Balta1701 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 8 minutes ago, WBWSF said: I get the impression that the new stadium will be built in the South Loop. Nobody seems to be talking about this but what happens if the new stadium is not built? Will the White Sox stay at the present stadium? Or will JR try to move the team out of state? This spot is the only option that I have heard that is an actual possible win-win. The city gets land developed that no one else can raise the funds to develop. The White Sox get some additional public support to renovate it. If this spot wasn’t available, the path to the team moving was obvious. Once the deal ran out, the state would absolutely refuse to cut Reinsdorf another huge check after the last one. Reinsdorf would want someone else to pay for his next ballpark, the state would laugh. They might extend the deal for a couple years, but it’s so team friendly that the state won’t put up with that for long. The end result of that is something like the As, the team threatens to leave for so long that the state waives goodbye. This is still possible, if Reinsdorf wants the state to pay everything on a new ballpark and site redevelopment the state should say no. But unlike almost anywhere else, there are potential big benefits to the city and state of getting this site developed. That is not the case with his sea of parking lots now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 2 hours ago, WBWSF said: I get the impression that the new stadium will be built in the South Loop. Nobody seems to be talking about this but what happens if the new stadium is not built? Will the White Sox stay at the present stadium? Or will JR try to move the team out of state? I think this belief has run its course myself. Just FYI, the print edition of Sports Illustrated has a big story by Tom Verducci on Dave Stewart and his efforts to get the expansion Nashville franchise. He's put together a very impressive list of contributors on the ownership side and Manfred and he have already met to discuss what the front office would look like. Bottom line the Sox aren't moving to Nashville, full stop. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 6 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: I think this belief has run its course myself. Just FYI, the print edition of Sports Illustrated has a big story by Tom Verducci on Dave Stewart and his efforts to get the expansion Nashville franchise. He's put together a very impressive list of contributors on the ownership side and Manfred and he have already met to discuss what the front office would look like. Bottom line the Sox aren't moving to Nashville, full stop. They won't move to Nashville but what about moving to Portland? Portland recently came out with plans to build a MLB stadium with all the buildings around the stadium. If that actually happens Portland will get a team one way or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 2 Author Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, WBWSF said: They won't move to Nashville but what about moving to Portland? Portland recently came out with plans to build a MLB stadium with all the buildings around the stadium. If that actually happens Portland will get a team one way or another. Salt Lake City also just stuck their finger into the wind for a baseball team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 10 hours ago, WBWSF said: I get the impression that the new stadium will be built in the South Loop. Nobody seems to be talking about this but what happens if the new stadium is not built? Will the White Sox stay at the present stadium? Or will JR try to move the team out of state? Stay where they are at. I think 40 years later JR realizes that owning the stadium adds to the team value at a greater % then not. Also 40 years ago he needed to find a home for two teams. If the UC is proving to be a positive investment, he will invest in the South Loop site to own it. Could the ISFA sell him the Cell...maybe, who knows. He sees what Wrigley adds to that franchise and in his waning days sees value in this investment now. The south Loop has blossomed similar to the Lakeview area more so than Bridgeport and Bronzeville so the opportunity there differs. I believe this deal has been in the works for a while and was why he agreed to the rebuild. The window should be open now, This announcement comes out with winning and the Sox are the talk of sports. He hands out some big deals that are covered by the the stadium and off he goes. This failed miserably in every way and is probably why KW and Hahn are gone. KW may have also stepped it in this deal as well..as potentially Hahn as well. It could also explain to me why there are no long term hampering deals on the books. The Balance Sheet is clean and he likes it that way. I think this with Harper and Machado. There is no reason why they do not sign Chapman and move Moncada to 2B in his final prove it season and Bellinger for RF. I understand the long term deal resistance from JR and I could be the fool but this makes some sense as to the management of the team recently. The went from the carrot mentality to driving it into the ground. The carrot mentality pays the Chapman and Bellinger's of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 4 minutes ago, Harry Chappas said: Stay where they are at. I think 40 years later JR realizes that owning the stadium adds to the team value at a greater % then not. Also 40 years ago he needed to find a home for two teams. If the UC is proving to be a positive investment, he will invest in the South Loop site to own it. Could the ISFA sell him the Cell...maybe, who knows. He sees what Wrigley adds to that franchise and in his waning days sees value in this investment now. The south Loop has blossomed similar to the Lakeview area more so than Bridgeport and Bronzeville so the opportunity there differs. I believe