Passan address current challenges with TB/A's stadium situations, cites Sox and Royals predicaments

[caulfield12]

The A's and Rays are cautionary tales of what happens when big, complicated challenges are met with half-measures and inaction -- and reminders to teams with unsettled stadium issues in places like Chicago and Kansas City, Missouri, that the longer they take to reach resolution, the messier these situations get. With every city council meeting that ends with no deal, every local voting result that kicks the can down the road to the next election, every ballpark rendering torn up before a shovel ever enters the dirt, the likelihood of best-laid plans being replaced by worst-case scenarios multiplies.

For the Chicago White Sox and Kansas City Royals -- two teams angling for public money to help finance new stadiums -- there are countless lessons to learn about the fragility of deals and their capacity to go sideways. Already there has been resistance to the White Sox's request of $1 billion to help build a new stadium in the South Loop, and voters in Kansas City last year rejected a sales-tax extension that would have helped fund a downtown ballpark. Public cynicism over using tax dollars to fund billionaire owners' real estate plays has made turning visions of a new stadium into reality that much more difficult and the ramifications of letting a potentially volatile situation decay that much greater.

 

https://global.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/44096180/mlb-2025-spring-training-oakland-athletics-tampa-bay-rays-minor-league-ballparks-sacramento

 

For all the good in the game during Manfred's time as commissioner ---- the sight of two big league teams existing in small stadiums is rich with subtext. And with a labor negotiation expected to threaten games in 2027, a widespread dissatisfaction among fans about MLB's competitive balance and a local-television landscape in need of an overhaul, the challenges in Manfred's final four years as commissioner go well beyond the perception that comes with shrunken stadiums.

Edited March 7 by caulfield12

[pcq]

  On 3/7/2025 at 6:27 AM, caulfield12 said:

The A's and Rays are cautionary tales of what happens when big, complicated challenges are met with half-measures and inaction -- and reminders to teams with unsettled stadium issues in places like Chicago and Kansas City, Missouri, that the longer they take to reach resolution, the messier these situations get. With every city council meeting that ends with no deal, every local voting result that kicks the can down the road to the next election, every ballpark rendering torn up before a shovel ever enters the dirt, the likelihood of best-laid plans being replaced by worst-case scenarios multiplies.

For the Chicago White Sox and Kansas City Royals -- two teams angling for public money to help finance new stadiums -- there are countless lessons to learn about the fragility of deals and their capacity to go sideways. Already there has been resistance to the White Sox's request of $1 billion to help build a new stadium in the South Loop, and voters in Kansas City last year rejected a sales-tax extension that would have helped fund a downtown ballpark. Public cynicism over using tax dollars to fund billionaire owners' real estate plays has made turning visions of a new stadium into reality that much more difficult and the ramifications of letting a potentially volatile situation decay that much greater.

 

https://global.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/44096180/mlb-2025-spring-training-oakland-athletics-tampa-bay-rays-minor-league-ballparks-sacramento

 

For all the good in the game during Manfred's time as commissioner ---- the sight of two big league teams existing in small stadiums is rich with subtext. And with a labor negotiation expected to threaten games in 2027, a widespread dissatisfaction among fans about MLB's competitive balance and a local-television landscape in need of an overhaul, the challenges in Manfred's final four years as commissioner go well beyond the perception that comes with shrunken stadiums.

Expand  

Nobody cares since neither of them needs a larger place to play in. 

[nrockway]

I'm not sure I understand how the Sox have an "unsettled stadium issue". The park is fine. The building is like 30 years old, what's the issue?

[caulfield12]

  On 3/9/2025 at 2:47 AM, nrockway said:

I'm not sure I understand how the Sox have an "unsettled stadium issue". The park is fine. The building is like 30 years old, what's the issue?

Expand  

35 years old...three stadiums in Arlington/Texas during that same timeframe.

[nrockway]

  On 3/9/2025 at 4:16 AM, caulfield12 said:

35 years old...three stadiums in Arlington/Texas during that same timeframe.

