77 Hitmen

Schriffen symbolizes all that is wrong with this franchise and how it's being run into the ground by Jerry Reinsdorf. No, he doesn't affect on the field performance and I could live with a bad announcer if the team were on their way to winning 95 games, but he is a perfect reflection of how Uncle Jerry has run this team over the last 15-20 years.

Eddie was even worse than Jerry Reinsdorf. If I'm not mistaken, he was the one who was really pushing for the Sox to move to St. Pete saying that playing at Tropicana Field would be a gold mine.

Part of what the Bears want in AH is a revenue stream from the development around the football stadium. If Justin Ishbia said he wants into build his own stadium with his own money on the land, I'd be shocked if the Bears would say no to a facility that would bring 81 additional events to the property every year just because they don't like the current Sox owner, who won't be the Sox owner going forward. At any rate, take a deep breath everyone and repeat after me, the SOX ARE NOT MOVING TO ARLINGTON HEIGHTS. Neither team has even hinted at such an option. The only official I heard mention it was the incoming mayor of AH who was just dreaming out loud about it. Until I hear someone in a position of power or some reporter say there is serious discussion about this possibility, I see it as nothing more than fan fiction. I just can't imagine that the Ishbias want to sink $1B+ and the future of a franchise they spent something like $2B to purchase into a Sox stadium way out in the NW suburbs, where a large majority of people are Cubs fans and that is far from the die hard Sox fan base of the South Side and S/SW suburbs.

This would be my guess, too. I try to imagine what the Ishbias (it's not just Justin, but his brother and father are part of the Sox ownership bid) think is the best way to assure success of a team they are spending something close to $2B to purchase. Over the last 35 years, this team has had trouble consistently drawing fans to the current park. A lot of that is due to JR's series of PR blunders (including terrible decisions in designing the stadium) and, of course, the lack of winning. IMHO, aside from that fleeting moment of success in 2005, Reinsdorf has sucked the life out of this franchise and has handed more and more market share to the Cubs. Of course, they can just decide to keep the park and surrounding area as is and they'll fill the park if they win a bunch of pennants, but easier said than done and it's really tough to keep a successful core going as you're going up against all the other wealthy owners who have the exact same game plan. And yeah, the franchise is in a very weird position. They have an owner who is insular and out of touch with how to field a competitive team in today's MLB. They're being buried by the Cubs in the market as Ricketts poured money into successfully upgrading Wrigley and is again fielding a team that looks like a pennant contender that is capturing the city's hearts and minds. The new owners really need to do something dramatic to change the dynamics of this team's market share. The Sox have a fiercely loyal fan base who has a huge chip on their shoulders about how people disrespect their team and their ballpark, but that won't be enough to drive this team forward for the next 3 or 4 decades.

What is your basis for this conclusion? Do you have a link to an article that says the Bears don't want the Sox at AH? Why would a deal have happened already if they did want the Sox there? Are the McCaskeys going to give Jerry Reinsdorf $1B to build a baseball stadium? Because the state sure ain't. Heck, the Bears don't even have a deal for their own stadium at AH yet. The reason why there is no deal anywhere for a Sox stadium is that JR is only willing to commit something like $200M in private money to a new ballpark and it's crystal clear that this is a non-starter. So, it'll be up to the Ishbias to decide if they want to bankroll a new stadium for the team they are (eventually) buying. IMO, if the 78 doesn't work out for the Sox then their best option is to remain at 35th and Shields and massively renovate The Rate and do a major redevelopment of much of the parking lots around the park in an attempt to create some sort of entertainment district there.

I came across this Sox Machine article from last fall that discussed how Related Midwest wants both the Fire and the White Sox at the 78 with the departure of U of I for the quantum campus on the south side. https://soxmachine.com/2024/10/related-midwest-wants-both-the-white-sox-and-fire-for-project-78

Do you not think soccer is more popular now in the US than it was 30 years ago? I'm not sure if MLS even existed 30 years ago. This isn't the 1970s where the NASL and the Chicago Sting went defunct due to lack of support. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/05/mls-sponsorships-spike-as-us-soccer-gains-popularity.html https://www.forbes.com/sites/vitascarosella/2024/09/17/soccer-fandom-is-booming-in-america-according-to-new-report/

Some more interesting details about the proposed new Fire stadium: https://chicagoyimby.com/2025/06/additional-renderings-and-details-revealed-for-chicago-fire-fc-stadium.html It sounds like they're planning to build an extension of LaSalle St from Roosevelt Rd to avoid a more expensive project to realign the Metra tracks.

Definitely they want a better atmosphere than they have at the 65k capacity Solider Field. I found this wiki page that lists the seating capacities of all the soccer-only stadium in MLS (and NWSL). It looks like 22k seats is about average, though two new MLS stadiums will have 25k seating capacity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer-specific_stadium Maybe there's a cost consideration too since Manseuto is funding the entire cost of the new stadium?

I was getting that message when trying to DVR an upcoming movie (Eight Men Out!) on a basic cable channel yesterday. Maybe it's just a glitch?

