77 Hitmen

The Sox heading to shattering the 1962 Mets futility record isn't exactly going to help JR get the taxpayer money he desires. His incompetence is working against him here.

My guess (and yes, it's just a guess from some nobody), is that a new Sox stadium will eventually happen after JR is gone and that new Sox ownership will privately finance the ballpark itself while they get the state/city to cover infrastructure costs. I get that the infrastructure costs are not small potatoes and some could argue that's not a good use of taxpayer money. But, I just think that kind of deal is sellable to politicians. As far as private financing for the stadium itself, if the Rays in a smaller market can come up with $700M in private money and the small market Royals can commit to $1B in private financing for the new park they want, then I think a new Sox ownership group can somehow manage to come up with at least that amount because they believe this will enhance the value of the franchise long-term. And my opinion plus $6 will get you a small drink at Starbucks. 😉

When Reinsdorf no longer owns the team.

It should be pretty clear by now that there isn't going to be much in the way of public funding for either the Bears or the Sox aside from money going to infrastructure improvements. This should be clear to the McCaskeys and Reinsdorf. There's no political advantage for the Gov or the Legislature to give these billionaires billions in taxpayer money. None - it's not going to happen. My predictions: The Bears end up building a stadium at Arlington Park using private financing as originally proposed. There, they can build a massive entertainment complex next to a domed stadium that can draw private investments. The Sox will eventually build a new stadium at Lot 78 using private financing for the ballpark itself and public funds for site improvement (new Red Line stop, Metra tracks realignment, Riverwalk). This might not happen until Jerry is gone, but as long as that land is undeveloped, it'll be available for a new Sox owner even if it's a few years from now. If Reinsdorf and the Wirtz family can come up with $7B in private funding to redevelop the parking lots around the UC, it's not hard to imagine JR or his successor coming up with less than that amount to make a Lot 78 development happen.

You nailed it.

I like Roeper and appreciate his dedicated Sox fandom. But, he doesn't mention the elephant in the room that is the cause of all this misery and incompetence: JERRY REINSDORF!!!

Why would WinTrust pay more money just to call the place Comiskey Park? Where's the advertising benefit to the company? I'm actually surprised that this is Jerry's call instead of the ISFA, which is the owner of the stadium.

As far as rooting against the Sox goes, the way I see it is what's the point? They aren't getting any better than the #10 pick, so it's not like I'd be rooting for a higher pick. Root for them to lose so badly that it forces changes in management and forces Jerry to rethink how he's running the team? Ha! This is Jerry Reinsdorf we're talking about, he's not capable at looking to himself to blame and even if he fires people, he'll just replace them with some other Yes Man who is equally incompetent. We'll just get people who are just as unqualified as Getz, Grifol, etc. I just hope this franchise survives the mass erosion to its fan base that is taking place under this clown show and will continue to take place with Jerry in charge. Maybe, just maybe, the Sox can experience a revitalization under new ownership some day. Hopefully there will be enough fans left to care at that point.

Many middle class workers with 401(k)s have learned to stay the course and keep plugging away even during times when the market looks like it's in freefall. Not everyone does this and I realize that not everyone can afford to dump money into a 401k, but it's not just big investors and billionaires who do this.

I can't wait for the day that JR is no longer owner and this can be put the test.

Thanks for that background. That certainly sounds like Jerry. I suppose lawmakers could insist that the Sky be allowed to play at the UC as part of any new stadium deal for the Sox.

