tray

I am wondering....where did you read that Brooks Boyer had to convince JR to sign Murakami ? Sounds absurd. I thought maybe Ishbia had something to do with it but maybe that isn't right either. Maybe, just maybe JR wants to go for another one.

On the same point, the '77 WSox Hitmen were so much fun to watch and in this day and age, would have drawn even more fans. The atmosphere in the stands back then was crazy.

The excitement about Murakami coming to the WSox probably has little to do with the fact that he is coming from Japan. Reinsdorf already knows how one player or a couple of new players could excite the Sox fan base....which begs the question, "why hasn't he done it more often?" Consider when he brought Fisk in from Boston. Fans went crazy on Opening Day in Comiskey in 1981. Fisk had already homered at Fenway in their Opener. Fisk responded again in Chicago with a grand slam home run. As we now know, Fisk, Luzinski and Kittle all became fan favorites and made us occasionally wear the ugly '83 uniforms. The roof shot home runs from those guys drew fans into the park. So if Murakami, Colson, et. al. hit some bombs, more fans will come for the show.

I enjoyed Chuck Garfein's comments in the face of some aggressive and understandable questioning by AJ including past and future spending on player contracts. Anyway, I enjoyed the bantar.

Yea, I see some fan displeasure with Reinsdorf ... which is not dissimilar to what one sees across many fan bases in sports... but I am not allowing that to deter me from watching and enjoying WSox and Bulls. Look forward to going to Glendale this Spring and Opening day.

I think I heard on one of the Sox podcasts that just after Getz learned that a deal for Murakami was finalized, he called Ishbia. If so, I wonder if the Sox, with Ishbia backing, could beat out the Cubs and get Imai. That would really be the shot heard 'round the baseball world.

How much?

It is impossible to hold a sensible conversation with you because it appears that you are too anxious to argue than to discuss. Further, your points are predicated on half-truths which can be a deceptive form of argument. In short, you state facts to support your position (that anything can be built on any soil) but that has NOTHING to do with the points I made in my post. Anyway, I do not want to argue with you on this and accept your points so let's leave it at that.

I left this topic alone but wondered why one poster in particular kept posting on this hundreds of times. Meanwhile you cannot let one post of mine go by without chiming in. You cite skyscrapers which present entirely different foundation requirements and cost parameters per sq. ft., but that has nothing to do with what is required at the 78. Of course almost any building can be built almost anywhere. So what? Recall that the U of I suddenly cancelled plans to build on the 78 citing among other things, the ballooning costs of construction. The Developer left taxpayers holding the bag for 30 Million in unpaid contractor bills. There was a deal breaker in that case. Frankly, I don't know how much more in additional costs could be a deal breaker for Mansuetso/the Fire or any project on that site. You suggested that added costs will not be a deal breaker. How so? Is Mansueto all in, regardless of costs? That would be an unusual approach for any businessman/developer. You failed to address the other points I made, but oh well ... maybe let it go. I don't really want to engage you further.

Not sure why you continue to resurrect a dead issue with hundreds of posts. Ishbia, is never going to lease land from an Iranian criminal instead of from IL taxpayers. Not going to happen and there are many reasons why. i.e, limited ingress/egress, complicated development issues*, and, contrary to what you have argued here, the "78" is not within walking distance to any entertainment venue. Even if it was, that area would not be safe for fans to be walking around especially given that the majority of White Sox home games are at night. What you hope for would further risk the future of the White Sox franchise in Chicago, something that is already a concern. But anyway, proceed. *from AI: Key Findings and Project Details Site History and Soil Composition: The 62-acre site, located along the Chicago River, is former railyard land, and the river itself previously ran through a portion of the proposed location. Geotechnical surveys have identified challenging subsurface conditions: River Muck: Borings indicated a layer of very soft, organic river muck with very low soil strength near the river's elevation. Fill Material: The surface generally consists of 1 to 2.5 feet of fill, including gravel, sand, silt, bricks, and clay. Contamination: A strong petroleum odor was noted at some boring locations, and the general history of industrial use means the soil may require environmental remediation. Construction Approach: Due to these conditions, the project team, a joint venture including Pepper Construction, GMA Construction Group, and ALL Construction, is emphasizing specific foundation and soil remediation strategies to ensure structural integrity. Soil stabilization is a primary challenge for the riverfront construction. Note: Any further development beyond the Fire stadium, including commercial or residential, would require the same environmental and structural evaluation.

