Ishbia taking control by 2029?

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, 77 Hitmen said:

I hate Jerry as an owner as much as anyone, but I suspect many fans still think he's raking in huge profits on this team thanks to the sweetheart stadium lease and all the parking lot fees he collects.   The economics of baseball has changed such that these don't translate into huge profits anymore, especially with the collapse of the RSN money stream teams have been relying on for a few decades now.  

 

In general, I get the sentiment, I really do.  But with the Sox last five years, it is really easy to see otherwise.

#1, COVID blew up revenue streams in both 2020 and 2021.  Not only was the ballpark somewhere between closed and limited for most of those two seasons, they also missed the buzz of the fan base getting to live in person through the first back to back playoff appearances in the history of the franchise.

#2, As Sox payroll began to climb in 2021 and onwards, the teams finances did NOT follow.  The teams 2021 attendance was actually at the time the lowest attendance in the 21st century by the Sox.  While the 2022 attendance did pick back up, in 2022, the excitement behind the team was already starting to fade in 2021, as the team that did finish in 1st and 24 games over .500, essentially played a .500 second half, then followed it up with a full season of .500 in 2022, and saw attendance drop by 300k fans from 22 to 23.

#3 Sox payroll spiked during this time period, even as the fans were ebbing, peaking at $193 million in 2022, and only dropping slightly (about 7%) in 2023 to $181 million, with attendance falling by 15% from 22 to 23.

#4 obviously the attendance crash continued into 2024, with Sox turnstyles down about 35% from its peak in 2022.  I would be willing to bet that for as much as attendance fell, so did outside advertising dollars and parking revenues.

#5, The Sox played a large chunk of 2025 without essentially any TV money.  Sure they might have made a few bucks from streaming themselves, and the advertising dollars they kept directly, instead of dollar flowing through a TV deal, but it was a tiny sliver of what they were used to coming in.  

#6, Forbes has shown the team with loses since 2020.

#7, The Ishbia deal expressly said that he was paying down debt accumulated by the team.  Since this team isn't making a mortgage payment on a stadium, literally it has to be operations debt, which agrees with all of the rest of the above points.  I am about 90% certain, Jerry doesn't make this deal if he isn't personally losing money, because there is no other reason for him to want to sell the team before his death when the tax conditions are the most ideal.

 

[BrittBurnsFan]

21 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

#7, The Ishbia deal expressly said that he was paying down debt accumulated by the team.  Since this team isn't making a mortgage payment on a stadium, literally it has to be operations debt, which agrees with all of the rest of the above points.  I am about 90% certain, Jerry doesn't make this deal if he isn't personally losing money, because there is no other reason for him to want to sell the team before his death when the tax conditions are the most ideal.

 

Point #7: I am just asking a question about this...not arguing whether one is right or wrong.  Can't the issue of a sale prior to the death of an owner be taken care of by the purchaser paying a higher price for the team?  I have no idea about this type of level of transaction but if Jerry is concerned about losing money by selling prior to death can't he just ask a higher price than the value of the team?  Maybe if a prospective owner wanted the team that badly they would then overpay and Jerry would come out even?  Or is the "penalty" for selling prior to death so substantial that this idea wouldn't remotely make sense?  

[southsider2k5]

29 minutes ago, BrittBurnsFan said:

Point #7: I am just asking a question about this...not arguing whether one is right or wrong.  Can't the issue of a sale prior to the death of an owner be taken care of by the purchaser paying a higher price for the team?  I have no idea about this type of level of transaction but if Jerry is concerned about losing money by selling prior to death can't he just ask a higher price than the value of the team?  Maybe if a prospective owner wanted the team that badly they would then overpay and Jerry would come out even?  Or is the "penalty" for selling prior to death so substantial that this idea wouldn't remotely make sense?  

I think the counterpoint would be sports franchises have done nothing but go up, and I haven't seen a reason to think that is changing soon.  If Jerry wasn't in a capital crunch, he has zero reason to take on outside interest.  He could just wait for death and sell at whatever the price is at that point.

