77 Hitmen

The following article suggests that idea isn't totally outlandish: https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/what-the-pirates-twins-finances-reveal-about-mlbs-revenue-divide/ In the story, he reported that the team had total operating revenues of $292.4 million in 2024, had an MLB CBT payroll of just under $123 million (which is salaries for the full 40-man roster plus benefits and other expenses) and actually lost money. And he means actual losses. That $2.2 million loss does not include debt service, depreciation or capital expenditures that could create larger losses for accounting purposes. According to Kovacevic, the Pirates lost $2.2 million in 2024 because MLB salaries and benefits were just 41.7% of the team’s total expenses. The team had $171.7 million in additional costs for administrative expenses, travel, draft and international signing bonuses, minor league player payrolls, stadium costs and more. According to the story, the Pirates’ debt is at the highest mark of Bob Nutting’s tenure because of loans taken out during the coronavirus pandemic.

For years, I heard some Sox fans insist that Marcus Semien and Chris Bassett were overrated and not that good after we traded them to the A's. So, I fully expect a number of fans cling to Option 2 no matter what Vaughn does from here on out. That's not to say that I'm predicting Andrew Vaughn has anywhere near the same level of success in his post-Sox career as Semien has had. He could very well end up as much of a bust as he was on the Sox. But even if he was able to sustain success, I expect at least some Sox fans to think he still sucks. And I get it, it's not easy to see players go on to have decent careers after they leave this organization.

We're still debating whether we Sox fans should give him a B for playing a good game of checkers. My guess is that the 4D chess with Vaughn is a total one-off thing.

Seattle pitching needed only 100 pitches total tonight to get that Game 1 win.

Bingo. He was never going to succeed in the Sox's awful organization, as such he was practically worthless on the trade market. This was absolutely the best possible outcome - send him to an organization that is 1) actually good at getting players to succeed and 2) the one team in the position to sink the Cubs' division title and pennant dreams. Getz didn't win the Vaughn trade, Sox fans did.

IMO, if the Cubs had won the World Series as the Sox were coming off 324 losses in the last 3 seasons and no end in sight to the mediocrity, it would be a huge nail in the coffin for Sox market share in Chicago. If the Sox franchise where in a more healthy situation, it'd be easier as a Sox fan to be sanguine about a possible Cubs championship. I also don't remember many Cubs fans rooting for the Sox in 2005. They just kept shouting "what about attendance"! I'm not sure why it's always Sox fans who are expected to kneel down and kiss the Cubbie ring and not the other way around when the situation is reversed.

...the best part is seeing a bunch of Cubs fans on social media getting all butt hurt about the L flag.

Do they really expect any new owner to have any more success than the current organization has had over the last few decades given their market size? How many small market teams have been as successful as they have been? And nobody say the Brewers until I see them advance in the playoffs....they're in the process of blowing a 2-0 series lead to the Cubs. Maybe Guardians fans can take out a full page ad demanding that the Cleveland metro area be transformed into a large market. Or an ad demanding that MLB fix their competitive balance issue.

M's move on to the ALCS and Humpy wins the Salmon Run for the first time ever! https://sports.mynorthwest.com/mlb/seattle-mariners/humpy-gets-1st-win-seattle-mariners-walk-off-into-alcs/1825067

^ I totally agree. As much as I hope for the day that the Sox are spending on A-level free agents, they first need to devote resources into turning this entire organization around. If all that stuff won't cost anywhere near $160M, then I'd rather Ishbia take the rest of that "gift" money and put it toward building a new stadium.

Yeah, I had thought about including Yankee Stadium. The thing about the Dodgers and Yankees, though, is that these are two of the most elite franchises in MLB who are the #1 team in mega metropolises of nearly 20M. They can get along fine without an entertainment district due to brand prestige and market size. They must still be making a ton of $$ on their RSNs. Good point about Miami. But they're the poorest drawing team this year by far that wasn't playing in a minor league stadium. Not exactly a ballpark location success story. Of all the post-Camden ballparks, is there a bigger flop than Marlins Park? Yeah, there was Turner Field (location) and The Ballpark at Arlington (no roof in the Texas heat) that didn't last, but those teams have successfully moved on to new ballparks. The Marlins franchise seems screwed. I'm not sure what their path is out of their mess.

Looking at it another way, there are only a few teams that don't have much going on around their ballpark aside from surface lots. Dodgers, Angels, Brewers, and White Sox. Am I missing anyone? The Royals are trying to leave their ballpark because they don't believe the expressway/parking lots and not much else nearby model will work for them going forward. For the Angels, the NHL's Anaheim Ducks are developing a massive $4B entertainment district near Angel Stadium. It would be one thing if Sox fans could say "don't mess with success" because they are packing in the stadium through thick and thin. I wish that were the case, but 30 years of attendance data has shown it isn't.

As far as I know, all MLB teams play mostly night games except for Sundays, some Saturdays, and a few weekday "get away games." The reason why the Cubs play mostly day games is because there is a city ordinance restricting them to only 35 night games per season, though I think they are allowed up to 43 night games to accommodate network telecasts (ESPN, Fox) https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/News/1488/Supreme-Court-History-Turning-on-the-lights-at-Wrigley-Field/news-detail/

The Rays' new owners met with reporters for the first time. One of their priorities is to have a "world class ballpark" ready to open by 2029. The location has not been determined, but they intended to develop the area around the new stadium with restaurants, bars, retail, music venue, etc. https://baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2025/10/07/tampa-bay-rays-new-owners-outline-future-for-team--hopes-for-stadium "So let us look at the Battery. We think the Battery is the gold standard of what we want to we want to build and develop here in Tampa Bay.” "So it’s not just, 'This is 500 acres, 30 miles outside of Tampa.' That’s not what we’re looking for. Great location and as much land as we can get.”