Expand  

Illinois probably shouldn't try to be more like Texas. Arlington somehow managed to f*** up their ballpark complex, at least in terms of generating revenue for the municipality/state.

They clearly don't need a new stadium and everybody knows it. It certainly isn't an "issue". It's only an "issue" because JR mentioned he wants us to give him a billion dollars. I wouldn't describe that as an issue, I'd also like it if you guys gave me a billion dollars, I'm not sure that I have issues.

Edited March 9 by nrockway

[pcq]

  On 3/9/2025 at 2:47 AM, nrockway said:

I'm not sure I understand how the Sox have an "unsettled stadium issue". The park is fine. The building is like 30 years old, what's the issue?

Expand  

The Sox have too many seats. 

[soxfan18]

The issue is the lease is ending, and the current deal is horrible for the state, so they're not going to be too keen on simply extending the team-friendly agreement. 

[nrockway]

  On 3/9/2025 at 4:42 AM, pcq said:

The Sox have too many seats. 

Expand  

this keeps prices down, why should I consider this an issue? Is there some fund paying out to Sox fans I don't know about? would I rather 50 seats be replaced by a box? I can move to one of those 5000 empty seats when I get restless, should I make my experience worse for the benefit of a shareholder profit? 

[caulfield12]

  On 3/9/2025 at 4:51 AM, nrockway said:

this keeps prices down, why should I consider this an issue? Is there some fund paying out to Sox fans I don't know about? would I rather 50 seats be replaced by a box? I can move to one of those 5000 empty seats when I get restless, should I make my experience worse for the benefit of a shareholder profit? 

Expand  

There's going to be a taxpayer-funded subsidy flowing to JR this year if attendance somehow drops below 800,000 though...

[tray]

  On 3/9/2025 at 4:46 AM, soxfan18 said:

The issue is the lease is ending, and the current deal is horrible for the state, so they're not going to be too keen on simply extending the team-friendly agreement. 

Expand  

Moving forward extending a lease does not mean extending the original terms of the lease. That is what the Sox and the ISFA are likely to do....enter a new Lease that is fair - one that benefits the franchise and provides revenue for the taxpayers.

[caulfield12]

There are at least three MLB teams that offered Juan Soto $765 million or more (including the Mets)…so the White Sox are going to get a new stadium, one way or the other. And the Yankees offered one more year and $5 million less.   Basically, four teams.  That’s over half the private financing for the proposed TB Rays’ new stadium project.

Appearing on the Spanish-language Abriendo El Podcast with Dominican reporters Vian Araujo Puello and Ricardo Rodríguez, Soto confirmed that his negotiations came down to five teams: the Boston Red Sox, Los Angeles Dodgers, New York Yankees, Toronto Blue Jays and the Mets.

“The Mets weren’t the ones who offered the most money,” Soto said, according to NJ.com. “There were teams that offered more than the Mets.”

The Instagram teaser for the interview ends after Rodríguez asks whether Soto would be willing to name those teams. The full podcast is set to be released on Sunday.

[pcq]

No idea how a shitty org like the Sox and senile owner think they deserve a new ballpark. The one they have is fine. Or perhaps a little league field in Peoria. Another distraction from the reality of a 100 loss team. It's like a conspiracy of incompetence. I was a baseball-only fan for about 50 years but now I prefer football. 

[The Mighty Mite]

  On 3/9/2025 at 2:47 AM, nrockway said:

I'm not sure I understand how the Sox have an "unsettled stadium issue". The park is fine. The building is like 30 years old, what's the issue?

Expand  

Correct, the ballpark is in fine shape, easy to get to, plenty of parking and excellent public transportation. The problem is that the perception by many is that it’s in a bad neighborhood, real Sox fans know that’s not true. I never had  trouble going to over 200 games from 1955 until we moved to Florida in 1993 but history shows that the Sox were never a huge draw at 35th and Shields, one of the few MLB teams that has failed to draw 3 million in a season, came close twice but no cigar, pretty sad for a Major market team.