Also if the owners think they will again break the union in negotiations, there is a lot more profit on the horizon, meaning it has to be bad for him to need capital that quickly.  It means this wasn't a short term blip he can cash call over.

FORGOT THE INHERITANCE PART: If you time this for death, the only time taxes are paid is the estate taxes, which pay taxes based on the gains of the asset, and then those assets are passed down to heirs with what is left to go through inheritance.  If you don't time at it death, then you pay the gains taxes on the transaction, and then you pay taxes again on the estate's gains or losses before the inheritance taxes happen at the end.

[nrockway]

2 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No, I'd rather not get back to you in a year. The Sox have the 2nd lowest payroll in baseball, and if they shed Robert they'll have the lowest. That's disgusting.

Every single player you named would be an upgrade for this team. 

STOP LEGITIMIZING AND JUSTIFYING BEING THE CHEAPEST ORGANIZATION IN SPORTS. These aren't your dollars. Jerry became a fucking billionaire on the back of your support.

Our man can only think in the present moment. Caveman tendency. Think about the future. 

[WestEddy]

4 minutes ago, nrockway said:

Our man can only think in the present moment. Caveman tendency. Think about the future. 

It's very fashionable to be enraged, and the influencers tell us we must be mad at payroll amounts. Maybe the White Sox should extend Benintendi at 10/450 so they can finally be happy that the Sox are spending money and trust the influencers won't find something else to harp about. 

[southsider2k5]

12 minutes ago, nrockway said:

Our man can only think in the present moment. Caveman tendency. Think about the future. 

Yes, Sox fans don't have a 45 year long history to think of, and sure not the present.  But the future.... I am sure everything will be perfect.

[nrockway]

2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Yes, Sox fans don't have a 45 year long history to think of, and sure not the present.  But the future.... I am sure everything will be perfect.

I mean, the guy is suggesting we get like 5 more Benintendi's just because. Which free agents would you target? 2027 has a better crop and we'd be closer to a winning team. It really isn't about the owner.

Edited September 5 by nrockway

[southsider2k5]

5 minutes ago, nrockway said:

I mean, the guy is suggesting we get like 5 more Benintendi's just because. Which free agents would you target? 2027 has a better crop and we'd be closer to a winning team. It really isn't about the owner.

I mean you are gaslighting Sox fans for being pessimistic after 45 years of Jerry Reinsdorf.  It's 100% about the owner, especially when he inserts himself into day to day decisions which affects the team on the field.

[nrockway]

11 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

It's very fashionable to be enraged, and the influencers tell us we must be mad at payroll amounts. Maybe the White Sox should extend Benintendi at 10/450 so they can finally be happy that the Sox are spending money and trust the influencers won't find something else to harp about. 

I'm all for spending money, but we simply won't do it like the Yankees or Dodgers and it's fantastical to think otherwise. These teams have historically spent money on payroll but spent it poorly. We were 6th in payroll in 2022 for an 81-81 team. I kind of aspire to more than 81-81 and it seems to be predicated on developing players internally.

[nrockway]

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I mean you are gaslighting Sox fans for being pessimistic after 45 years of Jerry Reinsdorf.  It's 100% about the owner, especially when he inserts himself into day to day decisions which affects the team on the field.

You're putting words in my mouth. Imagine yourself as the owner, seriously who would you spend $30mil on to put the team over the hill? That would actually sign here?

also "gaslighting" come on now...

Edited September 5 by nrockway

[southsider2k5]

2 minutes ago, nrockway said:

You're putting words in my mouth. Imagine yourself as the owner, seriously who would you spend money $30mil on to put the team over the hill? That would actually sign here?

also "gaslighting" come on now...

Yet you mentioned none of that, only focusing on what might happen in the future, while completely pretending that the 45 previous years with the same guy running things don't exist.  I would say that Those who don't learn from their history are doomed to repeat it is more accurate than calling someone a "caveman" for believing in the past when it comes to Jerry runs teams.

