77 Hitmen

I'll also add that the only potential new stadium site that is being discussed by the team is only 2 miles, 2 L stops, and a 5 minute drive from their current home. We're not talking about Arlington Heights, Tinley Park, or even the West Side here.

@NO!!MARY!!! is correct. The sale of the Sox to Jerry and Eddie Einhorn didn't take place until January 1981. 1981 was the strike year. In 1980, Veeck tried to sell the team to Edward DeBartolo and the AL owners rejected the sale. Talk about a huge "What If?" for us fans! https://www.upi.com/Archives/1980/10/24/Edward-DeBartolo-Srs-bid-to-purchase-the-Chicago-White/9801341208000/ Otherwise, your comment and assessment of the situation is SPOT ON.

Three tiers sounds right. I'd say there are more teams in Tier 1 than 6, but the point remains the same. Look at the list of 2025 MLB payrolls. It's incredible how closely it lines up with market size. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2025/04/02/2025-mlb-team-payrolls-highest-lowest/82751012007/ 5 of the 8 teams who are in the LDS are big market teams. Detroit is there because someone from the AL Central has to be. Seattle I'd argue is a Tier #2 (middle market) team. Milwaukee is the one true outlier of the bunch, but get back to me if they make it past this round. I have my doubts about that. Sure, there are bad owners in all the tiers: Angels (Moreno) should be Tier 1, Pirates (Nutting) could at least be as competitive as the Royals. Rockies should be a Tier 2 team, not threating to break Reinsdorf's 121 mark. JR has backed the Sox into Tier 3 status. Anyway, off topic. I know there's a "Ominous Signs" thread to discuss where MLB is heading toward the end of next year. It'll also be interesting to see what they end up doing with the TV contracts in a few years.

As someone who is in his late 50s, it gives me no pleasure to point out such realities. You mean, not all of us native Chicagoans remember the Blizzard of '79??!! Say it ain't so! Jane Byrne! Ed Vyrdolyak! Ray Raynor! Johnny Morris! Every Chicagoan knows who they are, right? What really makes me feel old is when I talk to people pushing 40 who are too young to remember 1990. Yikes!

I was surprised recently when a coworker, who I have worked with for 20 years said that he's disappointed that he has no memory of the Bears winning the Super Bowl. He was too young at the time to remember. That sure made me feel old!

Fair enough. I was just highlighting that it really was a long time ago, but didn't mean it to be a criticism leveled directly at you.

I agree that "imminent danger" and that the fanbase is "gone" is a too strong. But that doesn't mean this team doesn't have serious problems with the fan base. Life long Sox fans aren't going to up and switch to the Cubs, but are enough Gen Z and Gen Alpha fans building a strong connection to the team as they've grown up over the last 15 years? Like how the Sox lost a lot of market share among people who grew up in the SportsVision era, I fear that they've lost a new generation now due to how badly this organization has been run since 2007 or so while the Cubs have become exciting over the last decade or so. And yeah, first and foremost the next owners have to build this organization into being one that is perpetually competitive. Building a new ballpark and then running the team "Jerry's way" would end badly. But that doesn't mean that there aren't issues with the ballpark and its surroundings that need to be fixed. Maybe those can be addressed while remaining at 35th & Shields. I personally have my doubts, but I agree that staying at 35th St. and improving things there is certainly possible. As far as the St. Louis attendance issue, their huge drop off should be concerning to them, but the only times in the last 30 years the Sox have exceeded the Cardinals' huge drop off today of 27,778 per game was 2005-2009. I actually think the St. Louis drop off should be a huge red flag to all of MLB, not just the Cardinals front office. The league is moving to a two-tiered set of teams where the small and even medium markets can't keep up with the top 12 or so big market teams and fans in those cities are turning away from the sport.

It means that people who were 4 years old in 1967 are age 62 now. Is that too confusing? Saying that the Sox outdrew the Cubs in that Go Go Era means pretty much nothing to the state of the franchises today.

1951 - 1967 is ancient history. Even the youngest Sox fans who remember 1967 are eligible to start collecting Social Security now.

Sure, we could go all the way back to 1919 and I know some older Sox fans are STILL griping about the trades Veeck made after the 1959 season. My "what ifs" are about what's transpired under Jerry Reinsdorf's watch, not the history he and Einhorn inherited when they bought this team.

Agreed on both points. Aside from the bump for the first few years when the park opened and then a bump for a few years when they won the World Series, they've been plagued by attendance issues and criticisms of the ballpark and location. To make matters worse, over the last decade or so, the economics of drawing people to ballparks seems to have accelerated even more so toward a stadium integrated with other adjacent entertainment options. But they can't just build a new stadium and keep running this team in the same old Reinsdorfian way. Under Ricketts, the Cubs have become frequent participants in the postseason. They've advanced in the playoffs now - something the Sox have only done ONCE in the last CENTURY. Things were different when the North Siders truly were "losers". They might not make the playoffs every year, but I think they'll be frequent contenders going forward. The Sox can't bring fans back and rebuild this fanbase by fielding mediocre, underwhelming teams going forward.

