77 Hitmen

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

I wish that wasn't the case. I'm actually one of those fans who generally just wants to go to the park, see the game, and then go home. But that's not what many people want in their gameday experience these days. I haven't been to as many other ballparks as @southsider2k5, but I've been to enough to see how much of a difference location and ballpark design makes. What I'm rooting for is for the Sox to consistently draw well so that they can have the resources to become and stay competitive in MLB. If they could do that at the current ballpark and location, that would be great. But the current ballpark situation creates challenges to that.

The Royals want out of Kauffman Stadium. I know the stadium issue has been a bit of a debacle in KC, but I'd be shocked if they're still at Kauffman after their lease is up in 2030. It also looks like they've ruled out a potential suburban stadium location on a huge campus in Overland Park and that their focus now is to build something in downtown KC.

I think this gets the whole "listicles" thing totally backwards. It isn't that potential paying customers are just sitting back and waiting for some online ranking of ballparks to decide whether or not to catch a game at Rate Field. It's that the rankings that are out there generally reflect what people think about MLB stadiums throughout the league. There's a reason why Rate Field is consistently ranked near the bottom, it's because that's how people outside of diehard Sox fans generally feel about the place. It's one thing to convince people that the place is much better than it used to be (true), not as bad as people think (true), a nice enough place to see an MLB game (true), and that there's nothing "dangerous" about the neighborhood (true). It's quite another to convince them that Rate Field is a must-see place that they want to devote their limited entertainment budget to (both money and time) unless the Sox are in contention for a pennant. Sure, you can find write ups out there that take unfair, ignorant swipes at Sox Park because they're just going on reputation. But that isn't what's causing attendance problems for the Sox and they aren't the only ones ranking the place near the bottom of the league.

Here's the story directly on the Fox 32 website. You can download the slides too. https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/exclusive-chicago-park-district-pitches-630-million-plan-post-bears-soldier-field Sounds like a good use for Soldier Field after the Bears leave. Already, there's more to its existence than 10-12 Bears games a year. To be fair, some of those major acts they're relying on such as Taylor Swift and Beyonce concerts might take place at the Bears new dome stadium instead of Soldier Field, but there will still be interest in major acts performing right in the heart of Chicago.

No need to stop at 2013. You can go back all the way to 1995 - as soon as the new ballpark bounce ended. The Sox have ranked higher than 15th in MLB attendance only once in those 3 decades - 2006 when they were reigning WS champs. All the talk about how much fans just love having a stadium right off the expressway and surrounded by parking lots isn't supported by the numbers. Which other teams are emulating even a single aspect of what the Sox have when designing their stadiums and surroundings in even the slightest way? Absolutely none. People can get apoplectic, resort to ad hominem arguments, and slap laugh emojis all over the forum to their hearts desire....it still doesn't change the reality of the Sox stadium situation. Neither does anecdotal stories about how great the place is for individual fans. I used to be one of those fans with a huge chip on my shoulder whenever someone dissed Sox Park - blaming it on Cubs fans or people brainwashed by the Cub-loving, Sox-hating media. At some point, I realized that "rest of the world is wrong and we die-hard Sox fans are right" way of thinking was just me living in denial.

That sure beats paying the exorbitant tolls. I'd still wonder how well they'd do drawing enough fans there such that it's a better location than 35th St. At least it's on the right side of town as far as fan bases goes vs. Arlington Heights, but it doesn't sound like an improvement over the current location to me. MLB is arguably the most difficult of the 4 major sports for drawing enough fans. Twice as many home dates as the NBA and NHL with the expectation these days that teams average at least 25k per game - which would put them just barely over 2M for the season - to avoid concerns about attendance problems. And of course an NFL team only has about 10 games per year mostly on Sundays. The Bears will sell out every game no matter where they build their stadium.

I guess the question for the team is why would moving to a ballpark at Wolf Lake would be better at drawing a sufficient number of fans than the current location. For whatever reason, enough people don't want to bother taking the Red Line a few stops south to see the Sox now. Are enough fans who don't already live in NW Indiana going to bother going down to Hammond to see the Sox play 81 times a year? It's right off of I-90, but are they going to drive there and pay $25 in tolls round trip on the Skyway and Toll Road to see the Sox play?

