Jump to content

Sox looking at building in South Loop


southsider2k5
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Lightly Folded said:

The Sox stadium at the 78 is dead, unless Jerry and some compadres tote the entire cost of the endeavor which is not going to happen. The bigger problem is that the state of Illinois does not make money on the current Sox deal but rather lose money to the White Sox every year. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the state of Illinois would, or could negotiate another extension when the current one expires without infuriating, the taxpayers of Illinois. Jerry would have to agree to paying the state as opposed to the state paying Jerry and that’s not going to happen. The White Sox may very well wind up without any ballpark to play in when the current lease expires. At least no place locally.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Guaranteed Rate Field especially after the millions and millions of dollars were spent on renovations changing the mistakes that were made in the original construction because JR insisted on them. And once again he was dead wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Guaranteed Rate Field especially after the millions and millions of dollars were spent on renovations changing the mistakes that were made in the original construction because JR insisted on them. And once again he was dead wrong. 

The only thing that is wrong with guaranteed rate Field is where it’s located. The bigger problem is that the state of Illinois can no longer afford to pay Jerry to stay there and therefore a renewal (or extension) is impossible. The state does not make money on guaranteed rate field, but rather loses money. Jerry will never agree to a deal whereby he would have to pay the state to continue to play at guaranteed rate field. Nor would a new owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Read a story in the Tribune this morning, the Bears stadium issue will not be discussed by the state legislature this spring session. It is now off the table until the fall.

Story quoted a representative as saying that was good. More time was needed to examine every aspect.

Also apparently now there is a movement that any state funds that may go to either the Bears or White Sox must also include funding for a women's sports stadium which will complicate the situation even more than it already is. 

When you say "women's sports stadium", do you mean soccer or basketball?  If we're talking about soccer, didn't the proposed South Loop renderings also show GRF being converted to a soccer stadium?   If the Sox do move to a new park, seems the obvious solution is to make the current park the new home of the Fire and the Red Stars.  

Edited by 77 Hitmen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WBWSF said:

I saw my heavy duty White Sox contact Friday.He said they are definitely not renewing the lease at the present stadium.A new White Sox stadium will be built in the Chicagoland area. And it might not be in the  South Loop.  It should be worked out by the end of the year. We shall see.

If they're not going to move to Lot 78, IMO they may as well stay at 35th and Shields.  I can't think of any available land that would be a better option for the Sox.  Any suburban location would be a TERRIBLE idea.  

I have thought all along that, once the state officially tells Jerry to take a hike on public funding for a new Sox stadium and he exhausts efforts to squeeze money out of the state, he'll somehow find a way to come up with something around $1B in private financing to make a new stadium happen.  That should cover most, if not all, of the cost of a new ballpark itself minus infrastructure work at the site.   A new stadium would give a huge boost to the franchise's value, so he'll be motivated to make it happen.   Jerry didn't become a billionaire in real estate by disclosing how much he's willing to pay right off the bat before engaging in negotiations.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

When you say "women's sports stadium", do you mean soccer or basketball?  If we're talking about soccer, didn't the proposed South Loop renderings also show GRF being converted to a soccer stadium?   If the Sox do move to a new park, seems the obvious solution is to make the current park the new home of the Fire and the Red Stars.  

The Tribune story did not specify, it simply said "any stadium funding discussions should include professional women's (plural) teams." (direct quote) The story quoted another state politician as saying stadium discussions should include the Red Stars and the Sky.

An update to the story this afternoon also quoted that state politician as saying there would also be no discussion on a White Sox stadium until the fall.   

Here is the link to the story for all who can access it:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/05/25/legislature-wont-act-on-bears-stadium-funding-request-this-spring-lawmakers-say/

Key quote:

”I don’t think there’s necessarily an appetite to just give billionaires a whole bunch of money,” Sen. Robert Peters (D) said. 

Edited by Lip Man 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

The Tribune story did not specify, it simply said "any stadium funding discussions should include professional women's (plural) teams." (direct quote) The story quoted another state politician as saying stadium discussions should include the Red Stars and the Sky.

An update to the story this afternoon also quoted that state politician as saying there would also be no discussion on a White Sox stadium until the fall.   

Here is the link to the story for all who can access it:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/05/25/legislature-wont-act-on-bears-stadium-funding-request-this-spring-lawmakers-say/

Key quote:

”I don’t think there’s necessarily an appetite to just give billionaires a whole bunch of money,” Sen. Robert Peters (D) said. 

A (retractable) domed stadium if you're talking basketball...then.

Wintrust is what, just around 10,000?

Of course, a domed stadium would double or triple the projected cost, right?