Looking back, it's absolutely stunning how bad the stadium was when it first opened, as you said built to Jerry's specs. It's not just the 29 row upper deck stacked above 3 rows of luxury seating, but also lots of exposed concrete, the "moat" between the outfield wall and the seats, etc., etc. This website does a very good and thorough review of all the MLB parks. A lot of his review of Rate Field is comparing the current park to the pre-renovation stadium and how much the renovations improved it. https://ballparkratings.com/ballparks/u-s-cellular-field/

LOL - I haven't seen those movies in ages.....probably never for #4.

Sounds contradictory. And I'm not saying that as a knock on either of you guys. I realize little is known about what they're discussing behind closed doors.

There's no disagreement on my part that MLB needs to fix the issues with some existing franchise, but I can give you 2 billion reasons why they're almost certainly going ahead with expansion once the A's and Rays new ballparks are completed. The Rays are getting new ownership and almost certainly a new stadium likely in a better location and probably with a mixed-use development. Time will tell if it fixes their attendance woes. Las Vegas is happening for the A's and Bally's has announced a huge entertainment district at the site. Again, we'll see after the new city/new ballpark bounce wears off if this address their issues with fan support. Miami? I have no idea what path forward they have. They already got their shiny expensive new stadium and their ballpark is perpetually empty. They indeed are a zombie franchise.

We Sox fans have A LOT of "what ifs" for this organization going back to 1981.

^ This. I would think that negotiating in public would be counterproductive to both sides at this point in time. Look at the blowback Jerry got (and rightfully so) for his public push to lobby the legislature for new stadium funding last year.

I agree with you about SLC, but they have a super-rich local owner lined up, the state is committing $900M toward a ballpark, and the city has a strong corporate presence. I'm not in favor of it, but they seem to be the front runners to land an expansion team right now.

If this happens, it would be such a Sox fan thing to have to deal with......waiting all these years to finally be rid of Jerry Reinsdorf's incompetence only to have the team cease to exist (as far as I'd be concerned). I'm not saying I'm predicting this will happen, but that it would "just figure" - typical Sox fan luck.

It looks like MLB has already reached the saturation point of # of teams making the playoffs. They can't "expand the playoffs" their way out of their problem. The difference in the other leagues is that it's not just the biggest markets that dominate. KC has a dynasty in the NFL and Green Bay is a perpetual powerhouse. The Bills might be the best team in the AFC. OKC beat Indiana for the NBA title. The Bucks won a few years ago. Look at the list of Stanley Cup champs over the last decade - no big market teams. Yeah, maybe we'll get a Brewers/Mariners WS this year, but let's face it - that'd be unusual and the top 10 big market teams are never far from pennant contention. So, you think it's by choice that all the major market MLB teams pay for superstars and all the small market MLB team chose not to? That's quite an incredible coincidence. Yeah, there are bad owners (JR, Moreno, Nutting), but it's pretty clear that MLB is dominated by major market teams and smaller market teams struggle to keep success going even when they have a well-run organization.

The team actually retired the number "455" to commemorate the record sellout streak, which ended in April 2001. https://www.mlb.com/video/indians-the-fans-no-455-c20096121 MLB should take note and be concerned about this. Half the league can only keep superstars until they reach free agency and they move on to the dozen or so top market teams. It's hard to sustain national interest in a sport when half the teams have to rebuild every few years - even well-run organizations like Cleveland. You don't see this in the other major sports. Also, pushing the smaller market teams into all workday day games in the first round or two of the playoffs makes it harder to get people to attend and watch those games.

But isn't it up to the Legislature and Governor to decide if public funds would be spent on a new stadium? Who are the Sox negotiating with?

Let's just hope that someone is Justin Ishbia.

But both Portland and Salt Lake City have both said they (or rather those states) would pay $800M and 900M in public money, respectively, for a MLB ballpark. I'm not saying this is the most likely scenario, but why wouldn't MLB just let the Sox move to Nashville and then award the 2 expansion teams to Portland and SLC? The league gets their expansion fees and 2 nice taxpayer-funded stadiums. Again, I'm not saying a Sox move is imminent. But I could see it playing out this way.

If true, it's probably a negotiating tactic and I'm hoping not a serious threat. If not for a new stadium then at least for the next stadium lease. Or maybe even development of the land (parking lots) ISFA owns around the current ballpark? It doesn't sound like Nashville is spending public money on a ballpark either, but crazier things have happened. One thing I'm pretty sure of - the Ishbias aren't spending close to $2B for a franchise only to keep the unsuccessful status quo with the current ballpark (without major renovations) surround by parking lots for the next 30 years when just about every other MLB team is moving away from that model and the Cubs are becoming more and more dominant in this market.