WBWSF Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 1 hour ago, oldsox said: What is the main flaw in current facility, other than the fact that the lease is about to expire? 1) its not located in a popular location. 2) The upper deck is horrendous. Nobody wants to sit up there. 3) People on this site complain about the parking lots surrounding the stadium. I think the parking lots are one of the positives about the stadium. Most of their fans are from the suburbs and its easy to park there. The cost of the parking ($27.00) is decent as opposed to other MLB stadiums. I talked to fans of the Guardians and Giants on the last homestands and they mentioned how much more expensive it is to park their cars at the stadiums in Cleveland and San Francisco. Also White Sox fans like to tailgate in those lots.If they removed those parking lots at the stadium I think it would be a serious mistake. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 20 minutes ago, bmags said: I think all of this is true, but... I honestly think if there was a world where they stick there it eventually becomes a 'classic' park. It was never a p.o.s. like Oakland, and could feasibly become worn in in a nice way. And bridgeport around there really is becoming nice. The large parking lots which most sox fans love are the biggest hinderance to an amusement area around the park. I wish it wasn't so outlandish to stay in a perfectly functional park, but obviously I'm a big fan of the 78 as a way to help reconsolidate some of chicago toward the loop. Much of it is pretty easy to argue against for sure. They have done a decent job at adding some personality to the park over the years. I do love that there isn't a bad view in the entire place. Having been to games at somewhere around a dozen other parks, there are definitely places I liked less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 2 hours ago, WBWSF said: 1) its not located in a popular location. 2) The upper deck is horrendous. Nobody wants to sit up there. 3) People on this site complain about the parking lots surrounding the stadium. I think the parking lots are one of the positives about the stadium. Most of their fans are from the suburbs and its easy to park there. The cost of the parking ($27.00) is decent as opposed to other MLB stadiums. I talked to fans of the Guardians and Giants on the last homestands and they mentioned how much more expensive it is to park their cars at the stadiums in Cleveland and San Francisco. Also White Sox fans like to tailgate in those lots.If they removed those parking lots at the stadium I think it would be a serious mistake. Agreed on your 1 and 2. As far as the parking lots, I don't think the problem is that the parking lots exist as a convenience to driving customers, it's that pretty much all there is around the immediate ballpark area at Rate Field is parking lots. The economics of getting people to MLB games and deriving enough revenue for MLB teams to compete has changed significantly in recent years. In order to compete for entertainment dollars these days, teams are finding more and more that just relying on die hard fans who want nothing more than to drive up to the stadium, perhaps tailgate, see the game, and then drive home immediately afterwards is simply not enough. That may have worked 25 years ago with drawing Gen X and Boomer fans, but not today with Millennial and Gen Z fans. And I'm a Gen Xer, but the oldest Gen Xers are turning 60 this year. We're not the future demographics teams are looking towards. Also, with their RSN gravy train imploding, teams are looking for other ways to get revenue. Just look at what the Braves did with their baseball "village" and how much money Ricketts poured into developing Gallagher Way. The Phillies and Mets are also redeveloping a chunk of the parking lots around their stadiums. I believe the Orioles are looking to do the same for the area just outside the much-loved Camden Yards. Losing tailgating if they move to the 78 would indeed suck. There would parking if they moved to the 78, but most likely garages and not surface lots. But, to be honest, I don't see catering to the hardcore tailgating fans vs. developing an entertainment zone as being a good economic model for the new owners for the next 30-40 years. And Ishbia could very well decide that he doesn't want to pay up $1B or so for a new stadium and will keep the team at 35th St. long-term, but even then I'd be surprised if he did that and didn't develop a big portion of the surface lots into something to bring in more fans before and after games and throughout the year. