Balta1701

There’s a decent chance the Patriots say no to that - remember last year it cost the Texans two firsts to move up from 11 (I think) to 3. But it is an interesting concept if written as a fair-ish deal.

Thats Soto. Hes comparing the scouting numbers to a unicorn hall of Famer who was an MVP candidate at 19. You just don’t do that. If the guy comes up and immediately hits like a hall of Famer he will be fine in the OF, I agree. Also the Orioles should clearly hold onto a guy being compared to a sure fire hall of famer.

Yeah because this is a fair comparison.

That's what I was thinking too, the Bears would be giving up a lot in depth, but if the Pats were up for doing this, they get a QB candidate and some extra picks at the same time. I kinda feel like Belichick would do that deal since it is stockpiling extra picks, no idea if his replacements will. Make it a fair deal on paper and it kinda makes sense for both teams, if the Pats were willing.

Let's drop the homerism out of it and think about the idea. The Bears trade #9, #75, Fields, and a 2025 2nd for MHJ. This is probably under-valuing Fields and the future pick, or you're saying that MHJ has a huge value. Also I gave up a 2nd rounder because it's Poles just gives up 2nd rounders, a third makes it a little less biased but it's gotta be a 2nd. Would y'all do that?

Has anything happened in the last 5 years that would affect the demand for office space and funds available to build more?

Correctly would be in a way where they become good investments for the taxpayers.

One thing I find ironic is that two stadium projects in the 90s-early 00s were completely screwed up by the City, costing them hundreds of millions, and now they're sitting on proposal concepts for two amazing parks that fully fix every issue with the previous ones - other than the giant spaceship on the lake that they built. They suddenly have a way to do this correctly!

I would fully expect some sort of "Schtick he does that winds up annoying a lot of people but is surprisingly effective because you talk about it".

The White Sox successfully renovating this site and having the real estate rights to the rest of the property, primed for development, would be worth an additional hundreds of millions of dollars on a sale.

I have no current opinions on him so stuff I’m hoping to see: An understanding of modern baseball. Do comment on them being patient. Do not credit them for ground balls the other way if they take you out of an inning. Do question bunting. Don’t tell me it’s all about TWTW. Show some advanced stats and explain them in appropriate context. Editorial independence: a willingness to say that a player or the organization has made mistakes when they happen. A general sense of passion, when things are going well or poorly. Those were, for the most part, things I liked about Benetti.

This same PR department last year didn't have anyone who said "Hey, Maybe allowing Mr. Clevinger to use 'Gold digger' as his game opening music isn't the best look for our team."

and 7 miles in New York City is different than 7 miles in Kansas City. And frankly, 17 miles is different in Dallas too, because Fort Worth exists.

If we get to the point where Manfred is coming to town because they are demanding so much from the city, yeah enjoy Nashville. There is an obvious path here where each side gets pinched a little but where there is so much money in the asset and development rights for the extra land that JR would be flat out stupid not to take advantage of it. This sets the family up to take in billions while also making the city better, and if they sell the team at some point they sell a ready-for-development or already-developed land. If he needs to feel like he took the state to the cleaners in the process, then he can lose out on the money he would make for developing the rest of the land. It would be complaining about $300 million and losing $2 billion over the next couple decades.

If they have a legit deal and it works for the taxpayers and owners I don't see why this is a problem. They have a working ballpark! Adding an extra year or two during construction seems like zero issue? Way better than a team looking for a home. Way better than a business going bankrupt if construction is delayed.

If that actually is true, then I would also wish all the pain on them while they're moving.

This is a MAJOR project, fwiw. It will probably cost less than the full 78 site, but you're basically talking about spending so much money that you might as well build a new ballpark. The outfield isn't built to support the weight of an entire second story on top of it, so you are completely rebuilding the support for the outfield while also stripping off and redesigning the infield - while also considering how this will change factors like wind, sunlight into the luxury boxes, etc. It would be difficult to strip off most of the upper deck while still preserving the luxury boxes, and that would look straight up odd in addition to being a high cost. If you're going to spend hundreds of millions to renovate a park into something monstrous at a bad site, just pass on the idea and spend more to build something FAR BETTER at a good site. For example, if your options are a beautiful domed football stadium in the suburbs or building a monstrosity on the lakeshore that looks like you landed a spaceship inside a once historic building that everyone hates because it is awful and hard to get to, do not build the stupid space ship. It will be a massive waste of money, it will look ridiculous, and in 20 years you'll be tired of it and wanting the actual professional building in the suburbs. This may or may not be relevant to any other team.

Because it’s going to the owners pocket. I get complaints about the Rate. It is poorly designed and a huge handout to Reinsdorf. The deal is terrible and he got it with no real benefit to the city because the city was scared to lose the team for pride reasons. Do not do deals like that. I would rather they move to Nashville than do that again. Here, the city gets something valuable, this is an urban renewal project. Not just a handout. This makes the city better.