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lightly Folded said:

The only thing that is wrong with guaranteed rate Field is where it’s located. The bigger problem is that the state of Illinois can no longer afford to pay Jerry to stay there and therefore a renewal (or extension) is impossible. The state does not make money on guaranteed rate field, but rather loses money. Jerry will never agree to a deal whereby he would have to pay the state to continue to play at guaranteed rate field. Nor would a new owner.

You put GRF at 78 facing northeast with great views of the skyline and it automatically becomes one of the better parks in MLB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

The Tribune story did not specify, it simply said "any stadium funding discussions should include professional women's (plural) teams." (direct quote) The story quoted another state politician as saying stadium discussions should include the Red Stars and the Sky.

An update to the story this afternoon also quoted that state politician as saying there would also be no discussion on a White Sox stadium until the fall.   

Here is the link to the story for all who can access it:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/05/25/legislature-wont-act-on-bears-stadium-funding-request-this-spring-lawmakers-say/

Key quote:

”I don’t think there’s necessarily an appetite to just give billionaires a whole bunch of money,” Sen. Robert Peters (D) said. 

Couldn't the Sky be accommodated at the United Center if the Wintrust Arena is too small for the growing interest in the WNBA?  The WNBA and NBA/NHL seasons barely overlap, if at all.  And as I said earlier, if the Sox get a new park and GRF is converted to a soccer stadium, that would address the issue with the Red Stars.

I think the only person who thought funding for a new Sox stadium would be approved this spring was Jerry Reinsdorf.  I don't think it'll be settled this fall either other than a flat out rejection.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 77 Hitmen said:

Couldn't the Sky be accommodated at the United Center if the Wintrust Arena is too small for the growing interest in the WNBA?  The WNBA and NBA/NHL seasons barely overlap, if at all.  And as I said earlier, if the Sox get a new park and GRF is converted to a soccer stadium, that would address the issue with the Red Stars.

I think the only person who thought funding for a new Sox stadium would be approved this spring was Jerry Reinsdorf.  I don't think it'll be settled this fall either other than a flat out rejection.  

I seem to recall that at one time the NBA/WNBA went to JR and asked if he'd be interested in owning a team.

He had no desire to get involved and if what I remember is true actively worked against a WNBA coming to Chicago for a long time.

If that is true I'm guessing he would not allow the Sky to play in the United Center. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/26/2024 at 7:18 PM, Lip Man 1 said:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Guaranteed Rate Field especially after the millions and millions of dollars were spent on renovations changing the mistakes that were made in the original construction because JR insisted on them. And once again he was dead wrong. 

Disagree.  The facility itself is fine, but the location isn't.  That's been the issue all along.  And yes, I understand that many diehards love the current location because the park is right off the expressway and surrounded by acres of parking.  But that setup doesn't work for sports stadiums anymore.

Unless the Sox can successfully develop the area around GRF into an entertainment district, then they'll continue to be plagued by anemic attendance except for years where they have a loaded team that makes multiple playoff appearances.  Maybe the Sox (at least a post-Jerry owner) will be able to develop the current park in such a way.  I have my doubts, but that's one thing that could address chronic attendance issues.  

And yes, I know this would go away if the Sox could just build a perennial pennant contender.  Easier said than done.  How many franchises have been able to consistently do that?  Maybe half a dozen?  Not everyone is able to replicate what the Braves have done.

14 hours ago, The Mighty Mite said:

You put GRF at 78 facing northeast with great views of the skyline and it automatically becomes one of the better parks in MLB.

While that would be nice, I think its effect at the current location is a bit overstated.  The skyline is a ways in the distance from 35th St.  Nothing like the eye-popping view they'd have at Lot 78.  If the Sox were able to magically rotate the current park 90 degrees tomorrow, it get applause from fans and critics, but I doubt it would be a game changer in drawing fans to the park.  It's not so much the view as the proximity to other things to do.

Today's economic reality is that teams need things around their ballpark to draw people to games.  Other teams see this:  Braves, Cardinals, Mets, Phillies, Royals.  Sure, someone will say "what about the Dodgers".  Well, that's an elite franchise playing in a 20M people megapolis.  Man, I wish the Sox were at the Dodgers' level of eliteness.  

Edited by 77 Hitmen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

I seem to recall that at one time the NBA/WNBA went to JR and asked if he'd be interested in owning a team.

He had no desire to get involved and if what I remember is true actively worked against a WNBA coming to Chicago for a long time.

If that is true I'm guessing he would not allow the Sky to play in the United Center. 

Thanks for that background.  That certainly sounds like Jerry.

I suppose lawmakers could insist that the Sky be allowed to play at the UC as part of any new stadium deal for the Sox.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

https://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-sky-and-wnba/2022/5/1/23048436/sky-franchise-history-wnba-championship-vandersloot-candace-parker-elena-delle-donne

 

Basically, JR didn't want to take any attention or resources away from the Bulls in the late 90's...of course, that all changed rather dramatically.