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 (edited) 5 hours ago, bmags said: I think all of this is true, but... I honestly think if there was a world where they stick there it eventually becomes a 'classic' park. It was never a p.o.s. like Oakland, and could feasibly become worn in in a nice way. And bridgeport around there really is becoming nice. The large parking lots which most sox fans love are the biggest hinderance to an amusement area around the park. I wish it wasn't so outlandish to stay in a perfectly functional park, but obviously I'm a big fan of the 78 as a way to help reconsolidate some of chicago toward the loop. I don't see that happening unless they do a massive renovation to the existing park. If they stick with Rate Field for a few more decades, it'll be as much a "classic" park as Kaufmann Stadium (1973) and Angel Stadium (1966) are now. After "New Comiskey" opened, there were two seismic shifts in MLB stadium designs. The first was building "retro" parks which started only 1 year after New Comiskey opened. The other seismic shift was teams developing the area around ballparks to attract fans before and after games that started about 10-15 years ago. Rate Field is a nice place to see a game. I like going to games there, but it misses out on these two major trends in the last 30 years. And Bridgeport near the park is indeed really nice, but that's not enough to draw more fans to games these days. My question is whether the area would support a year-round entertainment district if the new Sox owners want to stay put and develop some of the land around the existing park. I honestly don't know. Edited July 18 by 77 Hitmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 (edited) 5 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: -It is universally thought of as one of the most underwhelming facilities in baseball, typically residing in the bottom three. -There is no aesthetic or beauty to the park. -There is only game day revenue from inside the park, as there is literally zero to do besides a game in the area. -They absolutely did nothing to take advantage of their location within Chicago to emphasize the view or skyline. -The commonly held belief is that the area it is isn't safe, despite the neighborhood around Wrigley having a higher crime rate. 5 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: Much of it is pretty easy to argue against for sure. They have done a decent job at adding some personality to the park over the years. I do love that there isn't a bad view in the entire place. Having been to games at somewhere around a dozen other parks, there are definitely places I liked less. I really do have mixed feelings about whether I want them to stay at the current park or move to the 78. They did indeed do a decent job with the ballpark renovations about 20 years ago. Just looking at pictures from the park in the 90s to what it looked like post renovations shows me that it was a HUGE improvement. I also have a lot of fond memories of seeing exciting games at the park over the years and bringing my kids there when they were little. But the issues you list are true....and they are glaring ones even if it's a "nice ballpark." For your first point, this is absolutely the case when you ask most people outside the die-hard Sox fan base. Seeing MLB ballpark review articles is not fun for Sox fans as our stadium does indeed almost always rank near the bottom - even from critics who aren't enamored with Wrigley and Fenway. With the Oakland Coliseum gone from MLB and Tropicana Field soon to be gone too, Rate Field is basically battling it out with Chase Field in Phoenix for the bottom in most reviews I read. And I know some hard core fans will say "who cares?".....well, IMO it does matter when you need to fight hard to get people to spend their entertainment dollars on your team. We'll see what the Ishbias do when the ballpark lease is up in 2029, but I for one am not interested in spending another 30 years arguing with the rest of the world that our ballpark is "not as bad as you think" and "is actually kind of nice." Not exactly ringing endorsements in a league full of charming ballparks surrounded by vibrant entertainment areas. Edited July 18 by 77 Hitmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted July 18 Author Share Posted July 18 2 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said: I really do have mixed feelings about whether I want them to stay at the current park or move to the 78. They did indeed do a decent job with the ballpark renovations about 20 years ago. Just looking at pictures from the park in the 90s to what it looked like post renovations shows me that it was a HUGE improvement. I also have a lot of fond memories of seeing exciting games at the park over the years and bringing my kids there when they were little. But the issues you list are true....and they are glaring ones even if it's a "nice ballpark." For your first point, this is absolutely the case when you ask most people outside the die-hard Sox fan base. Seeing MLB ballpark review articles is not fun for Sox fans as our stadium does indeed almost always rank near the bottom - even from critics who aren't enamored with Wrigley and Fenway. With the Oakland Coliseum gone from MLB and Tropicana Field soon to be gone too, Rate Field is basically battling it out with Chase Field in Phoenix for the bottom in most reviews I read. And I know some hard core fans will say "who cares?".....well, IMO it does matter when you need to fight hard to get people to spend their entertainment dollars on your team. We'll see what the Ishbias do when the ballpark lease is up in 2029, but I for one am not interested in spending another 30 years arguing with the rest of the world that our ballpark is "not as bad as you think" and "is actually kind of nice." Not exactly ringing endorsements in a league full of charming ballparks surrounded by vibrant entertainment areas. Absolutely no question that a top notch ballpark and entertainment area are needed today but let's not also forget that winning makes up for a lot of issues. If the Sox solve that one, the