77 Hitmen

Sounds like I struck a nerve. How does Bell's TOTAL RBI's for both 92 and 93 seasons help this team when they really needed him in 1993 when they went to the ALCS and only won 2 games against the Jays. You didn't answer where Bell was during the 1993 playoffs. As I said before, the Sox sure could have used Sammy's bat that year when he was knocking in 93 RBIs while Bell was one step away from pumping gas for a living. Oh, and the Sox finished 3rd in 1992, so Bell put up great numbers that year for a team that went nowhere. I hate Sosa as much as anyone, but let's be real here. During the Reinsdorf era, I'd say the Sox had 4 players with generational talent that they brought up from their minor league system: - Thomas: first ballot HOFer inducted as a Sox player - Sosa: traded away for one good season of George Bell while Sosa supercharged the Cubs popularity in Chicago, though later disgraced (and rightfully so) - Tatis: superstar for the Padres after traded for a washed up pitcher - Chris Sale: Elite starter for years before and after Sox traded him. Traded in an attempt to stock the Sox system with talent for a rebuild. But Moncada and Kopech were total flops. Sox were never going to pay for an extension for him anyway. Am I missing anyone? Not exactly a great track record for Jerry's franchise.

Bingo. It wasn't until Sosa burst onto the scene that the Cubs averaged 30k per game year in and year out and they haven't looked back except for during Covid. And the last two you listed were given to the Cubs by the White Sox on a silver platter.

So, you think Bell having 64 RBIs in 1993 was worth trading away a generational talent like Sosa? Sosa had 93 RBIs that year vs. Bell's 64 if we're treating that one stat as the only indicator of success. Bell's slash line in 1993 was .217/.243/.363 with a -2.5 WAR. Woof! And where was he during our 1993 postseason when the Sox needed him? We sure could have used Sosa's bat then. After that Bell was out of baseball. He never played another game after 1993. Sox coaching staff being unable to work with such an immense talent speaks more to the failing of this organization than it does to a player whose career took off like a rocket after he left this organization. I don't know about other Sox fans, but I'll take chopped liver over the s%*# sandwich that this trade was for the Sox. And yeah, Sammy turned out to be a huge fraud, but in the meantime he help supercharged the Cubs' edge over the Sox in the Chicago market beginning in 1998 and they've never looked back. Somehow they've survived the embarrassment of Sosa's steroid/corked bat/walking out on the team debacle.

What's even more galling is that taxpayers are still on the hook for something like $600M from the last Soldier Field renovation in 2002. In a way, them asking for more taxpayer $ again for a new stadium is worse than JR's request (which is plenty galling)

The new Titans domed stadium in Nashville costs $2.2B and the renderings of it look impressive. Why would a Bears stadium cost well over twice as much? And you're not wrong that a $5B price tag has been reported for a Bears stadium at AH. Is the other $3B for development of the rest of the Arlington Park property? As far as a Sox stadium at the 78, it's possible that the Ishbias' plan is to keep the Sox at their current location. If they are actually planning to privately finance a new stadium at the 78, who's to say they aren't working behind the scenes to make that happen? Sure, we fans want to know one way or another asap, but I don't expect them to think that they need to negotiate all their plans in public. Heck, has Justin Ishbia made any public announcement of his deal with Reinsdorf to (eventually) buy the Sox?

I'd imagine it's a lot easier for the city and state to justify that infrastructure funding if there's also a (privately financed) MLB stadium going into the site. Having a Red Line station right at 15th and Clark would be huge for the site. That line already runs underground at that intersection.

....and the Fire say they're going to do exactly that. Joe Mansueto isn't announcing that he's spending $650M to build a stadium on that site without being aware of the Roosevelt Rd. and Metra track alignments. Part of the Fire's plans are to build an extension of LaSalle St to connect Roosevelt to the site. It looks to me like the biggest issue with the site (as shown by that Google Maps link) is the Metra tracks which essentially blocks it off from any access via Clark St. But railroad track can be lowered to below grade to open up access. Would that be expensive? Yes. But probably not prohibitively so and that kind of work isn't exactly cutting-edge engineering marvel stuff.

Back to the topic of idiot asshole fans insulting the mother of someone on the field, this is exactly what got Mr. Met fired. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jun/01/mr-met-fired-obscene-gesture-new-york-mets And this article even has a quote from the Sox latest washed up former star acquistion: Last season, Mets ace Noah Syndergaard said he was terrified of Mr. Met and his wife, the appropriately named Mrs. Met. “They’re just creepy,”...

