tray

The only other plan that has been floated is the one by Related development so I assume that is the plan you see. I never said that any new stadium anywhere else would not make sense, just that 78 plan was a folly. I posted specific facts about that site concerning its history (as a former river bed and land fill) and the ingress/egress issues. You never responded to any of that, but instead continue to troll me with your nonsense. To refresh your recollection: ---------------------- I saw one rendering of that site with the Sox stadium and another with the UIC building, then prior to the Stadium concept, others made for potential investors that had office buildings with a crescent shaped park where the original river was. The design of the stadium is subjective, so you might like that and you might also like what was done with the last remodel of Soldier Field. I don't. Some prefer certain kinds of stadium architecture from the ultra modern like SoFi stadium to some of the retro parks. I thought the rendering was not taken too seriously which might explain the architecture and failure to take historical Comiskey architectural as a predicate ( I don't count the whirly birds in CF as anything but a feeble and trite nod to old Comiskey). The lighted 50 foot (or so) "Sox " logo is a cringe-worthy joke, one that would make the architects who cherished and refurbished the classic sign over the front entrance of Wrigley laugh. I personally don't see the draw of a glass box stadium with a giant lighted Sox logo on it. Fans in Boston, Baltimore, SF Pittsburgh etc would laugh at this thing. Those that have been to those places know what I mean. They are special, this thing isn't. I am not an architect but you asked why I think it was ridiculous, and so I try to explain why. No reason to rush into a new stadium without getting a lot of fan input. That was a mistake made the last time. They didn't ask us. Respect the original architecture from the same architect who designed Wrigley. Incorporate a lot of brick like the old park and Wrigley. Chicagoans love brick, not glass, metal and stucco (like the Rate). And then there is the 78 site which has all kinds of development issues including ingress/egress/parking. I would encourage fans who have not stepped foot down there to do that. If you can't, perhaps try a virtual trip via Google maps. As you will see, to the North, Roosevelt Rd., elevated over the site because of the bridge going over the river. To the East Clark street which has a tunnel down to grade and up to the intersection with Roosevelt Rd (and train tracks just west of that). To the South, Ping Tom park which apparently was not designed to take ingress / egress to the subject land under consideration. And of course, to the West, a murky river, Lumber street, and a RR bone yard. It is what it is. https://maps.app.goo.gl/kJ4rLnVM5coXcWTm7 Ask yourself, why hasn't that site been developed for 100 years? Why did U of I buck out after all that money was invested into it? If I was the WSox ownership, I would not want that parcel for free, even if real estate taxes were paid and Related actually had the Deed to the UIC parcel.------- The taxpayers own the current site and the stadium under authority vested in the ISFA. That, and the fact that the WSox have been there almost since the founding of the team make the notion of abandoning that site to move 16 blocks away to a compromised site, require a bit more justification. As far as I see it right now, moving the Sox elsewhere, including outside Chicago, is forseeable, but not on the 78. That thing is dead in the water. Ask UIC.

OK Ishbia is a ticket to the promised land. But, from a larger perspective, for those willing to take that, I wonder how long the money game can last. Right now it sure looks good though with the Sox at the bottom of the heap. Then there is this. Consider that we (the ISFA/taxpayers ) own the current stadium, acres of parking, and a lease with the White Sox franchise for 5 more seasons. That seems like a predicate for at least exploring the possibility of making the WSox a publicly held team, or a hybrid like the Packers. Probably unrealistic , and I understand that, but I am just not fully on board with private ownership of sports teams by Billionaires. But winning is everything I guess.

I recall Reinsdorf made made a comment years ago to the effect that IF his family were to sell either the Bulls or WSox, he would prefer they sell the WSox. I have not see reporting that he has directed his family to sell the team upon his death. Where was that reported? "You realize that Braden was playing in college a year ago" He will be 22 years old in April. What did all the years in Japan and the minors do for Colas? He isn't going to make the roster and may be cut this Spring.