I’d go with blind luck being a more likely factor. Last year the Sox were worse than the Royals. Worse talent, worse run differential, more than 5 fewer WAR. However, the Sox had a better record, because sometimes that’s how it goes in baseball, the Royals more dramatically underperformed than the White Sox when they should have been like 5 games better. A team with a 65 win talent level will sometimes win 58, and sometimes win 71.

First of all, I would like you to tell me how I’m being too optimistic. I’m pretty sure I’m the one describing the environmental rehab issues and costs - this is why the state must be involved. Secondly, the state spends money on lots of things. Eventually, whether with the White Sox or not, the state is going to have to spend money on this site. No developer anywhere will expect to be on the hook for previous environmental damage, if the state expects them to pay that, the site will never be developed. And importantly, failing to develop this site is spending money - on police, maintenance of the site, no tax revenue from here, and lower land values and fewer businesses in the area. This spot is currently generating zero sales tax. It is a strong benefit to the state to find a tenant here who can develop and anchor this property, and in the current market for office space that will be super tough. Getting this developed now is an investment, one that will pay off if the right business is out there, but which has significant costs and revenue losses every year where it isn’t done. Third, are you really ready to discuss soil quality issues with a geologist? Yes, they will be trucking in fill to this site because the land level Is too low and they have to ensure stability next to the river. While a problem for a ballpark, this would be a bigger problem for office or apartment development as high rises increase the pressure on the soil, while low intensity development isn’t going to have enough money available to justify rebuilding the site. All The issues with water you mention are also true for any type of development, and they are likely to prevent any other type of developer from salvaging this property for decades just as they have for the last 60. These reasons are why a ballpark on this land makes good sense, and why government support is well justified. Lets imagine a worst case scenario, they plan this and the infrastructure issues then our worse than expected. First, that would affect any business going into this spot, so in both cases public money would be required to fix the issues. Second, how many developers can survive multi year project delays? If I was building an office tower, I have revenue projections to meet - a multi year delay may bankrupt me. The single worst thing that could happen here for the state is they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure and cleanup and the developer loses their funding because of delays, so the state will have spent their money with no benefit. This however is almost impossible for the white Sox, because if site issues delay the project for years, they just play a couple extra seasons on 35th street. From a public perspective, that is amazing insurance for the site - my main tenant and developer will not go bankrupt if there are delays! There are always details to be worked out. A real estate business has a right to turn a profit on their investment. I will not begrudge the Reinsdorf group turning a substantial profit if they pull this project off. A project that makes them money and makes the city a better place is a true win for everyone. Hell put a hotel there and I will stay in it. But it also should be a good deal for the city - in the long run the benefits they get in taxes and development should be able to win out, on the 20 or 30 year horizon. That’s how much money the city should put in - this is an investment to grow the city and its tax base long term. If Reinsdorf can pull that off, then he has done something great for the city while also making money, and my version of capitalism likes that type of partnership.

The whole "Environmental remediation" bill? Or the whole ballpark bill. I believe you have a strong case for the state (small s so including all governments) absorbing a large portion of the environmental costs and nearly all the risks of cost overruns for the environmental issues in an urban renewal sense, because that's a lot of money and risk for any developer to deal with and if the state doesn't step in and deal with that, this site may well be undeveloped for another 60 years. I very much agree that with the potential economic benefits of developing this site, if the White Sox are going to buy the land and develop the whole property, they should pay a large portion of the ballpark expenses. But first of all...bringing this site up to code is a cost that almost certainly should be born by the state because the White Sox likely had very little to do with this becoming polluted and abandoned. Furthermore, the state is justified in paying at least a portion of the initial development costs - not a majority, but a minority portion. Why? Because it is to the state's benefit to have this site developed long-term. Leaving this land outside the tax base for the next 50 years is not an exaggeration - it's already been that way for more than 60. Bringing this land back into the tax base, even if it is 30 years from now, is a good thing for the city. Developing this site supports the land values around this site, and supports the city as a whole. These are all good things for the city and for taxpayers, and it justifies some portion of additional taxpayer support of the ballpark. Not a majority, a partnership though, with either assistance developing the site or appropriate tax benefits. Unlike true frauds like the Foxconn "plant" in Wisconsin or even New Comiskey, public subsidies here is likely to actually lead to development and to an overall improvement of the city and state. That's a big benefit of having the White Sox involved - the chances of the White Sox deciding that they don't need to play baseball in the USA are quite low, the chances of the White Sox deciding to stop playing baseball if the commercial office market space shrinks is low. This is a benefit to the city of working with this specific industry type on developing the location, the city is going to get the ballpark developed if they come to an agreement, the White Sox won't back out and decide that they are ok playing in a small ballpark overseas for the next 30 years. The White Sox anchor this site and that ensures the site is actually developed, improving the city, improving the tax base long term, and removing a blighted spot that is a negative for the city. There is a solid justification for some public funds here, for both remediation and for making sure the site gets developed. It does not pay for a full ballpark, but support well beyond "only paying for infrastructure" is well justified as a public good.

What about environmental remediation and site preparation?