The way this got huge coverage in the press AND because the Sox have had several black eyes in the national media over the years with fan incidents, I doesn't surprise me that they felt they should take quick, strong action. People are still talking about the belly fat shooting incident (especially with Jerry being deposed now) and it took at least a decade for the franchise to live down the Ligue incident. Yeah, there are idiot fans everywhere and at pretty much any MLB park, but the Sox image has really been hit hard in the past by fan incidents.

That actually matches perfectly with any optimism I have for the future. Plans are in place for our current inept owner to sell this team to a deep-pocketed local billionaire and we pray that he'll totally turn this franchise around. Sounds like as good of a rebuild strategy as any of the Sox recent failed attempts.

Good point about the footprint needed. Just doing a quick online search of a few random open air and retractable roof stadiums showed that the retractable ones took up something like twice the amount of acreage. Something like 12-15 acres vs. about 25 or so. And yes, it's a legitimate question as to whether (no pun intended) such a thing is necessary in our part of the country. The only cold weather cities with retractable roof ballparks are Toronto and Milwaukee. The other northeast/midwest cities seem to have managed without a roof.

Yep, it would easily add a few hundred million to the cost of a stadium. That would be on the new ownership's dime and it's not clear they even plan to pay for an open air stadium to replace the current one. On the plus side, such a stadium could be used for other events like concerts during more of the year - especially since the chances of an indoor football stadium, which would compete for such events, being built nearby are close to zero. But do such events and the number of times the Sox play in bad weather justify the cost? I don't know - it's not my money.

I just searched for images of the Houston ballpark. Wow, I didn't realize that it opened up so completely. That looks pretty good. Thanks for the views of Miami and Milwaukee, too. Chase Field in AZ also has panes in the outfield that open when the roof is opened. Those are nice touches, but Milwaukee and AZ still feel like a "building" and such a design at the 78 would still block the skyline. I've been to Seattle's ballpark and it really opens up great, but that stadium is not climate controlled.

Paul Sullivan has an article in the Trib today says he believes if Ishbia is going to build a new stadium at the 78, it's "imperative" that he comes up with plans for a retractable roof stadium. He says the intense heat/humidity we've had in recent days is a good argument for a retractable roof stadium. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/06/25/chicago-white-sox-stadium-retractable-roof/ Thoughts on this? One obvious downside would be that it costs a lot more to build such a stadium vs an open air ballpark (which is already very expensive at over $1B). But what about aesthetics? One big selling point of a ballpark at the 78 is a stunning skyline view it would offer. Wouldn't that be negated/blocked by the structure needed for a retractable roof stadium? IMO, comparing most retractable roof stadiums to an open air stadium is like comparing a car w/ a sunroof to a convertible. The parks in Arizona and Milwaukee lack a certain charm due to the roof structure IMO. That being said, I would probably change my tune if I had to sit there in frigid early season games, a rain out, or when the heat index is 110.

So many "that's the last straw" moments to choose from for Sox fans under Jerry's ownership - the mid/late 80s bottoming out and threat to move to Florida, JR being a ring leader for the '94 strike as the Sox were serious pennant contenders, the White Flag trade, so many "unlikeable" teams over the last 15 years, and finally totally reaching rock bottom with 121 losses. Whew - we've put up with a lot despite the 2005 glory. It's no wonder the bad guys on the North Side of town are as dominant in the Chicago market as ever. I'd say I totally tuned out the Sox around '86 to '88. But, by mid-1989, I did start getting excited again with the young core of talent they were putting together. Again I tuned them out after the '97 WF trade coming on the heels of the '94 strike. But again by mid 99 I was getting excited again by young talent like Maggs and CLee. Yeah, hindsight is 20/20, but I see no end in sight and no exciting new core coming now. IMO, I just have to wait until ownership is finally passed from Jerry to Justin Ishbia. Until then, I have little to no reason to be optimistic.