Yankees not out yet. For those of us hoping for a Milwaukee/Seattle World Series, it's also very possible that we'll see a rematch of last year's WS between the two richest franchises.

That's the problem with MLB - if one of the major market teams isn't in the WS every year, they think it's bad for the league. The rest of the country is just fly-over territory. The NBA had OKC and Indiana in the finals and the world didn't come crashing down on them. The NFL would probably be thrilled with a Buffalo-Green Bay Super Bowl.

Regardless of how people feel, some sort of change is almost certainly coming. The ballpark lease is up in 2029, the current owner turns 90 in less than 6 months, and he's set up a framework for handing over the team to a new owner as soon as 2029. That could mean building a new stadium at the 78 or it could mean major changes to the ballpark experience at 35th St. But with all you describe, I just have a hard time believing that the next 30 years under a new ownership is just going to be a continuation of the same old, same old "it's not as bad as people think" and "the parking is great" ballpark experience. Chicago just had a record-setting year for tourism. That shows that there is a market for people who want to experience some of the great things the city has to offer in the summer. So yeah, the same 1960s and 70s model of relying on people who just drive up to the stadium, see the game, do nothing else, and drive back home is outdated.

I'll also add that the only potential new stadium site that is being discussed by the team is only 2 miles, 2 L stops, and a 5 minute drive from their current home. We're not talking about Arlington Heights, Tinley Park, or even the West Side here.

@NO!!MARY!!! is correct. The sale of the Sox to Jerry and Eddie Einhorn didn't take place until January 1981. 1981 was the strike year. In 1980, Veeck tried to sell the team to Edward DeBartolo and the AL owners rejected the sale. Talk about a huge "What If?" for us fans! https://www.upi.com/Archives/1980/10/24/Edward-DeBartolo-Srs-bid-to-purchase-the-Chicago-White/9801341208000/ Otherwise, your comment and assessment of the situation is SPOT ON.

Three tiers sounds right. I'd say there are more teams in Tier 1 than 6, but the point remains the same. Look at the list of 2025 MLB payrolls. It's incredible how closely it lines up with market size. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2025/04/02/2025-mlb-team-payrolls-highest-lowest/82751012007/ 5 of the 8 teams who are in the LDS are big market teams. Detroit is there because someone from the AL Central has to be. Seattle I'd argue is a Tier #2 (middle market) team. Milwaukee is the one true outlier of the bunch, but get back to me if they make it past this round. I have my doubts about that. Sure, there are bad owners in all the tiers: Angels (Moreno) should be Tier 1, Pirates (Nutting) could at least be as competitive as the Royals. Rockies should be a Tier 2 team, not threating to break Reinsdorf's 121 mark. JR has backed the Sox into Tier 3 status. Anyway, off topic. I know there's a "Ominous Signs" thread to discuss where MLB is heading toward the end of next year. It'll also be interesting to see what they end up doing with the TV contracts in a few years.

As someone who is in his late 50s, it gives me no pleasure to point out such realities. You mean, not all of us native Chicagoans remember the Blizzard of '79??!! Say it ain't so! Jane Byrne! Ed Vyrdolyak! Ray Raynor! Johnny Morris! Every Chicagoan knows who they are, right? What really makes me feel old is when I talk to people pushing 40 who are too young to remember 1990. Yikes!

I was surprised recently when a coworker, who I have worked with for 20 years said that he's disappointed that he has no memory of the Bears winning the Super Bowl. He was too young at the time to remember. That sure made me feel old!

Fair enough. I was just highlighting that it really was a long time ago, but didn't mean it to be a criticism leveled directly at you.

I agree that "imminent danger" and that the fanbase is "gone" is a too strong. But that doesn't mean this team doesn't have serious problems with the fan base. Life long Sox fans aren't going to up and switch to the Cubs, but are enough Gen Z and Gen Alpha fans building a strong connection to the team as they've grown up over the last 15 years? Like how the Sox lost a lot of market share among people who grew up in the SportsVision era, I fear that they've lost a new generation now due to how badly this organization has been run since 2007 or so while the Cubs have become exciting over the last decade or so. And yeah, first and foremost the next owners have to build this organization into being one that is perpetually competitive. Building a new ballpark and then running the team "Jerry's way" would end badly. But that doesn't mean that there aren't issues with the ballpark and its surroundings that need to be fixed. Maybe those can be addressed while remaining at 35th & Shields. I personally have my doubts, but I agree that staying at 35th St. and improving things there is certainly possible. As far as the St. Louis attendance issue, their huge drop off should be concerning to them, but the only times in the last 30 years the Sox have exceeded the Cardinals' huge drop off today of 27,778 per game was 2005-2009. I actually think the St. Louis drop off should be a huge red flag to all of MLB, not just the Cardinals front office. The league is moving to a two-tiered set of teams where the small and even medium markets can't keep up with the top 12 or so big market teams and fans in those cities are turning away from the sport.

It means that people who were 4 years old in 1967 are age 62 now. Is that too confusing? Saying that the Sox outdrew the Cubs in that Go Go Era means pretty much nothing to the state of the franchises today.