One of the things that always surprised me was that one of the founders of City Year (like AmeriCorps/Peace Corps/*Vista/Teach for America) would get involved in a for-profit business adventure.

Of course, there's a parallel history with the Bulls and Sky.  Eventually losing almost all of their star players to other teams, AND an inability to attract premier free agents.

That won't change without having their own dedicated practice facility like other teams such as LV and Seattle have invested millions of dollars into.

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Disagree.  The facility itself is fine, but the location isn't.  That's been the issue all along.  And yes, I understand that many diehards love the current location because the park is right off the expressway and surrounded by acres of parking.  But that setup doesn't work for sports stadiums anymore.

Unless the Sox can successfully develop the area around GRF into an entertainment district, then they'll continue to be plagued by anemic attendance except for years where they have a loaded team that makes multiple playoff appearances.  Maybe the Sox (at least a post-Jerry owner) will be able to develop the current park in such a way.  I have my doubts, but that's one thing that could address chronic attendance issues.  

And yes, I know this would go away if the Sox could just build a perennial pennant contender.  Easier said than done.  How many franchises have been able to consistently do that?  Maybe half a dozen?  Not everyone is able to replicate what the Braves have done.

While that would be nice, I think its effect at the current location is a bit overstated.  The skyline is a ways in the distance from 35th St.  Nothing like the eye-popping view they'd have at Lot 78.  If the Sox were able to magically rotate the current park 90 degrees tomorrow, it get applause from fans and critics, but I doubt it would be a game changer in drawing fans to the park.  It's not so much the view as the proximity to other things to do.

Today's economic reality is that teams need things around their ballpark to draw people to games.  Other teams see this:  Braves, Cardinals, Mets, Phillies, Royals.  Sure, someone will say "what about the Dodgers".  Well, that's an elite franchise playing in a 20M people megapolis.  Man, I wish the Sox were at the Dodgers' level of eliteness.  

Depends on your definitions doesn't it?

From 1981 through 2006, the Sox under JR had 16 winning seasons, got a brand new taxpayer funded stadium and were competitive. They also drew well (when JR wasn't sabotaging things with his break the union and White Flag Trade mentality)

As far as teams that consistently put out legit contenders, here is my list:

Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Astros, Phillies, Braves, Brewers, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants.

The White Sox are in the 3rd largest market in the country, they have huge advantages over the other teams in their division from an advertising, marketing and broadcasting standpoint , MLB considers them a "major market" team (which is why under the new draft rules they have to pick 10th next season).

The only thing stopping this franchise from having consistent success on the field (and that doesn't mean making the playoffs every year or getting to the World Series consistently) is one person and one person only...JR.

Period, end of story.

His arrogance, his ego, his delusion that he knows the "right" way to run a franchise, his insistence that loyalty is more important than winning and his demand that he be involved in literally every...single...major...baseball decision is destroying the franchise.

When new ownership arrives it offers the franchise a chance to start over with talented baseball people in the front office and on the field. At that point where GRF is located won't mean diddly s%*#. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Depends on your definitions doesn't it?

From 1981 through 2006, the Sox under JR had 16 winning seasons, got a brand new taxpayer funded stadium and were competitive. They also drew well (when JR wasn't sabotaging things with his break the union and White Flag Trade mentality)

As far as teams that consistently put out legit contenders, here is my list:

Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Astros, Phillies, Braves, Brewers, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants.

The White Sox are in the 3rd largest market in the country, they have huge advantages over the other teams in their division from an advertising, marketing and broadcasting standpoint , MLB considers them a "major market" team (which is why under the new draft rules they have to pick 10th next season).

The only thing stopping this franchise from having consistent success on the field (and that doesn't mean making the playoffs every year or getting to the World Series consistently) is one person and one person only...JR.

Period, end of story.

His arrogance, his ego, his delusion that he knows the "right" way to run a franchise, his insistence that loyalty is more important than winning and his demand that he be involved in literally every...single...major...baseball decision is destroying the franchise.

When new ownership arrives it offers the franchise a chance to start over with talented baseball people in the front office and on the field. At that point where GRF is located won't mean diddly s%*#. 

 

I can't wait for the day that JR is no longer owner and this can be put the test.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sky don't need a stadium, they need a practice facility. 

The Red Stars are the ones actively trying to leave Bridgeview (and the Fire don't want to be forced back there, if New Bears Stadium ever gets done). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest recap of where things stand. According to the story the Sox had not responded yet on a request for comments.

Story also says that a motion has been filed by a state legislator requiring that any funds given to men's stadium deals must also include provisions for women's pro sports stadiums:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/bears-stadium/2024/05/31/bears-stadium-funding-springfield-illinois-general-assembly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...