If the Ishbias intend to build a privately financed ballpark at the 78 for the team they are buying, I suppose we'll find out about it soon enough. And yes, I'd imagine the city and Related Midwest would be thrilled to have 2 privately financed stadiums built on that site. If their plan for owning the Sox is to get a new long-term lease at the current stadium, I don't expect to hear any discussion about that anytime soon since there are still 4 years to go before the current lease ends - and 4 years until Jerry's option to sell kicks in. They're not going to negotiate a new lease now in the press.

We're still here, but I believe that this is the conclusion that many, many Sox fans have come to at this point and that they've stopped paying any attention to the team altogether.

Agreed. At this point it'll all be about whether the new owners want to pay up for a new stadium. With a framework for a sale to the Ishbias in place, the current park's lease being up at the same time that Jerry's option to sell kicks in, and his expressed desire to have a new ballpark, I would imagine franchise sale price is intertwined with the whole ballpark situation going forward. I don't expect to hear about the stadium situation anytime soon....though the Fire announcement might spur the Sox into action if the Ishbias indeed want a new ballpark (I have no idea if they do or not).

Caution fellow Sox fans who have a fragile ego, are easily angered, and/or have a huge chip on their shoulder about ballpark "best to worst" rankings, do NOT click on the link in this article that says "*Rankings listed based on USA Today's rankings". Reality hurts. Here's a more complete list of ballpark seating capacity rankings. Dodger Stadium is the highest by far. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2025/05/23/mlb-stadiums-ranked-by-capacity-biggest-smallest/83815207007/ Yes, the new A's stadium would be the lowest capacity. Though the Rays have artificially lowered the seating capacity at Tropicana Field (which was not on the list) in recent years to about 25k by putting a tarp over the upper deck and closing it off to fans. Otherwise, the 2nd lowest after Las Vegas will be the 3 you mentioned with Cleveland the lowest of the three at 34,830. "Jacobs Field" used to seat 42k and they actually had 455 consecutive sellouts there up until 2001. But those days are long gone and they've lowered seating capacity after a couple of renovations. Rate Field is #19 as far as seating capacity goes.

It'll be very interesting to see how that glass dome view of the Vegas strip looks when this place opens. I noted some interesting items from this article: - The ballpark will sit on only 9 acres of the 36-acre property. The same amount of acreage of the proposed Fire stadium at the 78. - Fisher is paying $1.4B in private financing toward the stadium. Did you hear that, Jerry? - The A's will go from the largest foul area (in Oakland) to the smallest foul area in the majors - Seating capacity is only 33,000.

Interesting, that was before my time and I don't remember hearing about them. I do remember that the Sting played at both Comiskey and Wrigley and won the NASL championship at Comiskey Park in 1981 - the first Chicago pro sports championship since the 1963 Bears. I also remember that their big star was Karl Heinz Granitza.

I remember Lillian. She was posting here when I was lurking and before I officially signed up. Looks like her last post was almost 2 years ago (Aug. 2023). Sorry to see that she's no longer here. And Steff - LOL - same name and same description of someone who was on WSI maybe 20 years ago. She was often angry at other posters there too. Not a very pleasant person from what I remember. I'm pretty sure she got banned from that site- probably an example of where it was actually justified.

Some bans were justified IMO. There were a few bad apples back in the day who were pretty obnoxious or constantly hijacking thread after thread derailing lots of discussions who deserved to get the boot, but they definitely took it too far. And you're right about the weird invisible line. I remember several times where posters were legitimately puzzled as to why they were banned. I also remember them having some strange issue with people talking about their post counts and accusing people of being "armchair mods". I know being a mod is a thankless task on any site, but it seemed like a power trip to some of those guys.

And an expert crossbow hunter - therefore no posters better piss him off!

JR and EE certainly made bad PR moves almost right off the bat - the first being insulting and alienating Bill Veeck. Bill Veeck certainly had his faults, but this got them off on the wrong foot with the Sox fan base and with Chicagoans in general not long after the ink dried on their team purchase. Not long after that was the whole SportsVision debacle and letting Harry Caray get away to the Cubs. And again, Harry certainly had his faults, but there was no denying that he was a fan favorite on the South Side and that he quickly became a Cubs legend after he left. And then a whole string of PR disasters that we all know too well and don't need repeating. At least they did quickly breathe new life into the team by bringing in Fisk, Luzinski, Bannister and almost winning the pennant in 1983 after being a laughingstock team in Veeck's final couple of years. Then it was quickly downhill for the rest of the 80s bottoming out with the near-move to St. Pete in 1988.