Edited Sunday at 10:35 AM by The Mighty Mite

[caulfield12]

  On 3/9/2025 at 9:59 AM, The Mighty Mite said:

Correct, the ballpark is in fine shape, easy to get to, plenty of parking and excellent public transportation. The problem is that the perception by many is that it’s in a bad neighborhood, real Sox fans know that’s not true. I never had  trouble going to over 200 games from 1955 until we moved to Florida in 1993 but history shows that the Sox were never a huge draw at 35th and Shields, one of the few MLB teams that has failed to draw 3 million in a season, came close twice but no cigar, pretty sad for a Major market team.

Expand  

What major market team with such a long history has anything lose to less success historically?

We can blame the Yankees or Shoeless Joe or the Southside or Sportsvision or Harry Caray or underfunded owners..but it's much more complicated/nuanced than all that.

[caulfield12]

• Fenway Park, Boston Red Sox, 1912.
• Wrigley Field, Chicago Cubs, 1914.
• Dodger Stadium, Los Angeles Dodgers, 1962.
• Angel Stadium, Los Angeles Angels, 1966.
• Kauffman Stadium, Kansas City Royals, 1973.
• Rogers Centre, Toronto Blue Jays, 1989.

That's it now.  The 7th oldest.  1-2-3 not going anywhere.  Old Yankee Stadium replaced. Angel Stadium needs a major upgrade.  Rogers/Skydome cutting edge for its time but the prevailinng trend is outdoor/grass and retractable roof.

Camden Yards 8th oldest.

[Highland]

The largest problem with the current stadium is one that can't be fixed: the upper deck. But because the White Sox made a stupid mistake doesn't mean they should be given a new stadium. A front office that has had a team this bad for 20 years has a lot of nerve asking for a brand-new stadium. $1.7 billion? They have to be kidding.

[Dick Allen]

  On 3/9/2025 at 1:37 PM, Highland said:

The largest problem with the current stadium is one that can't be fixed: the upper deck. But because the White Sox made a stupid mistake doesn't mean they should be given a new stadium. A front office that has had a team this bad for 20 years has a lot of nerve asking for a brand-new stadium. $1.7 billion? They have to be kidding.

Expand  

Upper decks at all the newer stadiums suck.

[Highland]

  On 3/9/2025 at 1:58 PM, Dick Allen said:

Upper decks at all the newer stadiums suck.

Expand  

Another reason that teams should not be donated stadiums. Fans should demand more respect. Money is being made by entitled rich people, and the fans are getting a bad product.

[77 Hitmen]

This seems like a moot argument for the Sox.  State elected officials have been crystal clear that JR's request for something around $1B in public funding for a new stadium is a non-starter/DOA.

....and the discussion in this thread seems to be ignoring the huge news over the last couple of weeks that Justin Ishbia is reportedly setting himself up to buy the team from Reinsdorf in the not too distant future.  That has the potential to upend the whole public funding for a new stadium request/debate.

Edited Sunday at 04:49 PM by 77 Hitmen

[WBWSF]

  On 3/9/2025 at 1:58 PM, Dick Allen said:

Upper decks at all the newer stadiums suck.

Expand  

The original design of the present White Sox stadium didn't have this miserable upper deck. JR  had the design changed because he wanted another level of suites. I remember when somebody named the upper deck the Reinsdeck.

[Chicago White Sox]

  On 3/9/2025 at 4:39 PM, 77 Hitmen said:

This seems like a moot argument for the Sox.  State elected officials have been crystal clear that JR's request for something around $1B in public funding for a new stadium is a non-starter/DOA.

....and the discussion in this thread seems to be ignoring the huge news over the last couple of weeks that Justin Ishbia is reportedly setting himself up to buy the team from Reinsdorf in the not too distant future.  That has the potential to upend the whole public funding for a new stadium request/debate.

Expand  

I think the state might be willing to contribute towards a stadium for the Sox, but ownership needs to contribute significantly more than what Jerry originally signaled.  Hopefully Ishbia eventually helps on that front.  I am generally against public funding for stadiums, but I do think a major investment in the 78 would warrant some public money.