FWIW, a few months ago (and I'm sure I wouldn't be able to find a link for this), Chuck Garfien initially said that the Fire stadium means the Sox are out of the picture at the 78, but in a later discussion, he said he had been told there is room for both a Fire and Sox stadium at the site. This suggests to me that perhaps someone on the team corrected him because they're still considering the site. There's definitely enough room for a baseball stadium, but yeah, I don't know how much room that leaves for some sort of entertainment district. According to Mr. Google, the St. Louis ballpark village is about 10 acres. I've never been there, but I believe that includes things apartments, office space, and a hotel. With its location in the South Loop, they probably don't need to dedicate a ton of space for on the 78 for a housing, office space, or a hotel. As far as what would happen to Rate Field if the Sox build a new ballpark on the north side of 35 St? That's ISFA's problem. The Sox don't own Rate Field and aren't bound to the place once their lease expires. Even the debt for the stadium is relatively small ($50M) and could conceivably be paid off by the time the current lease is up.

The Bears situation is going to be settled one way or another within a few weeks. IL will either given them the mega projects bill or they'll sign an agreement with Indiana and that'll be that. Also, if the Sox intend to build a new stadium, it's crystal clear to everyone that it'll have to be privately funded aside from infrastructure costs. So, I don't think there will be a need to go beg the IL General Assembly for public money for a new stadium. Mansueto didn't need to wait around for the state to give him money as he's funding his new soccer stadium privately. Given that the combined net worth of the Ishbia brothers is at least $15B, a privately funded Sox ballpark is not out of the question. If the Sox really do want to move to the 78, I don't think they can just wait around until 2029 to get going on the project because the remaining parcel of land will likely be developed by then with the Fire stadium jump starting work on the site. If they're just going to stay at 35th St and perhaps build a new park at the site of Old Comiskey, the timing isn't as critical. I don't think the looming CBA expiration will cause them to stop them from going forward with a stadium plan. The Rays aren't pausing their stadium efforts due to labor uncertainty as their lease at the Trop ends in 2029 and it doesn't look like the Royals are pausing their efforts either as they fully intend to leave Kaufmann when their lease is up after the 2030 season. The longer the Sox wait, the more expensive construction gets as costs have really shot up the last few years. .....and yes, a short-term extension of their Rate Field lease is certainly an option if a new ballpark isn't going to be ready for another year or two after that.

Great questions. Ishbia was likely brought in when he was to give the team an infusion of cash needed for a new stadium, but nobody knows for sure about that. Was it just a coincidence that they announced the ownership transfer just days after the Fire announced their new stadium at the 78? Is it a coincidence that the ownership transfer window starts the same year the current ballpark lease expires? I have no idea. If a new stadium is built, it'll be the Ishbias putting up most, if not all, the money for it. Yet, as you stated, he can't take control of the team until 2029 at the earliest. Construction of a new ballpark could be well underway by then. If I were the Ishbia brothers, I'd want final say on ballpark design and to keep Reinsdorf as far away from that as possible given how badly he screwed up New Comiskey. The new owners will be the ones who will have to deal with any stadium design mistakes for decades to come. Earlier, @Sleepy Harold said that last fall, Brooks Boyer said to expect a stadium decision to be made in 12-18 months. So, if true, perhaps we'll hear something next offseason? I can't imagine they'd drag it out much longer than that unless they are planning to sign a long-term lease and stay at Rate Field for the foreseeable future.

Did they install bidets at Camelback Ranch?

Moreno is one of the worst owners in MLB. The only people keeping him for being the worst owner are John Fisher, Bob Nutting, and Jerry Reinsdorf.

It was 65 degrees in Chicago literally just a few days ago.

I'd be shocked if the new owners moved the Sox to the NW suburbs - far from the heart of their fan base. With the exception of sprawl cities like Atlanta and Dallas (Arlington), MLB ballparks way out in the burbs just don't work. They may as well stay at 35th St than move there. Moving them to deep into Cub fan territory at a location that most fans would have to drive to by car 81 times a year (unless you live along the UP-NW line) sounds like insanity to me.

