch their 110th loss this year? And while we're adding to the list of things we shouldn't forget - how about the whole New Comiskey debacle where JR and EE threatened to move the team to St. Pete and then had a generic, charmless new ballpark built that became outdated and widely disliked 1 year later when Camden Yards opened. Has it ever been confirmed that Jerry was presented with an option to build a retro-park like what the O's did and he rejected it? 35 years later and we're still arguing (with people who aren't Sox fans and even amongst ourselves) about whether the park any is good or not. Earlier, Caulfield mentioned WGN in addition to Harry and Sosa. Let's not forget the whole SportsVision debacle. The Cubs having every game broadcast nationwide on WGN was beyond the Sox control, but JR and EE moved all but a few games to pay TV (for $15/month in 1982 dollars) and a whole generation of Chicago fans grew up watching the Cubs because the Sox were hardly ever on free TV. Maybe 30 games/year on WFLD from 1982 onward? I know it wasn't practical at the time to have every Sox game on free TV since WSNS switched to a pay TV service, but could the Sox have stuck with more free TV games on WGN? In 1981, I believe WGN was scheduled to broadcast (before the strike cancelled a bunch of games) something like 60 Sox games. But Jerry and Eddie didn't want 60 games on free TV because that would have undercut their pay TV scheme.

The only thing that is clear to me is that the Bears and the Sox will have to come up with all (or at least nearly all) of the money for the stadium itself. The Bears are said to be committing at least $2B in private financing toward a new stadium. But there's still a lot of tax payer money that could potentially be approved for infrastructure and development of the land around the actual stadium. That's what's happening in DC - the Commanders are paying $2.7B for the stadium itself but there's something like $1B in public money that will be spent to develop the rest of the site. Right or wrong, good investment or bad, I can see politicians approving such costs when they can go back to the voters and say these are privately financed stadiums. As far as the Sox go, my guess is that the new owner will need to commit at least $1B in private financing if he wants a new stadium as Jerry has been angling for. Let's say for the sake of argument that Ishbia does exactly that - say he'll privately finance $1B to build a new Sox ballpark. Is it still a "no way" from state officials as far as any public money going to that project? I really don't know. I don't think it's quite so obvious at that point.