77 Hitmen

To be fair, you could call a vast majority of MLB and NFL stadiums "Taxpayer Field". Maybe some day people in every city and state will finally say no to taxpayer handouts to billionaire owners who just keep getting richer.

If the name is supposed to reflect the product on the field, Jerry's team is a far cry from being second rate. If we're lucky, the team will improve enough in 2025 or 2026 to be considered second rate, but that would require a huge improvement.

The closest thing Jerry will get to a new stadium short of paying for it himself.

At this rate, before too long there will be a player with enough money to build a new ballpark for Jerry Reinsdorf.

That's how I feel about it. Forget competing with the Dodgers, Jerry won't even compete with Cleveland, Minnesota, and Detroit.

If you're working for Jerry, it's not just snow that you'll be asked to shovel.

It's being reported in the press. It's not just some YouTube dude saying it. https://sports.yahoo.com/rays-stadium-drama-potential-relocation-184034221.html

Yep. Here are Cohen's plans for the area around Citi Field. https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/new-york-mets-owner-steve-cohen-announces-8b-plan-to-develop-area-around-citi-field-in-queens/4840197/ Also, the Yankees and Dodgers are the platinum franchises of MLB. Hard to compare them and their combined 35 World Series titles to the White Sox situation.

It'll have to be more than half. The Rays are committing $700M in private funding toward their new stadium. The Royals have proposed $1B in private funding toward a new downtown ballpark they want. Jerry's $200M offer, by comparison, is laughably low-ball. It's obvious that there's no way in hell that he gets $1B in public funding toward a new stadium that'll be used to enrich his estate (by significantly boosting the value of the franchise). If he or a future Sox owner (after he passes) commits to funding the entire cost of the ballpark itself, then yeah the state/city will likely cover the infrastructure costs at the site. Is there anything in between where a Sox owner commits to, say, $1B in private funding and the state agrees to cover the rest of the stadium cost plus infrastructure? I have no idea what would be acceptable.

You make it sound like these two options are mutually exclusive.

How would he know that there's no local owner who would buy the Sox and keep them in Chicago? Did he personally interview every last rich person and every last potential ownership group in the Chicagoland area and get an definite no from each and every one of them? Also, why wouldn't a non-local owner buy the Sox and keep them in Chicago?

Actually, the Royals are offering at least $1 billion of private financing toward their new stadium and the Rays are committing to pay $700M toward their new stadium. https://www.kshb.com/sports/royals-planned-stadium-move-all-about-money-heres-how-it-breaks-down https://stpeterising.com/home/13-billion-rays-stadium-preliminarily-approved-by-st-pete-city-council-final-vote-set-for-july

Ah, thanks for the clarification. That would be interesting if she ended up buying the controlling stake from JR.

Who or what is the Hodson group? Sorry if this was answered elsewhere in this thread and I missed it. I just don't know who they are.

Yep. As much as I hate JR, he'd just be doing what any other owner would do - sell to the highest bidder as long as that sale isn't blocked.

He didn't want Cuban and his deep pockets as a competing owner. That's different than selling a team to him. I find it hard to believe that he'd object to selling to Cuban if he was the highest bidder. I'm not saying that Cuban would buy this team, I'm just saying that this is Jerry Reinsdorf - he'll sell the team to the highest bidder no matter who it is.

Also, if I'm thinking of the correct empty tract of land at the west end of Rosemont, isn't that in the flight path of planes about to make a landing every few minutes at O'Hare?

Is there room on the site for both a Sox ballpark, a Bears domed stadium, AND the "entertainment district"-type development each team wants around their new stadium?