It's not just that tweet from the Fire, this was in the Trib, Sun-Times and the local TV news yesterday as the Fire has released renderings of their new stadium at the 78 to the press. Very impressive. But, I'm a bit surprised they're going with a 22k capacity stadium given soccer's potential to really grow in the coming years. I wonder if there will be the ability to expand seating capacity later. https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/2025/06/16/chicago-fire-stadium-south-loop-renderings-the-78-joe-mansueto The Fire also say that they are open to the possibility of the White Sox building a stadium on the 78. I'll take their word for it over Brodie Brazil.

Unless I missed it, it doesn't say there would be any public funding for a MLB ballpark. The only city/state that I have heard is willing to pay for a new MLB stadium is Salt Lake City/State of Utah. But Salt Lake City's metro area is ranked 46th in the US. Would Ishbia want to move the Sox there? I doubt it.

Do you have a link to an article that says this?

While it would be nice in the first 6 weeks of the season (and on rainy days throughout the season), it's probably not worth the extra cost. There are only 2 retractable roof ballparks in cold weather climates: Toronto and Milwaukee. I suppose you could say 3 if you include Seattle, but that roof is only for rain and that park is not climate controlled. On the other hand, all sun belt teams except the California teams and Atlanta have a retractable or fixed roof. It is clear that most northern cities have decided they're better off with a totally open air stadium - either for costs or aesthetics....or both. I don't know how other retractable roof ballparks are, but I've been to the one in Arizona, and it feels like your seeing a ballgame inside a "building" than a ballpark. IMO, it lacks the charm of may open air ballparks.

Maybe a KC area resident could clarify, but I don't think Kansas side of the KC metro area (and Overland Park, KS specifically) is comparable to the Hammond/Gary part of the Chicagoland area.

If I understand it correctly, the bill would commit public financing for up to 50% of the cost of a stadium. The Royals are looking for a new stadium and the Chiefs are looking for a massive renovation of Arrowhead. That's still a lot of public money being committed. The dynamics in KC is different as there's a serious threat of Kansas getting one or both of those teams to move to their side of the state in in the KC metro area. This would be more plausible than the Bears or Sox getting enticed to move to NW Indiana (which isn't going to happen).

Agreed. If Ishbia keeps the Sox at the Rate long-term, I'd be surprised if he'd settle for just minor tweaks to the current park and with leaving the area around the park pretty much the same. That's not exactly a good way to try to claw back all that market share that Jerry pissed away over the last 44 years. And I know some will say that all the Sox need to do is field a winning team and people will show up. But winning multiple pennants is easier said than done and championship cores are very fleeting when you do finally get one.

Yep, it makes no sense that a local billionaire who is building a $70M mansion here would buy the team only to move it to Nashville. And the Orlando talk is even bigger nonsense. Interesting that Greenberg thinks the most likely outcome is for Ishbia to keep the Sox at their current location and develop the area around the stadium. That's very possible. It'll be very interesting to see how this all plays out over the next few years. But even if they stay at the current location, I cannot imagine that a new owner would pay $2B for the franchise only to keep the current arrangement of acres of parking lots around the current park without much else to do.

Jon Greenberg of The Athletic discusses Isbhia deal to buy the Sox: https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/white-sox-ownership-deal-could-make-the-team-a-completely-different-franchise/3765009/

Fox 32 talking heads discuss what's next for the Sox after the Fire stadium and Ishbia announcement last week: https://www.fox32chicago.com/video/1655033 EDIT: maybe this should have gone into the Fire/78 thread instead.

That's a really good, sensible article. Very interesting MLB payroll vs. winning pct. graph at the end. The Angels sure are the outliers there!

....and they hosted the 50th anniversary game in 1983 at Old Comiskey Park.

The Michael Reese location seems to be a much worse location for the Sox than their current location. Still nothing to do in the area and further away from the L, the Rock Island Metra, and the expressways. Plus, right off the lake for that ice cold lake breeze for early season games. The Ishbias would be idiots to move to that location. SoFi Stadium in LA cost $5.5B, but the Titans new stadium has a cost of $2.1B. Sounds like the Bears might have to scale back their plans for Arlington Park if they can't finance that higher amount. And no, I don't think most of the Sox fan base would be happy if the team moved to AH....except for the fans who live in or near the northwest suburbs.

Yeah, it's mentioned in the Sun-Times article linked above. So, you are correct that it's been mentioned. I suppose they could build an entertainment district anywhere - The 78, around the existing park, or even at Michael Reese, but the first 2 sites at least are very well connected by L lines. The 78 is close to downtown, the current park is of course next to a nice residential area and by 2 L stops. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise, but I'm not sure how an entertainment district would thrive at the Michael Reese site. How easy is it to get to that site by mass transit if you aren't taking the Metra Electric or South Shore line? How is that site better than 35th and Shields?

Why in his right mind would Justin Ishbia want to move the Sox to the Michael Reese site? For all the complaints about 35th and Shields, are the Sox seriously going to move to a site that is further away from mass transit, further away from the main expressways, AND still has nothing to draw people before and after games? Oh, and I can't imagine what the wind off the lake would feel like there right on the lakefront in the first 6 weeks of the season. Am I missing something about why the Sox would be better off at Michael Reese than the current location other than some politicians desperate to get that site redeveloped? It sounds like an insanely stupid option to me. They'd be better off staying at the current park, building a new park on the site of Old Comiskey, or building a new park at The 78.