other things will fall into place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 (edited) 18 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: Absolutely no question that a top notch ballpark and entertainment area are needed today but let's not also forget that winning makes up for a lot of issues. If the Sox solve that one, the other things will fall into place. Certainly. Just look at where the Sox are playing this weekend. Many people consider PNC Park the best stadium in MLB. It's at least often in the top 2 with Oracle Park. But the Pirates have been bottom feeders for a generation now and that beautiful ballpark seems wasted. They don't even have to be the Yankees or Dodgers. Can you imagine if it was the Rays organization who was playing there the last 2 decades? I bet they'd be packing the place in. And we all know that JR has run the White Sox over the last 15 years like we were the Pittsburgh Pirates 2.0. However, I firmly believe BOTH things are needed - a winning team and a stadium that brings people into the park. Look at the Braves. Since New Comiskey opened, they've won 6 pennants, 2 WS titles, and too many division titles and playoff berths to keep track of. They also opened a new ballpark 5 years AFTER New Comiskey which didn't get pounded with criticism like the Sox stadium did. And yet, they decided to leave Turner Field after only 20 years for a new ballpark and entertainment district. Have they regretted that? Hardly. Since moving to Truist Park, they've been raking in the dough and their franchise valuation has gone up 250% (according to this article:) https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/45392359/2025-mlb-ballpark-village-truist-park-battery-atlanta-future-business-cities-build Edited July 19 by 77 Hitmen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 On 7/18/2025 at 1:51 PM, Lip Man 1 said: Absolutely no question that a top notch ballpark and entertainment area are needed today but let's not also forget that winning makes up for a lot of issues. If the Sox solve that one, the other things will fall into place. Jerry doesn't think so. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted July 19 Author Share Posted July 19 14 minutes ago, kitekrazy said: Jerry doesn't think so. That's because winning costs money. JR by the way said himself after the Sox won the division in 1983 that he didn't realize how much winning costs because after the season a lot of the players wanted raises or new contracts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 (edited) On 7/18/2025 at 8:55 AM, southsider2k5 said: -It is universally thought of as one of the most underwhelming facilities in baseball, typically residing in the bottom three. -There is no aesthetic or beauty to the park. -There is only game day revenue from inside the park, as there is literally zero to do besides a game in the area. -They absolutely did nothing to take advantage of their location within Chicago to emphasize the view or skyline. -The commonly held belief is that the area it is isn't safe, despite the neighborhood around Wrigley having a higher crime rate. The view looking out from home plate toward the outfield has to be one of the worst in baseball. Other than the scoreboards, all you see is a bunch of giant advertisements that look like 3 huge expressway billboards framed by an "erector set" looking structure. It was much worse before they installed the Kids Zone and the Fan Deck. Back then it was 4 giant billboards on either side of the scoreboards and then what looked like the roof of a tool shed in the batter's eye section. The kids area and Fan Deck sure did help improve the aesthetics, but even post-renovation it's still a very bland, symmetrical view that is one of the most unremarkable in MLB. And yeah, EVERY ballpark as lots of ads in the outfield at our park, they really dominate the view at Rate Field. They're blended in much more nicely in most other parks. This one thing isn't a make-or-break issue for Rate Field, but these issues sure add up. Edited July 20 by 77 Hitmen 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 My gut feeling is that the union does not have the mettle to fight the owners hard enough to prevent a salary cap if the owners do indeed push hard for it. They will roll over in exchange for stuff like higher minimum salaries, minor amenities around travel/etc., and a few boosts to minor league life. I hope I'm wrong but they've been getting stomped as of late. Union brought in the best guy possible to help Tony Clark but it seems like the players just aren't buying the anti-cap argument. I think adding minor leaguers to the union will only add to this problem as they can be "bought" easily via concessions that owners don't care about. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted July 21 Author Share Posted July 21 4 hours ago, Jake said: My gut feeling is that the union does not have the mettle to fight the owners hard enough to prevent a salary cap if the owners do indeed push hard for it. They will roll over in exchange for stuff like higher minimum salaries, minor amenities around travel/etc., and a few boosts to minor league life. I hope I'm wrong but they've been getting stomped as of late. Union brought in the best guy possible to help Tony Clark but it seems like the players just aren't buying the anti-cap argument. I think adding minor leaguers to the union will only add to this problem as they can be "bought" easily via concessions that owners don't care about. I would be absolutely shocked in the MLBPA agreed to any type of salary cap. Clark has already said under NO circumstances would they agree to one and the union is upset (as well as some team reps) that Manfred is trying to work around the union and talk to players directly trying to sell a cap. Just not happening. One thing the players have been very good at is holding ranks regardless of how long a lockout or labor impasse lasts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said: I would be absolutely shocked in the MLBPA agreed to any type of salary cap. Clark has already said under NO circumstances would they agree to one and the union is upset (as well as some team reps) that Manfred is trying to work around the union and talk to players directly trying to sell a cap. Just not happening. One thing the players have been very good at is holding ranks regardless of how long a lockout or labor impasse lasts. It will be interesting. The union will need to acknowledge the state of the game with regional sports networks not bringing in the same revenue and teams having significant debt. The revenue and competitive disparity is going to continue to grow. This is not good for the game. There are more ways than just a salary cap to accomplish this so it will be interesting to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted July 21 Author Share Posted July 21 26 minutes ago, ptatc said: It will be interesting. The union will need to acknowledge the state of the game with regional sports networks not bringing in the same revenue and teams having significant debt. The revenue and competitive disparity is going to continue to grow. This is not good for the game. There are more ways than just a salary cap to accomplish this so it will be interesting to watch. Very true but unless the owners are willing to open their books to the union and let an independent economist look at them it is going to be a very hard sell to the union to claim things are going south financially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said: Very true but unless the owners are willing to open their books to the union and let an independent economist look at them it is going to be a very hard sell to the union to claim things are going south financially. Its a given that would have to happen fir a salary cap/floor. They need to have the number so they can work the percentage of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 13 hours ago, ptatc said: It will be interesting. The union will need to acknowledge the state of the game with regional sports networks not bringing in the same revenue and teams having significant debt. The revenue and competitive disparity is going to continue to grow. This is not good for the game. There are more ways than just a salary cap to accomplish this so it will be interesting to watch. I agree. Something has to give. The Dodgers and Mets have payrolls well over $300M while the Twins have $450M in debt. It was reported that the Sox have debt too as Ishbia will be infusing cash into the team over the next 2 years in part to pay down that debt. I'd imagine it's not just the Twins and Sox who are in debt, it only became public because of upcoming changes in ownership. The RSN cash stream is broken for many teams while other teams like the Braves are now raking in huge $$ with developments around their ballpark. That doesn't mean I think the union should totally capitulate to the owners demands or that I think that one side is right and another side is wrong, but the current dynamics in the league is not sustainable and I think it's only getting worse. And I know I said earlier that I won't lose sleep if there's a lockout because the Sox are dead in the water through at least 2027 anyway IMO, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in what's happening. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted July 21 Author Share Posted July 21 Story in the Athletic again today that Manfred is recruiting former players to join his team on the salary cap crusade and the union is upset about the maneuver. Pretty clear he's going to push the salary cap idea which means he feels that's what the owners want. It's going to be a long cold winter after the 26 season ends. Here's the link for those who can read it: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6505095/2025/07/21/rob-manfred-former-players-mlb-salary-cap/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 3 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said: I agree. Something has to give. The Dodgers and Mets have payrolls well over $300M while the Twins have $450M in debt. It was reported that the Sox have debt too as Ishbia will be infusing cash into the team over the next 2 years in part to pay down that debt. I'd imagine it's not just the Twins and Sox who are in debt, it only became public because of upcoming changes in ownership. The RSN cash stream is broken for many teams while other teams like the Braves are now raking in huge $$ with developments around their ballpark. That doesn't mean I think the union should totally capitulate to the owners demands or that I think that one side is right and another side is wrong, but the current dynamics in the league is not sustainable and I think it's only getting worse. And I know I said earlier that I won't lose sleep if there's a lockout because the Sox are dead in the water through at least 2027 anyway IMO, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in what's happening. No the union shouldn't totally give in. There needs to be some benefit to them as well. That's why there is the negotiation. Getting a cap would be a big give for thr union. They should get something big in return. Maybe a high floor? Greater revenue sharing for the union issues? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 3 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: Story in the Athletic again today that Manfred is recruiting former players to join his team on the salary cap crusade and the union is upset about the maneuver. Pretty clear he's going to push the salary cap idea which means he feels that's what the owners want. It's going to be a long cold winter after the 26 season ends. Here's the link for those who can read it: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6505095/2025/07/21/rob-manfred-former-players-mlb-salary-cap/ I think we've been saying it for a while. There may not be MLB baseball in 2027. That's the drastic scenario but I think there will be a significant number of games missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted July 21 Author Share Posted July 21 16 minutes ago, ptatc said: I think we've been saying it for a while. There may not be MLB baseball in 2027. That's the drastic scenario but I think there will be a significant number of games missed. Completely agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliSoxFanViaSWside Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 Very good conversation @Lip Man 1 @ptatc and @77 Hitmen who I wish had the time to post more . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliSoxFanViaSWside Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 On 7/18/2025 at 10:10 AM, 77 Hitmen said: Agreed on your 1 and 2. As far as the parking lots, I don't think the problem is that the parking lots exist as a convenience to driving customers, it's that pretty much all there is around the immediate ballpark area at Rate Field is parking lots. The economics of getting people to MLB games and deriving enough revenue for MLB teams to compete has changed significantly in recent years. In order to compete for entertainment dollars these days, teams are finding more and more that just relying on die hard fans who want nothing more than to drive up to the stadium, perhaps tailgate, see the game, and then drive home immediately afterwards is simply not enough. That may have worked 25 years ago with drawing Gen X and Boomer fans, but not today with Millennial and Gen Z fans. And I'm a Gen Xer, but the oldest Gen Xers are turning 60 this year. We're not the future demographics teams are looking towards. Also, with their RSN gravy train imploding, teams are looking for other ways to get revenue. Just look at what the Braves did with their baseball "village" and how much money Ricketts poured into developing Gallagher Way. The Phillies and Mets are also redeveloping a chunk of the parking lots around their stadiums. I believe the Orioles are looking to do the same for the area just outside the much-loved Camden Yards. Losing tailgating if they move to the 78 would indeed suck. There would parking if they moved to the 78, but most likely garages and not surface lots. But, to be honest, I don't see catering to the hardcore tailgating fans vs. developing an entertainment zone as being a good economic model for the new owners for the next 30-40 years. And Ishbia could very well decide that he doesn't want to pay up $1B or so for a new stadium and will keep the team at 35th St. long-term, but even then I'd be surprised if he did that and didn't develop a big portion of the surface lots into something to bring in more fans before and after games and throughout the year. The oldest Baby Boomers are nearly 80 now with the youngest about 61. You explain things very well . I made sure to like your posts since long thoughtful posts are not always read nor appreciated on matters that require keeping an eye on the big picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppysox Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 On 7/20/2025 at 10:26 PM, Lip Man 1 said: Very true but unless the owners are willing to open their books to the union and let an independent economist look at them it is going to be a very hard sell to the union to claim things are going south financially. independent economist=oximoron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted July 22 Author Share Posted July 22 17 minutes ago, poppysox said: independent economist=oximoron The owners and the union had no issues agreeing on one during the 94-95 labor impasse. The owners though didn't like what the Stanford economist found when he took a close look at their books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 On 7/20/2025 at 9:26 PM, Lip Man 1 said: Very true but unless the owners are willing to open their books to the union and let an independent economist look at them it is going to be a very hard sell to the union to claim things are going south financially. Economist? I would think they would want a forensic accountant. 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.