Disagree. The facility itself is fine, but the location isn't. That's been the issue all along. And yes, I understand that many diehards love the current location because the park is right off the expressway and surrounded by acres of parking. But that setup doesn't work for sports stadiums anymore. Unless the Sox can successfully develop the area around GRF into an entertainment district, then they'll continue to be plagued by anemic attendance except for years where they have a loaded team that makes multiple playoff appearances. Maybe the Sox (at least a post-Jerry owner) will be able to develop the current park in such a way. I have my doubts, but that's one thing that could address chronic attendance issues. And yes, I know this would go away if the Sox could just build a perennial pennant contender. Easier said than done. How many franchises have been able to consistently do that? Maybe half a dozen? Not everyone is able to replicate what the Braves have done. While that would be nice, I think its effect at the current location is a bit overstated. The skyline is a ways in the distance from 35th St. Nothing like the eye-popping view they'd have at Lot 78. If the Sox were able to magically rotate the current park 90 degrees tomorrow, it get applause from fans and critics, but I doubt it would be a game changer in drawing fans to the park. It's not so much the view as the proximity to other things to do. Today's economic reality is that teams need things around their ballpark to draw people to games. Other teams see this: Braves, Cardinals, Mets, Phillies, Royals. Sure, someone will say "what about the Dodgers". Well, that's an elite franchise playing in a 20M people megapolis. Man, I wish the Sox were at the Dodgers' level of eliteness.

Couldn't the Sky be accommodated at the United Center if the Wintrust Arena is too small for the growing interest in the WNBA? The WNBA and NBA/NHL seasons barely overlap, if at all. And as I said earlier, if the Sox get a new park and GRF is converted to a soccer stadium, that would address the issue with the Red Stars. I think the only person who thought funding for a new Sox stadium would be approved this spring was Jerry Reinsdorf. I don't think it'll be settled this fall either other than a flat out rejection.

If they're not going to move to Lot 78, IMO they may as well stay at 35th and Shields. I can't think of any available land that would be a better option for the Sox. Any suburban location would be a TERRIBLE idea. I have thought all along that, once the state officially tells Jerry to take a hike on public funding for a new Sox stadium and he exhausts efforts to squeeze money out of the state, he'll somehow find a way to come up with something around $1B in private financing to make a new stadium happen. That should cover most, if not all, of the cost of a new ballpark itself minus infrastructure work at the site. A new stadium would give a huge boost to the franchise's value, so he'll be motivated to make it happen. Jerry didn't become a billionaire in real estate by disclosing how much he's willing to pay right off the bat before engaging in negotiations.

When you say "women's sports stadium", do you mean soccer or basketball? If we're talking about soccer, didn't the proposed South Loop renderings also show GRF being converted to a soccer stadium? If the Sox do move to a new park, seems the obvious solution is to make the current park the new home of the Fire and the Red Stars.

Richard Sherman, co-creator (with his brother) of music for many Disney movies and theme park rides, has died at age 95. Their song "It's a Small World" is possibly the most played song in the world.

There's nothing much else to say. The Sox and Bears proposals are non-starters. The Governor and some state reps have clearly said so. That doesn't mean a Sox stadium will never be built at Lot 78. But it might several years from now and under a new ownership who will be willing to cover most, if not all, of the cost of a stadium itself. My guess is that would be enough to sell politicians on paying for the infrastructure costs to develop the site. Until something else is built on that site, it'll still be an option for the Sox once ownership decides to privately finance something like $1B toward such a stadium. As far as the Bears go, I actually wouldn't be surprised if they end up back at Arlington Park. There's simply too huge of a funding gap to bridge in that jaw-dropping price tag for their lakefront dome proposal

First, I do indeed agree that JR is bluffing on his veiled threat of a franchise move for the reason you state. However, in the unlikely event that the Sox do move, I just don't see MLB having any interest in putting a team back in Chicago. The A's are leaving one of the biggest TV markets in the nation (The Bay Area) for what will be one of the smallest ones. In response, Manfred shrugged and said MLB is already covered in the Bay Area by the Giants. If an expansion team comes out west, it'll likely be in Salt Lake City (a much, much smaller market than the Bay Area) and not as a reincarnation of the Oakland A's. I expect a similar scenario if the Sox ever moved. MLB will be interested in expanding into some untapped, growing market from a city/state that is willing to spend lots of public dollars on an MLB ballpark (just like Salt Lake City where the state of Utah is willing to spend $900M in public money on an MLB park). I don't think the Sox are moving, but Sox fans need to stop fooling themselves into thinking MLB cares about putting a 2nd team back here into an also-ran ballpark (sorry, I like GRF too, but let's face reality, most people don't) and a neighborhood without much else to draw people in. Sox fans shouldn't panic and cave in to JR's demands by any means, but the danger is that too many will think it "won't matter" if the Sox move because we'll certainly get White Sox 2.0 asap. That smacks of whistling past the cemetery to me.