[77 Hitmen]

  On 3/9/2025 at 9:59 AM, The Mighty Mite said:

Correct, the ballpark is in fine shape, easy to get to, plenty of parking and excellent public transportation. The problem is that the perception by many is that it’s in a bad neighborhood, real Sox fans know that’s not true. I never had  trouble going to over 200 games from 1955 until we moved to Florida in 1993 but history shows that the Sox were never a huge draw at 35th and Shields, one of the few MLB teams that has failed to draw 3 million in a season, came close twice but no cigar, pretty sad for a Major market team.

Expand  

IMO that "bad neighborhood" perception has faded quite a bit.  Yeah, once in a while I still hear people remark that the current stadium is next to "the projects", but not so much any more.  The real issue with the current location is the lack of much else to do around the ballpark.  That may have been fine in the past, but more and more, teams are finding they need to surround their ballpark with things for fans to do before or after the game to put enough fans in the seats.   We've seen the Cardinals and Braves do this in recent years.  The Phillies and Mets are now planning to do the same.  

Is the answer to move the Sox to The 78?  That'll be up to the Ishbia brothers, and their billions in fortune, to decide.  Maybe they'll decide the current park and location is "just fine" as some die hard Sox fans have said.  Even in that case, I can't imagine their plan is to sink all that money into buying the team only  keep the team surrounded by acres of parking lots and not much else for the next 30-40 years.  So, maybe their plan would be to keep the Sox at the current stadium but see about redeveloping much of the parking.

Edited Sunday at 05:26 PM by 77 Hitmen

[77 Hitmen]

  On 3/9/2025 at 4:59 PM, Chicago White Sox said:

I think the state might be willing to contribute towards a stadium for the Sox, but ownership needs to contribute significantly more than what Jerry originally signaled.  Hopefully Ishbia eventually helps on that front.  I am generally against public funding for stadiums, but I do think a major investment in the 78 would warrant some public money.

Expand  

Yeah, I think the state could very well agree to pay for the infrastructure costs if ownership paid for most, if not all, of the stadium itself.   That infrastructure wouldn't be a small investment by the state and city, but it's probably something they could agree to if they're putting money into things like a new Red Line stop and an extended riverwalk instead of toward the new stadium itself for the use of billionaire owners.

Edited Sunday at 05:35 PM by 77 Hitmen

[chitownsportsfan]

Comparing Sox park to TB or Oakland makes no sense. Citing Arlington makes no sense. Most of Passans article is a stretch get on back there. MLB has decided that gate revenue is only a fraction of revenue and teams are fine with it. The Sox will be in Chicago for the foreseeable future one way or another. When something changes I am sure we will all see it but this Nashville talk and this article are not it.

[nrockway]

  On 3/9/2025 at 9:59 AM, The Mighty Mite said:

Correct, the ballpark is in fine shape, easy to get to, plenty of parking and excellent public transportation. The problem is that the perception by many is that it’s in a bad neighborhood, real Sox fans know that’s not true. I never had  trouble going to over 200 games from 1955 until we moved to Florida in 1993 but history shows that the Sox were never a huge draw at 35th and Shields, one of the few MLB teams that has failed to draw 3 million in a season, came close twice but no cigar, pretty sad for a Major market team.

Expand  

The perception of the area is...weird. People either think it's still the projects or it's a bunch of South Side whites, the term "Bridegeport Bob" still sees some play. But Bob was priced out a decade ago. The reality is that everyone who lives there now is Chinese. The alderman is Chinese. On the other side of Dan Ryan, black people are doing their own gentrification project too, trying to conjure up some idea of a historic Bronzeville, except with $600,000 condos so they don't have to live around poor people. The area has changed radically in my lifetime but the perception hasn't. 

If they wanted to do some retail district, 35th and Shields is a better site for it these days than it has been in like 80 years. Which is why I don't understand or think it's true that they'll move or sell. The Sox already own a lot of desirable land to build on, the "anchor tenant" idea at that Related Idiots project just seems lazy and uninspired and a poor way for a billionaire to make a lot more money.