Reinsdorf family might keep the Sox like the Wirtz and Halas families did with their family franchises, but we shall see. Let's not worry about it for now. Frankly even with new ownership it will take a while to change direction...like bringing an aircraft carrier about. Having said that, a few high impact free agents would really jump start the rebuild. I like that you mentioned both Montgomery players. After I saw Braden Montgomery on Hot Stove and after seeing him run in Spring Training, I am hoping he cracks the OD roster. Braden is extremely fast. He can easily cover CF or LF. Hypothetically, if Teel and both Montgomerys are in the lineup you would have decent LH hitting from 3 spots and above average speed on the bases. Let the kids play. Not buying the wait and develop strategy for outstanding players like that while less talented boring players are used as place holders for whatever reason.

Why do you continue to lie using quotation marks to represent something I never said. You want a fight bozo?

Fvk you.

People are really getting ahead of themselves on this.

I saw one rendering of that site with the Sox stadium and another with the UIC building, then prior to the Stadium concept, others made for potential investors that had office buildings with a crescent shaped park where the original river was. The design of the stadium is subjective, so you might like that and you might also like what was done with the last remodel of Soldier Field. I don't. Some prefer certain kinds of stadium architecture from the ultra modern like SoFi stadium to some of the retro parks. I thought the rendering was not taken too seriously which might explain the architecture and failure to take historical Comiskey architectural as a predicate ( I don't count the whirly birds in CF as anything but a feeble and trite nod to old Comiskey). The lighted 50 foot (or so) "Sox " logo is a cringe-worthy joke, one that would make the architects who cherished and refurbished the classic sign over the front entrance of Wrigley laugh. I personally don't see the draw of a glass box stadium with a giant lighted Sox logo on it. Fans in Boston, Baltimore, SF Pittsburgh etc would laugh at this thing. Those that have been to those places know what I mean. They are special, this thing isn't. I am not an architect but you asked why I think it was ridiculous, and so I try to explain why. No reason to rush into a new stadium without getting a lot of fan input. That was a mistake made the last time. They didn't ask us. Respect the original architecture from the same architect who designed Wrigley. Incorporate a lot of brick like the old park and Wrigley. Chicagoans love brick, not glass, metal and stucco (like the Rate). And then there is the 78 site which has all kinds of development issues including ingress/egress/parking. I would encourage fans who have not stepped foot down there to do that. If you can't, perhaps try a virtual trip via Google maps. As you will see, to the North, Roosevelt Rd., elevated over the site because of the bridge going over the river. To the East Clark street which has a tunnel down to grade and up to the intersection with Roosevelt Rd (and train tracks just west of that). To the South, Ping Tom park which apparently was not designed to take ingress / egress to the subject land under consideration. And of course, to the West, a murky river, Lumber street, and a RR bone yard. It is what it is. https://maps.app.goo.gl/kJ4rLnVM5coXcWTm7 Ask yourself, why hasn't that site been developed for 100 years? Why did U of I buck out after all that money was invested into it? If I was the WSox ownership, I would not want that parcel for free, even if real estate taxes were paid and Related actually had the Deed to the UIC parcel.

And that from China. Anyway, not true for the West (i.e. Burr Ridge, LaGrange, Plainfield) or Southwest (Oak Lawn, Evergreen Park, Frankfort, Mokena, Homer Glen, New Lenox, Joliet,). The City itself is largely minority and probably majority Sox fans. Whatever, historically people tend to jump on the bandwagon for a winner, so it will be rough for a while....which makes it important for the Sox base to remain strong. Don't buy into negative narratives that are frequently promoted by those who aren't Sox fans and those who continually mock the team and overtly wish for failure. There are folks who never have a good word to say about the WSox and take a weird sense of satisfaction in targeting Sox fans like myself, always trying to one up us and mock us.

You got me there. Wow.

All you care about is oneupmanship. It's a joke.

I could care less about you dude.

The site of the original Comiskey makes infinitely more sense than any alternative site proposed thus far for a new park. Plenty of land to build a great park plus some residential condos (i.e., along Shields and 35th) , commercial buildings, a McCuddy's bar/entertainment strip near where it was, and still plenty of dedicated parking. Train stop on 35th, bus lines, and all major infrastructure for electric, sewer, water and ramps to the expressway right there. Plenty of practical reasons and of course, the 100+ year history of the WSox on the Southside.

