77 Hitmen

I'm hard pressed to think of another MLB team that doesn't now or has plans to play in an iconic or highly rated park and/or in a vibrant area (i.e.; popular neighborhood or entertainment district). Maybe the Brewers with their ballpark surrounded by parking lots is the best answer. Other than that? Dodger and Yankee Stadium? But those are two of the most elite franchises in MLB history and one can argue that their stadiums are considered iconic. Am I missing anyone? Chase Field isn't anything special IMO, but is downtown. Miami's new stadium and its location has been a huge swing and a miss and their attendance has been terrible. I just think it's incredulous to think that there's nothing wrong with the current Sox ballpark status and that their attendance right when they won the World Series proves that.

The Sox have the 2nd longest postseason series win drought in MLB. Only the Reds have gone longer (1995) and they might actually make the playoffs this year. 2005 is the only season in the 44-year Jerry Reinsdorf era that the Sox actually won a post-season series. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_franchise_postseason_droughts So yeah, the new owners need to start with rebuilding the organization itself from the ground up. Hopefully they're smart enough to realize they can (and IMO must) do more than one thing at a time to turn this franchise around and that fixing the on-field performance/organizational rot and improving the ballpark experience aren't mutually exclusive.

That would certainly be a huge improvement over the current situation. They've had attendance issues with the current ballpark for 30 years save for the 2 or 3 years after they won the World Series. The numbers clearly show this. One huge benefit of this option is that it's all ISFA land. Of course, the Ishbias would still have to pay for a new stadium just as they would at the 78, but other sports owners are spending a lot more than JR is committing toward new stadiums, so while not a certainty it's not an out of the question. I don't think a plan to "just win" is enough because it's so tough to do consistently. The Mets owner threw a record amount of money into that team and how is that working out for them? Same with the Ishbias and the Suns. I also don't think just winning a few division titles or wild cards with early playoff exits is going to do much to move the needle for the Sox market share in Chicago at this point.

It'll be very interesting to see how the new labor contract and the TV deals eventually shake out in a few years. Seems like the disparity between the haves and the have not franchises has gotten worse in the last 5 years or so.

I wonder if Nashville is such a shoe-in for an expansion team anymore just because of this. They're spending a TON of public money on that new Titans stadium.

Sox final attendance numbers for the season are 1,445,738. That's up by about 60,000 fans total over 2024 but it's still the second lowest season total since 1999. https://www.mlb.com/news/white-sox-lose-final-home-game-of-2025-to-padres

Sox have to go at least 5-1 this last week of the season to avoid 100 losses.

Those of us around long enough know that he's been a PR disaster almost from the get-go. He's been alienating fans since 1982 and his late partner Eddie Einhorn was just as bad if not worse. There was a brief respite in 2005 before the franchise has gone into the ditch over the last 18 or so years culminating in last year's all-time record loss total. Disgraceful.

Agreed. Plus, I don't care what jobs Schriff had before he joined the White Sox. I said he's unqualified, not inexperienced. I don't care if he's finishing his 2nd season and is less bad than last year. He was unqualified when he was hired and he's still a really bad announcer. If the Sox fired him tomorrow, would any MLB pick him up as their PBP man? I highly doubt it.

If you have a differing opinion and some stats to back up your view, fine. But no need for personal insults. I'm not going to stoop to your level..

The DC city council has approved a deal to build a new domed stadium for the Washington Commanders at the site of the old RFK stadium. They expect the new stadium to open for the 2030 season. https://wtop.com/dc/2025/09/the-washington-commanders-are-returning-to-dc-as-council-approves-3-7b-deal-for-stadium-at-rfk-site/

Good for them. Jerry & Co. earned their infamy for last season's 121 losses. Unless it's the Cubs, Yankees, or Red Sox, I have no interest in seeing another team surpass that record.

But nobody is suggesting that there will be no parking lots at either a redeveloped current site or the 78. That sort of sounds like a strawman argument. Otherwise, you're not wrong that there are going to be fans who want to drive to the game and can't/won't use public transportation. I just don't see a scenario where parking is essentially eliminated for people attending Sox games.

I don't disagree that it would be difficult, if not financially impractical, to fix some of the biggest structural flaws of Rate Field. I just think it's a possible outcome that they could remain at Rate Field long-term. I for one will be very unhappy and disappointed if that happens since IMHO it'll doom the Sox to pretty much their current, reduced market share (a small market team within a major market) and to recurring attendance issues for decades to come. When you say "take away the parking that most fans like", by "most fans" do you mean the 17,000 that show up for games now or the fans that say they'll only attend games if the Sox make the playoffs in multiple seasons? I'm sorry, but the Sox have been catering to fans who want nothing more than a ballpark right off the expressway and surrounded by acres of parking lots and it's obviously not working and it goes against what just about every other MLB team has figured out over the last 30 years. Plus, it's not like they'll eliminate all parking if they redeveloped the area around the current stadium. They'll also have parking if they move to the 78, too.