[Lip Man 1]

28 minutes ago, nrockway said:

I mean, the guy is suggesting we get like 5 more Benintendi's just because. Which free agents would you target? 2027 has a better crop and we'd be closer to a winning team. It really isn't about the owner.

Given the real possibility of some or all of 2027 being flushed down the toilet by owners tilting at windmills trying to get a salary cap, I'd suggest you can be sure it will be about JR as far as any free agent/spending is concerned. 

[nrockway]

15 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Yet you mentioned none of that, only focusing on what might happen in the future, while completely pretending that the 45 previous years with the same guy running things don't exist.  I would say that Those who don't learn from their history are doomed to repeat it is more accurate than calling someone a "caveman" for believing in the past when it comes to Jerry runs teams.

Yes I did. I wrote a different post, then I responded snarkily to this Ray Ray guy who is always a jerk for no particular reason. The guy is a caveman.

Also, the past precedent doesn't really make a ton of sense. It seems emotionally-based and not an objective perspective. You might recall that there's a new front office that operates differently, for example, getting us out of the baseball stone age by hiring biomechanists, improving the use of technology, revamping the Arizona facility, hiring people like Fuller and Bannister, building a new academy in the Dominican Republic. 

The "future" remark is to say: why would you just spend a bunch of money on mediocre veterans? There's actually a lot of past precedent for that and it cripples the team. Semien for Samardzija, Tatis for Shields, Benintendi, etc

There have been plenty of posts on here showing how the Sox payroll has compared to other teams over the last 20 or so years. The past precedent is that the White Sox have top 10 payrolls when the team is competitive and spends nothing when it isn't. Payroll isn't so much the issue as Jerry's meddling is. The guy is a bad owner and the team should spend more money than it has, it's a Chicago team, but payroll has historically not been the issue. Poor management is. 

[nrockway]

2 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Given the real possibility of some or all of 2027 being flushed down the toilet by owners tilting at windmills trying to get a salary cap, I'd suggest you can be sure it will be about JR as far as any free agent/spending is concerned. 

Yup, we'll definitely see. Thus I wrote "let's see in a year" because I can't predict the future but the speculation is also reasonable.

Then again, think of Albert Belle. Biggest contract in baseball signed right after the lockout. I don't think we can predict these things.

[southsider2k5]

5 hours ago, nrockway said:

Yes I did. I wrote a different post, then I responded snarkily to this Ray Ray guy who is always a jerk for no particular reason. The guy is a caveman.

Also, the past precedent doesn't really make a ton of sense. It seems emotionally-based and not an objective perspective. You might recall that there's a new front office that operates differently, for example, getting us out of the baseball stone age by hiring biomechanists, improving the use of technology, revamping the Arizona facility, hiring people like Fuller and Bannister, building a new academy in the Dominican Republic. 

The "future" remark is to say: why would you just spend a bunch of money on mediocre veterans? There's actually a lot of past precedent for that and it cripples the team. Semien for Samardzija, Tatis for Shields, Benintendi, etc

There have been plenty of posts on here showing how the Sox payroll has compared to other teams over the last 20 or so years. The past precedent is that the White Sox have top 10 payrolls when the team is competitive and spends nothing when it isn't. Payroll isn't so much the issue as Jerry's meddling is. The guy is a bad owner and the team should spend more money than it has, it's a Chicago team, but payroll has historically not been the issue. Poor management is. 

Which is EXACTLY why 45 years of history weighs more than your feelings about the future .  Jerry is still here.

[Chisoxfn]

If I win the powerball I’ll raise a group to take over the Sox. 

[77 Hitmen]

9 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

In general, I get the sentiment, I really do.  But with the Sox last five years, it is really easy to see otherwise.

#1, COVID blew up revenue streams in both 2020 and 2021.  Not only was the ballpark somewhere between closed and limited for most of those two seasons, they also missed the buzz of the fan base getting to live in person through the first back to back playoff appearances in the history of the franchise.