SS2K : I am going to disengage on this and let you have the last word there. Have a nice evening sir.

You describe the Cub fan experience in Wrigleyvlle after day games. Sox play night games for the most part, and their fan base for the most part enjoy watching and/or going to games at night. tailgating before games, and for those who want to go out after the game ends and they get to their cars around, 11 p.m with wife and kids, there are plenty of bars and restaurants open. My guess is that most fans head home at that time, especially those with kids. Wrigleyville has a different demographic. Citing Wrigley bars is just part of a failed Cubs/Sox analogy. The WSox are a Southside team, and the 78, is not in a Southside neighborhood. It would be a stretch to claim it is on the South Side as South siders well understand. Not sure if you are very familiar with the abandoned 78 tract. It is 20 feet under the grade of Roosevelt road. I don't get where the Fire conceptual plan provides enough vehicular or pedestrian access. I would not be surprised if Mansueto becomes just the latest in a long line of potential tenants to drops out. The writing for that is on the wall. These billionaires are not foolish. And don't believe all the hype that you read.

I am not angry but you sound angry...angry at Jerry Reinsdorf and certainly always angry at me. I was pursuing a different point, a larger point that I thought should be obvious but is sometimes lost. Forget I posted it 2023.

That's your opinion. I pick fights? No, but I will hold my own ...and then I know when to disengage with those who always want to have the last word. Now who starts s%*#? Look no further than a recent post in this thread where I wanted to make the point that the culture of Sox fans on the South side has been over a century in the making. Certain groups (like the S Side Irish community) and other ethnic groups took root on the South side and expanded out, largely to the S and SW suburbs. That is where the majority of the fan base is located. The fact is that the White Sox are identified with the South side, Sox fandom and all it entails. It is part of their culture. So the responses to that post immediately attempted to deflect and make it about age...Gen X fans v old fans on Social Security or something ridiculous like that. My point, which was pretty clear, had nothing to do with the age of fans. It did have to do with the long relationship between the White Sox, the location where they have played for 125 years, and where most in the WSox fan base reside. My guess is that most younger fans and even our young announcer understand that.

You admittedly do not watch many WSox games throughout the season and have recently expressed ambivalence as to the possibility that the Sox move the franchise to Nashville stating further that it would not impact you or some such thing. For some fans, like myself, all of sarcasm and negativity is tiresome to read. Speaking for myself only, I would like to see a better balance. Instead, we have a few posters who dominate the conversations , and you know who they are. And no need to slap anyone down. As Moderator, you know you should be better than that.

"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? " You don't know anything about the fan base. Maybe best to keep your thoughts to yourself.

Your posts share a lot of structure and grammar usage with 77 Hitmen. But anyway, my post was addressed to that entity.

77 Hitmen: You probably don't remember seeing the "77 Hitmen, " but regardless, your posts drip with sarcasm and disrespect.

WTF does that mean ?

