77 Hitmen

Right? What did people expect Brooks to say in an interview - "yeah, we tried to give Nancy a hint that it was time for her to go"? I don't want to get this thread totally sidetracked about the Nancy Faust situation since there's a lot more speculation involved there, but it's totally reflective of how this organization has driven away talented individuals who aren't total loyalists for 4+ decades now. This shitshow isn't going to end for us until there is a change in ownership.

Unfortunately, Jerry is totally incapable of this kind of self-reflection. The only times he takes notes is when he can tell everyone "I told you so". So, he's run off Caray, Benetti, Fisk, Thomas......but on the bright side he brought back Tony LaRussa!

Paul Sullivan: Jason Benetti’s new gig as voice of ‘Sunday Night Baseball’ yet another blemish for Chicago White Sox https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/03/05/jason-benettis-sunday-night-baseball-chicago-white-sox/ The Detroit Tigers released a statement Wednesday saying they were “incredibly proud” of announcer Jason Benetti being named the new voice of NBC’s “Sunday Night Baseball” broadcasts. “This recognition reflects his exceptional broadcasting talent, tireless commitment to excellence, and engaging personality, all of which combine to make him a premier storyteller across all of sports,” the Tigers statement said.

He also alienated Bill Veeck almost instantly after assuming ownership and then Veeck became a regular (and popular) visitor at the Wrigley bleachers for the rest of his life. Jerry's organization (allegedly Brooks Boyer) pushed Nancy Faust out the door, too. But hey, on the plus side Jerry was the co-founder of SportsVision and the designer of New Comiskey!

Yeah, but that's all negated by the way he eats!

I look forward to the day when Ishbia finally takes control of this franchise. My hope is that a massive house cleaning of the organization quickly follows that day.

.....and for those who don't want to watch the video, here is how he groups the MLB ballparks: Cathedrals: Wrigley, Fenway, Oracle Park, Dodger Stadium, Petco, Camden Yards, PNC Park Modern Hits: Truist Park, Comerica Park, Target Field, T-Mobile Park, Citi Field, Coors Field, Rogers Centre Safe & Basic: Busch, Yankee Stadium, Citizen Bank Park, American Family Field, Nationals Park, Globe Life Field, Progressive Field, Great American Ballpark, Daikin Park, Load Depot Park, Kauffman Swing & Miss: Chase Field, Sacramento ballpark (temp home), Angel Stadium, Tropicana Field, Rate Field

Here's a new MLB ballpark rankings that just got posted. One thing I like about this review is that he groups the ballparks into four categories: Cathedrals, Modern Hits, Safe & Basic, and Swing & Miss. That seems like a much better way than to argue which park is 17th or 23rd, etc. I don't think he's listing the ballparks in each category by best to worst in that group. The other thing I like is the Google Earth 360 view of each stadium. Sox fans who have a huge chip on their shoulder about Rate Field should probably stop at Tropicana Field and not watch the end of this video. Cardinals fans might not like that he puts Busch in the Safe & Basic category, either.

The Padres play in a top-tier ballpark and have averaged fewer than 26k per game only once since Petco opened in 2004. They've drawn over 3M three years in a row and just missed 3M in 2022. They're also the only team in San Diego among the 4 major sports leagues. I can see why they're valued greater than the White Sox even though the Sox are in the 3rd largest market.

We all know that KW has too much of a temper and ego for this own good. But yeah, I mean it was only a few weeks ago that we were discussing the Sox vs. Thomas spat over their Black History month statement and KW has been gone for several years now. This organization simply does not tolerate former players who don't kiss the ring and it all comes down to the person in the organization who just became a nonagenarian.

I assume you meant to type south part of the lot. Looking at the rendering below, it doesn't appear to me that a Fire stadium would block much of the skyline view. I don't imagine the soccer structure would be any taller than the top of the upper deck of the Sox stadium and most of that view is blocked by the scoreboard in LF with a Mets player on it. And yeah, it'll be up to Ishbia. If he wants to privately finance a new stadium there, it'll probably get done. Only time will tell if that's what he wants to do.

KW contributed a lot toward this team leading up to the 2005 championship, but I'm so relieved that he's gone. As far as throwing former players under the bus who aren't total loyalists after they're gone, seems like par for the course for this team under Jerry Reinsdorf

Yeah, there are lots of people who look older than that who are in their 70s.

Yes, but it's not just about the most money either state is going to throw at them. It's also about which site offers the most potential for generating revenue streams and franchise valuation for the Bears. It looks to me like McCaskey still sees AH as the best location for that. Otherwise, this would all be over - the IN offer clearly bests the IL offer in that they'd be chipping in $1B toward the stadium itself. But that means saying goodbye to that massive 326 acre site at a prime location for development. My guess: If IL pushes through their legislation in the spring session without much delay, the Bears will take that and have earthmoving equipment ready to go at AH. If IL dicks around some more and fails to get a package done this spring, the Bears will tell them to drop dead and sign on to the IN deal. ....and yeah, Papa Bear would do the same thing. He was trying to get out of Soldier Field shorter after the Bears moved there in the early 70s.