#2, As Sox payroll began to climb in 2021 and onwards, the teams finances did NOT follow.  The teams 2021 attendance was actually at the time the lowest attendance in the 21st century by the Sox.  While the 2022 attendance did pick back up, in 2022, the excitement behind the team was already starting to fade in 2021, as the team that did finish in 1st and 24 games over .500, essentially played a .500 second half, then followed it up with a full season of .500 in 2022, and saw attendance drop by 300k fans from 22 to 23.

#3 Sox payroll spiked during this time period, even as the fans were ebbing, peaking at $193 million in 2022, and only dropping slightly (about 7%) in 2023 to $181 million, with attendance falling by 15% from 22 to 23.

#4 obviously the attendance crash continued into 2024, with Sox turnstyles down about 35% from its peak in 2022.  I would be willing to bet that for as much as attendance fell, so did outside advertising dollars and parking revenues.

#5, The Sox played a large chunk of 2025 without essentially any TV money.  Sure they might have made a few bucks from streaming themselves, and the advertising dollars they kept directly, instead of dollar flowing through a TV deal, but it was a tiny sliver of what they were used to coming in.  

#6, Forbes has shown the team with loses since 2020.

#7, The Ishbia deal expressly said that he was paying down debt accumulated by the team.  Since this team isn't making a mortgage payment on a stadium, literally it has to be operations debt, which agrees with all of the rest of the above points.  I am about 90% certain, Jerry doesn't make this deal if he isn't personally losing money, because there is no other reason for him to want to sell the team before his death when the tax conditions are the most ideal.

 

Excellent summary.   To your point #7, I think what also prompted JR to make a deal for a future sale now is that he saw Ishbia (as a current minority owner and potential source of cash infusion) was on the verge of buying the Twins and wanted to make this deal before he got away.

It's also possible that, since his proposal to publicly finance a new ballpark at the 78 was DOA in Springfield, he needed to make a deal with Ishbia now to get the private funding needed to keep his ballpark dream alive.  Was it just coincidence that they went public with their deal within a few days of the Fire's announcement that they intent to build at the 78?  Whether ballpark funding is part of this deal is anyone's guess at this point.

[77 Hitmen]

6 hours ago, nrockway said:

Yup, we'll definitely see. Thus I wrote "let's see in a year" because I can't predict the future but the speculation is also reasonable.

Then again, think of Albert Belle. Biggest contract in baseball signed right after the lockout. I don't think we can predict these things.

Wasn't the theory at the time that Jerry handed out that huge contract to Belle to spite the other owners for not sticking to their guns enough during that 1994 strike?   And JR was very smart in giving Belle an out clause after 2 seasons, which made it very likely that he wouldn't be on the hook for the entire contract - which is indeed what happened.  

[nrockway]

9 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Which is EXACTLY why 45 years of history weighs more than your feelings about the future .  Jerry is still here.

I would just try to look at the situation objectively. And also consider that there aren't really any "good" owners, just rich idiots, some of whom wisely defer to their management or otherwise produce a lot of revenue, typically for non-baseball reasons. Or in the case of the Cubs and Red Sox, history that they had no part in creating. All things considered, I think the Ricketts family is a worse owner than Reinsdorf. Definitely worse people. I think there seems to be some evidence that JR is more deferential to management than he was previously. It's certainly that case with the Bulls and I think a lot of the organizational changes seem to indicate it. I don't know for certain.

But also, there were "20 years of history" before winning the WS in 2005. I don't really have a memory of 'building' that team, but it would've been shortsighted to say "Jerry has been a moron for two decades, thus nothing good can happen". Simply look at the baseball stuff going on and maybe contextualize it with Jerry's general incompetence. Good things are happening!

But, I mean, the key part of my post was "who would we actually spend money on in 2026?" The team still doesn't have a great reputation, free agents aren't going to come here unless they're overpaid or nobody else wants them, but if the young core produces in 2026 and Venable continues to look like a guy players want to play for, that reputation could change. I continue to harp on 2027. Spend then, there's a clearer idea of who in this core is an every day player and who is a bust. Fill holes rather than creating redundancies. I would not spend on the bullpen in any context. The holes look like they'll be in the outfield. Tucker would be a great get in 2026, but the reputation is such that he isn't gonna come here. 