I often go to Mannys before games, lol. The 78 is not easily accessible by foot unless you make a dedicated effort and then you are in no man's land. That is why I was asking who has actually been on it....walked on the property...and where did you park to do that. I suspect most people on this forum have not been on that property but only looked at Related's ridiculous renderings.

You walked that area all the time? I have gone downtown for decades for various reasons, including law school in the South Loop but never had reason to walk the 78. It was not safe to walk in that area back then. Frankly, It's just a drive by now , not a destination, and oh no, no bars.

I "self-servingly" ? No, I don't have a personal interest in this . lol. The 78 site was/is trash, which is why it has never been developed since it was at the bottom of a river bed and trash heap 100 years ago. The Boeing example you cite doesn't pertain here because the U of I relocated to another site in Chicago. There must have been other considerations at play in that move given the loss of money involved. I would like to know what they were. Have you driven by or around the "78" site and perhaps got out of your car to look at it? I suspect that some who cast opinions here are entirely unfamiliar with that thing. Same goes for Bridgeport around Soxpark which some appear to be unfamiliar with. Hell, I bet several posters here seldom if ever attend a WSox game but they have all kinds of opinions about the stadium and the area.

Correct. Almost any site can be built upon including areas where the stability of the soil and environmental concerns need to be addressed. So what? On the 78, they know what is under a lot of it - an old river bed and a landfill. Not ideal and not cost effective but given all of that, it is still far from an ideal site (most notably ingress/egress issues). So why did the U of I (and earlier Amazon) pull out of the plan to develop that site after millions of dollars (70 million +) were invested in architectural, land development, soil testing, and other Related issues ? I don't know, but it would be interesting to find that out. Certainly any possible future tenant would want to know that.

The problems for Robert Jr. and his agent were that he had the hand injury sliding into second and the fact that he has never been on a contending team where he was a final part to the puzzle. JR or any owner would pay for a star player on a contending team, like JR paid Michael Jordan and the championship Bulls. It is just hard to start spending on FA now, at least until the team shows some signs of life. Never forget, hindsight is always 20/20 so just look ahead now.

As some have suggested, the market for Robert may increase later, so no reason to trade now unless the return is great.In addition, it might make sense (again depending on possible return) to dangle one of our catchers (Korey Lee(a proven ML catcher) or Thaiss (age 30 in May)) and Andrew Vaughn (considering other available options at 1B) in the trade market, targeting teams looking for catching or a first basemen. I would like to keep Teel and Quero. As far as the concept of rebuilding, it seldom works. There are many more examples of failed rebuilds than those that worked out. Given the low payroll the Sox have and very few players that have much trade value, there is no reason to capitulate much further. At some point, it is time to enter the FA market and recapture some of the fan excitement lost the past few seasons. Some claim Reinsdorf will never add FA talent so it is up to JR and his current ownership team to prove them wrong. I , for one, am looking forward to watching this 2025 team because of eventual stellar starting pitchers, Noah Schultz and Hagen Smith, and a few other likely starters (i.e. Cannon, Iriarte, Martin Perez, Davis Martin, ). Historically there have been teams that have competed because of a few dominant starters (remember Randy Johnson), a decent rotation and bullpen, and decent defense. You do not necessarily need a line-up that is an offensive force to compete. It is axiomatic in baseball terms that pitching and defense can win a lot of games. So, the question is, will Sox pitching make a difference this year? Regarding our pitching check this interview with Katz out:

I'm hoping Bobby gets better so he can be with his family, friends and fans for years to come.

This is Reinsdorf's fault?

False.

I no longer want to trade personal jabs so I will no longer respond to you on any post you make other than adding a laughing emoji where it is called for. But go ahead keep it up if that feeds into your need for oneupmanship on a little baseball forum.

You would be thrown out of any college for misquoting and spinning the actual opinion of others. I doubt you graduated from any college though based on the level of your discourse and juvenile revenge posts.

Oscar Colas looks like he bulked up a bit...maybe on the trajectory of Courtney Hawkins in that regard.