Getting back to this question, though it may enrage anyone on SoxTalk who is apparently monitoring my post count, I found this article from last June a couple of weeks after the Fire made their stadium announcement. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/sports/mlb/chicago-white-sox/could-chicago-fire-fc-white-sox-stadium-projects-share-south-loop-site/3770673/ “There is a lot of room at the site,” David Baldwin, Fire FC’s President of Business Operations, told NBC Chicago’s Lexi Sutter. “Obviously we are the anchor tenant, (and) we’re really excited to catalyze this development. If it makes sense once our stadium is open for one of the other teams, if it makes sense at that point we are open to having a conversation down the road. and Related Midwest had said in a statement last year that they were “actively exploring the co-location of dual stadiums” for the two teams. It might not leave a lot of room for a sprawling entertainment district, but probably enough to have some development there. The riverfront and close to downtown location perhaps outweighs the need to create some sort of sprawling "White Sox Village" development like they'd need to do at a suburban location or even on the parking lots of the current stadium.

It looks like any updates on the Bears stadium saga will have to wait a few weeks. The IL House committee advanced the mega projects bill, but now the assembly is adjourned until March 18. IN's governor signed their stadium bill into law yesterday, but it looks like the Bears are willing to wait until the IL recess is over next month. https://abc7chicago.com/post/chicago-bears-news-illinois-indiana-lawmakers-taking-stadium-bills-thursday/18652916/

Definitely. Plus the 5% increase in the hotel tax if I'm not mistaken. I'm surprised the hospitality industry isn't complaining about that. Jackson Co, Missouri voters rejected a 3/8th cent sales tax for Chiefs and Royals stadium funding. But a 1% food tax for the Bears sailed through the IN legislature. Like others said, if the Bears do end up landing in AH, it'll be a win for everyone. IN working class taxpayers won't see their grocery bills go up, IN elected officials still got to embarrass IL, and the Arlington Park site is a great fit for the Bears.

It depends on how much Sox ownership is willing to pay for the stadium itself. They'll have to privately fund most, if not all of it. If they're counting on public money for the stadium itself (not infrastructure), they aren't going to get it and they'll be at Rate Field long-term. If the Ishbias want to bankroll a stadium at the 78, i'd like to think approval would go through as quickly as it did for the Fire. But, this is Chicago we're talking about.

I'm surprised there has seemed to be no pushback from Lake and Porter Co. residents for the proposed 1% increase in the food and beverage tax to pay for a Bears stadium. If IL were quickly passing a 1% tax on groceries for Cook and DuPage County residents to give the McCaskeys a sweetheart stadium deal, I wouldn't be happy with that. I'm not going to fault IL officials for refusing to match that.

While this is encouraging, I'll be assured of this when there's an official announcement from the Bears and specifically George McCaskey. There are two things that can still scuttle any deal: The first is Kevin Warren who last time IL announced progress, responded by cancelling their next meeting so that he could make a bombshell announcement about Indiana. I'm not going to underestimate his ability to generate more drama and derail any progress made. The second is Chicago lawmakers who seem to be of the attitude that any business that goes outside the city limits may as well just go and leave the state altogether because "it ain't Chicago". Maybe the enticement of making state funds available to help transition Soldier Field to a post-Bears era will get them on board.

So, I assume this means you aren't wishing him a happy 90th birthday today?

If this video is accurate, the Twins are now only making $5M in TV revenue vs. $55M before the RSN model imploded and the $330M/year that the Dodgers are making on TV revenue.

This is why I'll be very surprised if the Ishbias decide to just stick with There's Nothing Wrong with It Field long-term and let the team continue to be an afterthought in Chicago. The Ballpark at Arlington didn't last because playing outdoors in the intense summer heat in Texas turned out to be problematic for them as far as getting fans to come out to the game when it's 100 out. This video gives a pretty good explanation of why Turner Field didn't last. Lack of things to do around the stadium was part of it, but accessibility was a problem too. It also explains why a new ballpark out in the suburbs works for Atlanta and I don't think the same applies to Chicago.

Angel Stadium turns 60 this year and I have never heard a soul fawn over it as a charming, classic stadium because of its age. I don't expect the Sox can just wait a few more decade for Rate Field suddenly be considered a revered classic. Camden Yards is only 1 year newer than Rate Field with Coors Field ('95), Oracle Park ('00), and PNC Park ('01) being built all within a decade of "New Comiskey". I cannot envision a scenario were Rate Field leapfrogs those facilities to achieve such a venerated status based on its age. As far as the 2033 ASG goes, the Sox certainly have to be frontrunners to get that no matter where they play. They got the 50th game and it'll have been 30 years since the last time they hosted at that point. No doubt the Ishbias and MLB would much rather the team have a new ballpark to showcase by then. The A's, Rays, and Royals will be waiting their turn to host the ASG at their new parks. But that's 7 years off - plenty of time to build a new stadium by then.

Part of the reason why the Royals ballot initiative failed a couple of years ago was that downtown businesses were concerned about what a new ballpark would mean for them. It sounds like they are now warming up to the idea of a downtown KC ballpark. https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/royals-stadium-talks-continue-as-some-in-kcmo-warm-to-washington-square-park-location