And to me, the recent reputation issues are twofold: being the worst team of all time and, before that, having a really awful clubhouse with no managerial oversight or expectations. Ken and Hahn being gone are addition by subtraction in that regard irrespective of Getz's competence. I don't think players are really thinking about Jerry too hard. I'd argue he has a pretty good history of taking care of players. More obvious on the basketball side of things.

[nrockway]

8 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Wasn't the theory at the time that Jerry handed out that huge contract to Belle to spite the other owners for not sticking to their guns enough during that 1994 strike?   And JR was very smart in giving Belle an out clause after 2 seasons, which made it very likely that he wouldn't be on the hook for the entire contract - which is indeed what happened.  

True enough. I just don't think these things are actually predictable beyond "spend when good, don't spend when bad". The  CBA negotiations should be interesting. Ultimately, baseball-related revenue is strictly up year-over-year to the extent it can be measured. Certainly, valuation is.

[Kyyle23]

3 minutes ago, nrockway said:

I would just try to look at the situation objectively. And also consider that there aren't really any "good" owners, just rich idiots, some of whom wisely defer to their management or otherwise produce a lot of revenue, typically for non-baseball reasons. Or in the case of the Cubs and Red Sox, history that they had no part in creating. All things considered, I think the Ricketts family is a worse owner than Reinsdorf. Definitely worse people. I think there seems to be some evidence that JR is more deferential to management than he was previously. It's certainly that case with the Bulls and I think a lot of the organizational changes seem to indicate it. I don't know for certain.

But also, there were "20 years of history" before winning the WS in 2005. I don't really have a memory of 'building' that team, but it would've been shortsighted to say "Jerry has been a moron for two decades, thus nothing good can happen". Simply look at the baseball stuff going on and maybe contextualize it with Jerry's general incompetence. Good things are happening!

But, I mean, the key part of my post was "who would we actually spend money on in 2026?" The team still doesn't have a great reputation, free agents aren't going to come here unless they're overpaid or nobody else wants them, but if the young core produces in 2026 and Venable continues to look like a guy players want to play for, that reputation could change. I continue to harp on 2027. Spend then, there's a clearer idea of who in this core is an every day player and who is a bust. Fill holes rather than creating redundancies. I would not spend on the bullpen in any context. The holes look like they'll be in the outfield. Tucker would be a great get in 2026, but the reputation is such that he isn't gonna come here. 

And to me, the recent reputation issues are twofold: being the worst team of all time and, before that, having a really awful clubhouse with no managerial oversight or expectations. Ken and Hahn being gone are addition by subtraction in that regard irrespective of Getz's competence. I don't think players are really thinking about Jerry too hard. I'd argue he has a pretty good history of taking care of players. More obvious on the basketball side of things.

I just cannot get with this idea that the Ricketts are worse -owners-.  They have spent to compete, they have massively upgraded the stadium, everything around the stadium for entertainment, the minor leagues, the staff, and they are no longer the loveable losers, they expect to compete every season now.  I don’t like the Ricketts as people but they run laps around the Reinsdorfs in the actual owner category 

[nrockway]

6 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

I just cannot get with this idea that the Ricketts are worse -owners-.  They have spent to compete, they have massively upgraded the stadium, everything around the stadium for entertainment, the minor leagues, the staff, and they are no longer the loveable losers, they expect to compete every season now.  I don’t like the Ricketts as people but they run laps around the Reinsdorfs in the actual owner category 

Right, but I think they can spend that money because of everything around the neighborhood and the history. They've capitalized on it effectively, but it would be hard not to. I think Cubs fans are wondering if they'll re-sign Tucker and then continue to fill holes. The Sox spent more than the Cubs as recent as 2022.

I wouldn't call the changes around the neighborhood 'upgrades' though. More like awful. Corporatized everything once cool about Wrigleyville. I used to live in Lakeview and the team would send mailers saying like "if you don't bother the alderman about this stuff we want, we're moving". Completely ruined the Wrigley Rooftops. Even the people who work at some of those longtime bars hate it (maybe not the owners of them).