this deal has been in the works for a while and was why he agreed to the rebuild. The window should be open now, This announcement comes out with winning and the Sox are the talk of sports. He hands out some big deals that are covered by the the stadium and off he goes. This failed miserably in every way and is probably why KW and Hahn are gone. KW may have also stepped it in this deal as well..as potentially Hahn as well. It could also explain to me why there are no long term hampering deals on the books. The Balance Sheet is clean and he likes it that way. I think this with Harper and Machado. There is no reason why they do not sign Chapman and move Moncada to 2B in his final prove it season and Bellinger for RF. I understand the long term deal resistance from JR and I could be the fool but this makes some sense as to the management of the team recently. The went from the carrot mentality to driving it into the ground. The carrot mentality pays the Chapman and Bellinger's of the world. Signing Bellinger to the deal he wants would be an awful move. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 34 minutes ago, ptatc said: Signing Bellinger to the deal he wants would be an awful move. I don't think anybody is signing that but dumber things have happened Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan18 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 12 hours ago, WBWSF said: I get the impression that the new stadium will be built in the South Loop. Nobody seems to be talking about this but what happens if the new stadium is not built? Will the White Sox stay at the present stadium? Or will JR try to move the team out of state? They would have to figure something out with the state to stay at GRF. Anyone who thinks they'd leave Chicagoland doesn't have a clue about the economics of baseball. There's been 1 relocation in the last 50 years, by a team playing in a stadium that was, well, the biggest dump in baseball with plenty of structural issues. There is another one ongoing for that same reason. Forbes ranks the SOX 15th in value despite decades of mediocrity. The prospect of this move might see them gain spots in the next ranking, and the top 10 is very much within reach once if everything with the 78 goes to plan. There is no remaining market where they would be anywhere near that. Other owners would not approve a move that is a step back and would decrease the average team value. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look at Ray Ray Run Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 2 hours ago, ptatc said: Signing Bellinger to the deal he wants would be an awful move. Really depends. This team is spending no money. Doesn't seem like paying one guy would matter at all and bellinger ceiling is actually a great player and I've been pretty critical of him generally but he's a great player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Just now, Look at Ray Ray Run said: Really depends. This team is spending no money. Doesn't seem like paying one guy would matter at all and bellinger ceiling is actually a great player and I've been pretty critical of him generally but he's a great player. Maybe, I would not take the chance thatast year was just a good contract year and with a long term deal he would revert to the player from the last couple of years with the dodgers. That's a long multi-year commitment from a team that has strict budget levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Just now, ptatc said: Maybe, I would not take the chance thatast year was just a good contract year and with a long term deal he would revert to the player from the last couple of years with the dodgers. That's a long multi-year commitment from a team that has strict budget levels. Right, when your franchise record free agent signing is an average at best defensive fielder, singles hitter, it's probably too big of a gamble for said franchise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 15 minutes ago, ptatc said: Maybe, I would not take the chance thatast year was just a good contract year and with a long term deal he would revert to the player from the last couple of years with the dodgers. That's a long multi-year commitment from a team that has strict budget levels. My point has nothing to do with Bellinger's results it had to do with the idea of Bellinger's results to ticket purchasers. Look at the bulls currently they are content selling a team that was good 2 years ago. The moves three years ago were to fill seats with the idea of winning. They have the salary space for Chapman and Bellinger and are electing to not do it and I am thinking the stadium was and has been the issue for the last two off seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 2 hours ago, soxfan18 said: They would have to figure something out with the state to stay at GRF. Anyone who thinks they'd leave Chicagoland doesn't have a clue about the economics of baseball. There's been 1 relocation in the last 50 years, by a team playing in a stadium that was, well, the biggest dump in baseball with plenty of structural issues. There is another one ongoing for that same reason. Forbes ranks the SOX 15th in value despite decades of mediocrity. The prospect of this move might see them gain spots in the next ranking, and the top 10 is very much within reach once if everything with the 78 goes to plan. There is no remaining market where they would be anywhere near that. Other owners would not approve a move that is a step back and would decrease the average team value. I hope you're right about them not moving. Keep in mind they almost moved to Florida. Governor Thompson saved the White Sox for Chicago. If it wasn't for Thompson they would have moved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 24 minutes ago, Harry Chappas said: My point has nothing to do with Bellinger's results it had to do with the idea of Bellinger's