I think the Bears would very much want to build in AH over Hammond. That Arlington Park location would be such a great location for them. If IL agreed to move the "mega bill" package forward with no more requests for concessions from the team, my guess is the Bears would take it. But, time is running out, any more delays or requests for more from the team and they'll sign up with Indiana by the end of the month. Yes, they're playing a dangerous game and IL officials could very well end up with egg on their faces. I believe the site is currently a golf course near Wolf Lake, near the Cline Ave exit from the Toll Road. According to Google Maps, it's a 2.5 mile walk from the South Shore Line. For people driving in from the city, isn't there something like $10 in tolls between the Skyway and the Toll Road to get from the Ryan to this site? I'm sure fans won't like that. For people driving from the SW suburbs (Tinley Park, Orland Park, etc.), what's the easiest way to get there? You can't drive up from the south to the Skyway as far as I know. Taking the Borman Expwy to Cline Ave and then circle back to the stadium location seems like quite a bit out of people's way. I suppose you could take the Borman and then up Calumet Ave, but that's about 6 miles off the expressway

Yeah, for a guy who was brought in to get a stadium deal done for the Bears, Warren sure hasn't help things.

The A's have a new stadium under construction and the Rays appear to be on track to build a new stadium and entertainment district in Tampa. The Royals are almost certainly leaving Kaufmann Stadium one way or another after the 2030 season. Unless any of those teams totally screws up their ballpark design, Rate Field will likely be ranked 29th or 30th by almost anyone outside the Sox fan base if nothing significant changes. Which ballpark would rank lower? It's a subjective question, but maybe Angel Stadium? I've been there and it might be a wash between Anaheim and Rate Field. Any others? I'm not a big fan of Chase Field, so maybe that one? But it's getting $500M in renovations, so perhaps it'll improve. Sox fans might not like hearing that, but unfortunately it's reality when you get outside our fanbase bubble. All the ranting and raving in the world isn't going to make the situation better for the Sox. As been explained many times here, the 78 site has drawbacks too. But the current park and location has been problematic for decades. Something has to change. Whether that's staying at Rate Field and building an entertainment district around it, building a new park across 35th St, or moving to the 78 is up to the new owners. I'd vote for the 78, but it's not my billions that are going to be spent. Oh, I (fortunately) now have unhinged responses to me blocked and can only see what was said about me through your quote. So, let me set the record straight about his slander about my experience with my children. I have had seats in just about every section of the ballpark - 100, 300, 500 levels, Fan Deck, field level at the Bullpen Bar, even a skybox once. What I was referring to in the other thread was that when I had my little ones with me, we'd leave our 100 level seats and I'd take them to play for a bit at the Fundamentals area while I continued to catch the game from the balcony up there. Very pleasant memories. Not as good a view as from our seats, but my kids were having fun and I was watching them and at the same time watching the game. Priceless memories. I wouldn't give up those moments up for the world. Only a whack-job ( @tray ) would take my sharing this as some sort of slam against me worthy of an attempted insult. What kind of total jackass would take what I shared and crap on it? Utterly pathetic.

Yeah, constantly using the laugh emoji against everyone is pretty weak and sad. In another thread he even gave a laugh emoji when I said I enjoyed bringing my kids to the Fundamentals area at Sox Park when they were growing up. That's uncalled for and border-line creepy. He's on my ignore list now. It's the first time I've used the feature because I am not here to shut out people who have differing opinions, but I draw the line at personal attacks. This thread has obviously morphed into a catch-all discuss on stadium issues - including the Bears and other MLB and NFL teams and I'm not going to be bullied into not participating in it. In fact, the personal attacks make me want to post here even more. 🙂

Yes, that's my point. They'll still need to rely on the hotel tax to pay down the Soldier Field debt regardless of what the Bears do. Trying to make a AH stadium contingent on the Bears paying that off only to have them cross the state line does nothing to reduce that debt. The way I see it, the Bears hold all the leverage here. Since I believe the Bears would much rather built in AH than in Hammond, the state could probably squeeze some debt payment out of the Bears, but it looks like they've overplayed their hand. It looks like the Bears are done dealing with "sticking points" in the IL legislation and they could officially sign on to the IN offer by the end of this month.