I don't know about crime, but I remember that Hillside area being kind of dumpy even ~30 years ago. Further south are nicer areas. I'm thinking of the Western Springs/LaGrange area as being rather pleasant.

Schriffen is a perfect reflection of this organization. This includes how it hires unqualified people for top positions and how it has given Sox fans an utterly crappy product.

Until someone builds something permanent (surface lots don't count) on the south end of the 78, the door isn't closed on the Sox building a stadium there. Interesting that the Fire's plan shows not much development south of their stadium other than surface lots. That could indicate that they and Related Midwest are aware the Sox are still an option for that end of the property.

It means Sox ownership (present and future) better get a move on if they really want to build a stadium at the 78. We know Jerry isn't going to pay for a new stadium and the state certainly won't. It's all up to what the Ishbias want to do with the franchise going forward as JR eventually hands off ownership to them and they haven't said a word on the issue. It could very well be that their plan is to stay at 35th St and make major changes there. We'll see.

This. Think about the last time you (not you specifically, Kyyle) accidently bumped into someone out in public. Did you shoot them a dirty look in response? I know it was all spur of the moment, but it makes Rosenthal look like a douche. The camera man had a job to do too, it's not like he was some rando sneaking onto the field snapping photos for fun.

"Schriffen is excessively positive and makes outlandish statements. It’s as though he’s trying to sell you something." ....and this is why I don't expect that he's going anywhere next season. This is exactly what Jerry wants - a guy who tirelessly tries to polish the turd of a team the Sox are fielding.

If I'm looking at the right spot on Google Maps, part of the old Hillside Shopping Center is now a CarMax and part of it is a vacant lot. No offense to anyone who lives in or near Hillside, but why in the world would the Sox leave 35th and Shields only to build a new stadium there? I don't see how by any stretch of the imagination it would be an improvement over the current location. And like I said, no offense to people who live around there, but that area doesn't seem that appealing. Hillside, Bellwood, Berkeley, etc. aren't exactly top suburbs. What is there to do around there to draw fans before and after games? Sure, there are some very nice cemeteries just to the south of that area and on the north side of the Ike, there's a pretty big landfill which I remember smelling sometimes as I drove past on 290, but those aren't exactly huge draws for entertainment dollars. No train stations within a several of miles of that site as far as I can tell either. Too far from the end of the Blue Line and not even close to the Metra lines to the north and south. I can't imagine it's a good candidate for developing a successful "stadium district". The era of MLB teams building ballparks in locations that are only accessible to almost all fans by car with nothing else much around them is long over by more than three decades. And no, The Battery in Atlanta isn't comparable. Very different dynamics in the Atlanta metro area than in Chicagoland.

Amen. The team might not be 100+ losses bad over the next couple of seasons, but until Jerry's no longer running the show, we'll be treading water at best.

Oak Brook Mall is still around and is thriving as far as I can tell. They are NOT going to get rid of it to build a Sox stadium on that site to cater to the segment of the fanbase who are afraid of the city. It's not even close to any train stations, either. So, it's not a transit-friendly location except for being right off the tollway. https://oakbrookmagazine.com/still-going-strong-oakbrook-center-continues-to-thrive-as-more-malls-close/ https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/07/22/oak-brook-center-ranked-4th/ https://hinsdalemag.com/oakbrook-center/

It'll either the current site (renovated current stadium or maybe a new stadium on the north side of 35th) or the 78. IMO, any other location is much, much worse. For all the flaws of the 35th and Shields location, why would Arlington Heights or NW Indiana be any better? AH will work great for the Bears and their once a week, 10x a year mostly on Sunday afternoons schedule and their massive fan base, but good luck trying to get enough Sox fans to drive out to Arlington Park 81x year such that they draw at least 2.5M people there year in and year out. A suburban baseball village seems to be working for the Braves, but Atlanta is perhaps the most-sprawled city in America. I don't see it as a template for success for the Sox, especially since the NW suburbs is predominantly Cubs fans.

Each MLB team has exclusive territorial rights to certain metro areas. The Rangers would never in a million years allow a 2nd team in the DFW metro area. While I agree that the NYC area (perhaps in NJ) could support a 3rd team, the Yankees and Mets own the rights to that area and would never allow it. The A's tried to get a stadium built in San Jose, but the Giants own the rights to that area and blocked that attempt. Ironically, a couple of decades ago the A's ceded the San Jose rights to the Giants when they were looking for a new ballpark.