That arrangement with the Browns is by far the exception and not the rule of what happens when teams move. If I recall correctly, this was done as part of a lawsuit settlement between the NFL and the City of Cleveland after Modell moved the team after the city approved funding for a new stadium. The only other instance I can think of this happening is with the Charlotte Hornets after the original team moved to New Orleans. Any way, this is moot because Chicago will NOT get an expansion team if the Sox leave and I stated above. MLB will want to give a franchise to some growing sunbelt city who will pony up public funding for a ballpark and not to a city with a declining population that is totally dominated by the Cubs.

^THIS Fans needs to stop deluding themselves into the idea that having the Sox move won't be that bad because MLB will quickly give Chicago an expansion team. If the Sox did move, this is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! The fact that Chicago has 2 teams is a relic of a bygone era where a) several cities had 2 teams (Boston, Philly, St. Louis) and b) Chicago was the 2nd largest city in the US - larger than L.A. Chicago is no longer a 2-team city for any of the major sports leagues. The only 2-teams cities left are NY and LA which each have a metro area population something like double the size of Chicago's . And for anyone clinging to the idea that MLB will want an "American League" team in Chicago, that distinction has become basically meaningless. The AL and NL are no longer unique. Everyone has the DH and every team plays every other team every year. Don't be surprised if MLB pushes radical realignment at some point that will totally kill off the AL and NL for all intents and purposes. This is much, much, much, much more likely to happen than Chicago being awarded a 2nd MLB team via expansion to maintain an "AL" presence here.

Yes, according to the ISFA. It doesn't sound like that includes the portion the Bears will be paying, either. That would be the cost over 40 years. But, would the stadium even last 40 years without at least a major renovation? https://wgntv.com/news/chicago-news/report-bears-new-stadium-would-cost-taxpayers-almost-7-billion-higher-than-team-says-according-to-state-official/ https://www.wbez.org/stories/bears-proposed-stadium-could-be-an-additional-12-billion/2d273753-7c61-4792-9314-608d068001e2

If the Sox are such a money loser, why has the franchise value gone up significantly over the years? The latest I've read put their value at around $2B and around middle of the pack among MLB teams. I'm not a business guy or an accountant, but how can such a thing be true if the team has been losing money for several years now? Serious question - not just a rhetorical one. Maybe there's a great explanation for this. According to this site, they've gone up $400M in value since 2020, in other words, since Covid started. https://www.statista.com/statistics/194606/mlb-franchise-value-of-the-chicago-white-sox-since-2006/

Oh absolutely. I'm not advocating for a continuation of a Reinsdorf ownership of the Sox in any way. I was just wondering about his motivation for saying such a thing and, given his reluctance to talk to the press, how often he's actually expressed this desire.

Well summarized. One thing I don't get is why would he care if any of his offspring own the White Sox after he's gone? I keep hearing that, but why would he care what business decisions they make after he's dead? Surely Michael or any other Reinsdorf children are old enough and experienced enough to make their own decision on this. Are there multiple sources and/or interviews to confirm this? Or is this based on one comment he made one time?

The trend nationwide is toward stadiums without the acres of parking lots around them. See what the Mets and Phillies/Eagles are proposing. Even if the Sox stay at GRF, I expect much of the parking lots to be converted to mixed use development at some point.