On the stadium upgrades, is it still 100 bucks to sit behind a pole? 😃 The bleachers are ruined.

Edited September 6 by nrockway

[southsider2k5]

10 minutes ago, nrockway said:

I would just try to look at the situation objectively. And also consider that there aren't really any "good" owners, just rich idiots, some of whom wisely defer to their management or otherwise produce a lot of revenue, typically for non-baseball reasons. Or in the case of the Cubs and Red Sox, history that they had no part in creating. All things considered, I think the Ricketts family is a worse owner than Reinsdorf. Definitely worse people. I think there seems to be some evidence that JR is more deferential to management than he was previously. It's certainly that case with the Bulls and I think a lot of the organizational changes seem to indicate it. I don't know for certain.

But also, there were "20 years of history" before winning the WS in 2005. I don't really have a memory of 'building' that team, but it would've been shortsighted to say "Jerry has been a moron for two decades, thus nothing good can happen". Simply look at the baseball stuff going on and maybe contextualize it with Jerry's general incompetence. Good things are happening!

But, I mean, the key part of my post was "who would we actually spend money on in 2026?" The team still doesn't have a great reputation, free agents aren't going to come here unless they're overpaid or nobody else wants them, but if the young core produces in 2026 and Venable continues to look like a guy players want to play for, that reputation could change. I continue to harp on 2027. Spend then, there's a clearer idea of who in this core is an every day player and who is a bust. Fill holes rather than creating redundancies. I would not spend on the bullpen in any context. The holes look like they'll be in the outfield. Tucker would be a great get in 2026, but the reputation is such that he isn't gonna come here. 

And to me, the recent reputation issues are twofold: being the worst team of all time and, before that, having a really awful clubhouse with no managerial oversight or expectations. Ken and Hahn being gone are addition by subtraction in that regard irrespective of Getz's competence. I don't think players are really thinking about Jerry too hard. I'd argue he has a pretty good history of taking care of players. More obvious on the basketball side of things.

There are absolutely good owners in that some do what it takes to win. That's not the White Sox.  Pointing out one in 45 year occurrences as some sort of "see it can happen!", just let me point to the other 44 and say the same thing.

[southsider2k5]

8 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Excellent summary.   To your point #7, I think what also prompted JR to make a deal for a future sale now is that he saw Ishbia (as a current minority owner and potential source of cash infusion) was on the verge of buying the Twins and wanted to make this deal before he got away.

It's also possible that, since his proposal to publicly finance a new ballpark at the 78 was DOA in Springfield, he needed to make a deal with Ishbia now to get the private funding needed to keep his ballpark dream alive.  Was it just coincidence that they went public with their deal within a few days of the Fire's announcement that they intent to build at the 78?  Whether ballpark funding is part of this deal is anyone's guess at this point.

This could absolutely be #8, Ishbia is willing to fund some portion of a stadium.

[Kyyle23]

3 minutes ago, nrockway said:

Right, but I think they can spend that money because of everything around the neighborhood and the history. They've capitalized on it effectively, but it would be hard not to. I think Cubs fans are wondering if they'll re-sign Tucker and then continue to fill holes. The Sox spent more than the Cubs as recent as 2022.

I wouldn't call the changes around the neighborhood 'upgrades' though. More like awful. Corporatized everything once cool about Wrigleyville. I used to live in Lakeview and the team would send mailers saying like "if you don't bother the alderman about this stuff we want, we're moving". Completely ruined the Wrigley Rooftops. Even the people who work at some of those longtime bars hate it (maybe not the owners of them).

You may not like what they have done, but that stuff is making money hand over fist.  Again, terrible people, but the stuff they are doing as owners for the success of the team is undeniable.  Having that money to spend because of what they have done with their investment is not a bad thing, and I think all of us would be pretty fucking pleased if Jerry did 1/5th of the stuff around the park that the Ricketts have done