We're talking about 2 different situations. I agree that it's extremely unlikely for the Sox to move to another market. Yes, I don't see MLB approving it - certainly not in a way that undercuts expansion ambitions in some cities (Nashville). I'm in agreement that any hint of this from Jerry is almost certainly bluff to try to extort taxpayer money for a new park. My point was in reaction to some fans saying "let them move! MLB will certainly grant a new expansion team to Chicago". Those are two different things and I never said I thought MLB would okay a Sox move. What I'm saying is that *IF* the league lets the Sox move, I just don't see MLB bringing an expansion team to Chicago so people should stop fantasizing that particular scenario playing out. Of course, we don't get to the whole expansion question if MLB owners aren't going to approve a Sox move in the first place. So, it's really just a "If this, Then that" hypothetical and therefore basically a pointless argument since (thankfully) I don't think we'd get past that first hurdle of the league okaying a move. I mean, the league did approve the A's move, after that dragged on for years and they really do play in a dilapidated stadium and that just can't continue indefinitely....and even that's not exactly going smoothly. GRF isn't anywhere near close to that situation. Our problem is a dilapidated ownership, not a dilapidated stadium.

If you're going by MSA definition, they seem to split SF/Oakland into a separate area than San Jose. When you combine the two, the population is 6.5M vs. Chicagoland's 9.2M. That isn't half. And that doesn't count the nearby Sacramento MSA that adds another 2.4M market that brings them pretty close to the Chicago market without encroaching on another team's territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area I'll also note that once you go outside the actual Chicago metro area, downstate IL is all Cubs and Cardinals fans for all intents and purposes. Go north and you run into the Brewers market. Not much of an extended market for the Sox. Also, you have to factor in cities like Salt Lake City where the city/state are ready to pay a stupid amount of public money to build a MLB stadium. So, does Chicagoland's size matter? Yes, I agree that it does. Will MLB put blinders on and only look at the numbers from the MSA list? No, I disagree that they'd approach it that way. We can go back and forth all day on this and not get anywhere. The truth is that we can't know for sure until this is actually put the the test with a Sox relocation.....and I hope it never comes to that and I don't think it will. My point remains that people shouldn't go around saying that the Sox leaving wouldn't be a problem because it's a slam dunk that MLB will prioritize bringing a 2nd team back to Chicago.

I get that and yes it's been discussed umpteen times. I just don't think MLB looks only purely at fractions of metro area numbers when deciding where they want to expand. It might be a consideration, but I doubt it's a priority and I expect other factors will outweigh their desire to have another team for 1/3 of Chicago metro. Manfred already said that the A's leaving the Bay Area is okay because they still have the Giants. Yeah, I know he's retiring, but I don't see that mindset changing regardless of who succeeds him. Could MLB bring another team back to Chicago, sure it could happen. I just think people need to get real and stop telling themselves the Sox leaving is "okay" because it's a sure thing that MLB will make it a priority to have 2 teams in Chicago.

FWIW, the LaSalle St Metra terminal for the Rock Island line is walking distance from The 78. Also, if the site is ever developed, plans are to have a Red Line station added at the site (the Red Line currently runs underground right by the SE corner of the site. I don't know if the Metra realignment will happen anyway with the DPI project. Maybe not, but I haven't heard.

I don't think it'll happen, either. It's not because of territorial rights. Chicago just isn't a 2-team city. That we have 2 teams is a relic from a bygone era. The only 2-franchise cities/metro areas now are NY and LA. I don't think the Sox will move, but if they do then people need to stop deluding themselves into thinking MLB will rush to bring a 2nd team back to Chicago. They won't - they want to expand MLB into other markets, not have another team go up against the Cubs at a 40-year old generic ballpark. If some fans don't care about the Sox leaving Chicago, fine - just don't pretend that another team will be waiting in the wings. Also, if the argument is that MLB will want "American League" representation in Chicago, again that's sorely outdated. Every team plays every other team each year now. The meaning of AL and NL has been completely watered down. MLB will be more likely to engage in radical realignment (which would obliterate the AL and NL for all intents and purposes) than move heaven and earth to bring a 2nd team back to Chicago.

WTTW's article about the Sox/Related Midwest PR event. Kittle, Baines, Ozzie, and Bo Jackson were there. https://news.wttw.com/2024/09/17/white-sox-should-seek-private-funding-new-stadium-not-taxpayer-money-illinois-house

That wouldn't surprise me at all. State officials could tell him he needs to pay $10M toward a new stadium for every Sox loss this season. He'd be on the hook for something like $1.2B by the time this train wreck is over in 10 days.