results to ticket purchasers. Look at the bulls currently they are content selling a team that was good 2 years ago. The moves three years ago were to fill seats with the idea of winning. They have the salary space for Chapman and Bellinger and are electing to not do it and I am thinking the stadium was and has been the issue for the last two off seasons. Could be true but if Bellinger fall off the cliff with production it won't last long and could set the team back years with an awful deal. The Bulls are at least medicore a bad Bellinger doesn't make the Sox mediocre, even a good one probably doesn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 (edited) 25 minutes ago, WBWSF said: I hope you're right about them not moving. Keep in mind they almost moved to Florida. Governor Thompson saved the White Sox for Chicago. If it wasn't for Thompson they would have moved. And there was talk of them moving to Toronto, Denver, New Orleans et al. Art Allyn had a handshake agreement with Bud Selig who was going to buy the club and move them to Milwaukee. Bottom line though is that nothing happened in any of these scenarios. And JR himself has said the threat to move to Florida was simply to gain leverage over the city/state legislators. That he had no intention to move. As has been pointed out franchises in MLB simply don't pack up and leave without extraordinary circumstances. I don't think the Sox are in that category and would have a hard time convincing the power brokers in baseball they are. Don't lose any sleep over this possibility would be my advice. Edited February 2 by Lip Man 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 There has been 2 relocations in the last 50 years though right? Montreal and Oakland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 16 minutes ago, bmags said: There has been 2 relocations in the last 50 years though right? Montreal and Oakland. And both were due to extraordinary circumstances and Ken Rosenthal's latest story in The Athletic (I've seen parts of it posted) casts serious doubts over what the A's are trying to do. They may not wind up moving at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeC Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 17 minutes ago, bmags said: There has been 2 relocations in the last 50 years though right? Montreal and Oakland. Once Oakland actually finds a home, it will be two, yes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan18 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, WBWSF said: I hope you're right about them not moving. Keep in mind they almost moved to Florida. Governor Thompson saved the White Sox for Chicago. If it wasn't for Thompson they would have moved. It was a very different time, you can't compare the late 80s to now. 1) Florida had no teams, so it was seen as a lucrative market if you could get on cable systems across the whole state. 2) Staying at Old Comiskey Park longterm was not feasible. They were in the same situation as those Expos I was referencing, or the A's today. Staying at GRF is. There's nothing structually wrong with it, there's just so much wrong with it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan18 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 49 minutes ago, bmags said: There has been 2 relocations in the last 50 years though right? Montreal and Oakland. Like I said: There's been 1 relocation in the last 50 years, by a team playing in a stadium that was, well, the biggest dump in baseball with plenty of structural issues. There is another one ongoing for that same reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 On 2/1/2024 at 7:08 AM, Squirmin' for Yermin said: I am all aboard a move to the south loop. I mean, I would LOVE to go to a game, and then feel safe (sorry) walking around the stadium at night, going to bars, and making a full event out of the day. I don't see how going to bars after a night game is what families with children want to do or what thousands of fans from the SW suburbs would want to do given that they could have a 30-45 minute drive home and have probably downed a few during the game. Safety? Public transit in the City is not safe and neither is walking the streets at night. You are better off getting in your car and heading home or towards the suburbs after night games. Gun violence, especially in the City, has changed everything. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Side Hit Men Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 49 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said: And both were due to extraordinary circumstances and Ken Rosenthal's latest story in The Athletic (I've seen parts of it posted) casts serious doubts over what the A's are trying to do. They may not wind up moving at all. MLB should confiscate the franchise for multiple reasons. They are not even remotely attempting to field a competitive team. They have missed multiple deadlines regarding settling their 2025 location. They are not even close to obtaining financing for their Las Vegas stadium. There is a concerted effort by Nevada schools to place their state subsidy on the ballot for a referendum as to whether the tax should be used for a stadium or schools. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 People don’t want to go out after games is a new one to me lmao 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Harold Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 7 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said: People don’t want to go out after games is a new one to me lmao Gotta hand it to him, very committed to the bit 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said: People don’t want to go out after games is a new one to me lmao Depends on the demographic. People with kids and us old people, no. Younger ones without kids, yes. Edited February 2 by ptatc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.