IMO....that would be a miscalculation that could have unintended consequences including reducing attendance and fan support to the point that the WSox franchise in Chicago could really be in jeopardy. Personally, I am concerned about a move from the WSox historic location on the South side. I have experienced and indeed befriended a few generations of WSox fans....some now proud parents and grandparents...many originally from the South side neighborhoods and parishes (which I was very proud to be part of even though I am not Catholic). Been to more than a dozen South side Irish parades down Western where the camaraderie among Sox fans is thick. Attended games at Comiskey including many memorable games in 70's watching the South Side Hitmen, in the 80's with Fisk, Kittle and them and the magical 2005 WS Championship year. Yea, I was at the Disco Dem. game and left after they cancelled game 2. Met my old buddies at Shinnicks for drinks before every home opener at Comiskey. Walked through the old neighborhood past sis Daley's house on Lowe on the way to games. And I have watched the Bridgeport neighborhood to the West of the park gentrify with upscale homes, condos and apartments. Been one of the thousands of Sox fans who take tailgating to another level with our grills and drinks for everybody. That isn't just my history with the team, its the history of the WSox playing for their fans at Comiskey I and II for over a hundred years. There really is a South side WSox culture built up over decades that, IMO, will largely be lost if the team moves away from their historic home on 35th street. By comparison, the Cubs are every man's team, not just the North sides' since Harry Carey and Ch 9 made them into the media force they have become. Move the Sox anywhere else and a lot of the culture and camaraderie of South side WSox fans will diminish and dissipate as well as the identity of the WSox as our South side team. Others, especially those who have not shared my experiences over the years will no doubt have a different opinion. Yes, I know that winning is paramount in sports, but no team wins every year. There is a lot more to it that's hard to explain, but anyway, I tried. Even Schriff gets the love we have for the Sox on the South side. History. https://chicagology.com/skyscrapers/skyscrapers128/

Fred's plan is dead , that's what I said.

Venable filled out 102 lineup cards that lost every one of those games. Katz and Venable also managed a bullpen that was responsible for many of those losses. Venable seemed to lack the intensity that some mlb managers have. My own opinion is that he was too passive in certain key late inning situations. Way too many first and second, no outs trailing by a run and the Sox come up empty. Of course it isn't all his fault, but the buck stops at the top. Also recall the games where the Sox take a late inning lead and in the next inning the Sox reliever comes in (trying to hold the lead) and instead starts doling out walks. Part of that is on Venable and Katz.

LOL.

Of course, parking would be an issue because effective provisions for parking depend on a viable plan for reasonable ingress/egress for thousands of cars. Maybe study the Fire plan and actually drive down to the 78 before commenting. Note the ramp from Roosevelt down into a parking garage or the winding narrow road through Ping Tom Park. Imagine funneling Sox fans who drive from the suburbs to go to a night game into a large parking garage. Absurd. Does the plan include a wall or barrier all along the Metra tracks for safety of pedestrians? Where can vehicles cross over the Metra tracks and Clark street ? If you think you are making some kind of point by cutting and pasting my rebuttals to endless uninformed comments, OK, but you are wasting your time and failing to make a single point. Meanwhile, I will make certain that reasoned criticism and alternate opinions are expressed here, including my own, even in the face of a pooled effort to intimidate. When you are plain wrong there isn't strength in the numbers of those who agree with you. If you imagine there is, I have a few suggestions for some political media outlets that you can embroil yourself in.

No one is screaming about parking at a non-existent stadium. Just thinking about that though for a minute, parking garages could really be interesting at a facility where thousands of fans leave around the same time. It's bad enough now. LOL. I suspect from the content of your posts that you do not seem familiar with much at the site or the Fire plan to develop part of it, i.e., how to deal with the 3 Metra tracks (no indication of that on the Fire plan) , the elevated N/S Clark streets, the elevation difference between the 78 and Roosevelt road, and the limitations of ingress/egress there. Perhaps if you drive down to the "78" and try walking to anywhere beyond it, you might obtain a new perspective. I don't know, just a thought. IMO, the highest and best use of the site for City of Chicago residents does not comport with the financial aspirations and abject greed of the prior or current Owners from Rezko to Auchi. Never forget, IKEA, Amazon and U of I, all turned down or backed out of the 78. I don't know what the reasons were, but perhaps they developed some concerns.