2012-2013 Sox off season Catch-All thread

Quin · February 9, 2013

QUOTE (YASNY @ Feb 9, 2013 -> 01:19 AM)

I agree. It's now a beautiful ballpark. Still, that skyline beyond the outfield would have been wonderful.

It's the one flaw.

Wasn't it because they wanted to keep the same mailing address or some s***?

gatnom · February 9, 2013

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 9, 2013 -> 02:34 AM)

It's the one flaw.

Wasn't it because they wanted to keep the same mailing address or some s***?

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Feb 8, 2013 -> 12:16 PM)

From-- a link that is apparently now dead:

.......The Whitesox attempted unsuccessfully to purchased the tall

brown building behind the scoreboard. It was owned by the state, and

was a senior services building. To have the ball park face the

skyline, they would've needed to demolish that building. I've read the

original plans were supposed to have the skyline behind the

scoreboard. .........

The Ginger Kid · February 9, 2013

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 8, 2013 -> 10:25 AM)

Around Roosevelt and the Chicago River would have been spectacular. Open to the skyline. Could have had a party type area along the river. Red, Green, Orange line trains within walking distance. There could have been Wendella boats to take fans to and from the train stations, and it's proximitey to downtown and the people who work there make it pretty easy to think attendance would probably always be good.

Imagine how easy it would be for people getting off work to go grab a game? It's the old adage - location location location.

I hear where people are coming from, that the Cell with its renovations has become something a very nice ballpark. But you only have to look to Cleveland and more recently Minnesotta to see what a new stadium in a good location can do for attendance and revenue. I'm glad the Cell got improved. But the fact that they built a brand new stadium that immediately needed drastic improvements makes one very frustrated. Sort of like the turf at Soldier Field, only more frustrating.

And I visited Comiskey in '77 as a kid and while I loved that old ballpark the guts of that place were falling apart. Talk about a "urinal"

Cali · February 9, 2013

I honestly wonder how long the Sox will play at the Cell? Obviously they won't move to a new park as long as Reisndorf is the owner, and however long the lease is on the place.

This will be the 22nd season for the park, maybe another 20 years? By then I imagine it'll be one of the oldest parks in baseball (who knows what will happen to Fenway and Wrigley)

nickofypres · February 9, 2013

They could probably play there another 60 years, IMO.

Edited February 9, 2013 by whitesox901

Balta1701 · February 9, 2013

QUOTE (Cali @ Feb 9, 2013 -> 04:29 PM)

I honestly wonder how long the Sox will play at the Cell? Obviously they won't move to a new park as long as Reisndorf is the owner, and however long the lease is on the place.

This will be the 22nd season for the park, maybe another 20 years? By then I imagine it'll be one of the oldest parks in baseball (who knows what will happen to Fenway and Wrigley)

Google suggests that their lease runs through 2029.

The Sox pay such a low rent on it that the only ones who legitimately want to renegotiate the lease agreement is the state. I'd expect that in 2029 they'll probably be pushing for a new park as the lease ends.

Rowand44 · February 9, 2013

The Cell is absolutely great now.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Rowand44

Brian · February 9, 2013

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Feb 9, 2013 -> 03:41 PM)

The Cell is absolutely great now.

Ding! Even the eye candy has improved greatly

Cali · February 9, 2013

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2013 -> 01:39 PM)

Google suggests that their lease runs through 2029.

The Sox pay such a low rent on it that the only ones who legitimately want to renegotiate the lease agreement is the state. I'd expect that in 2029 they'll probably be pushing for a new park as the lease ends.

So that'd be 38 years old for the park. I honestly think if between now and 2029 the Cubs get a new modern park, the Sox would start clamoring for one of their own as well.

Like everyone is saying, it's all about location, if they had a park that was closer to downtown, close to all the subways with an amazing view of the skyline, they'd be cracking 3 mil regularly... Especially if they had winning teams haha.

elrockinMT · February 9, 2013

QUOTE (Cali @ Feb 9, 2013 -> 10:45 PM)

So that'd be 38 years old for the park. I honestly think if between now and 2029 the Cubs get a new modern park, the Sox would start clamoring for one of their own as well.

Like everyone is saying, it's all about location, if they had a park that was closer to downtown, close to all the subways with an amazing view of the skyline, they'd be cracking 3 mil regularly... Especially if they had winning teams haha.

They have to stay on the Southside right?! MAybe the Southside of downtown would be ok

maggsmaggs · February 9, 2013

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Feb 9, 2013 -> 03:41 PM)

The Cell is absolutely great now.

Location is the only downside. But lots of parking. Easy public transportation. And a gorgeous park inside.

It's super underrated as a park because of its location.

southsider2k5 · February 10, 2013

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2013 -> 03:39 PM)

Google suggests that their lease runs through 2029.

The Sox pay such a low rent on it that the only ones who legitimately want to renegotiate the lease agreement is the state. I'd expect that in 2029 they'll probably be pushing for a new park as the lease ends.

With the way the Marlins f***ed their fans, it is going to be a while before a public stadium happens again. I can't see the Sox paying for their own new place.

peteward · February 10, 2013

Yes indeed, the truth hurts and just to make things worse, Ricketts is now going to spend 300 Million on Wrigley.

He is doing that because he realizes that Wrigley in itself draws fans even when the Cubs suk, which is more often than not. Reinsdorf also knows that Sox fans come out even less when the team isn't winning.

Here are some suggestions I have for possible improvements to the stadium and surrounding area.

Tail gating is something Chicago fans love and something that the Wrigley will never offer.

I would like to see the concrete wall to the East of the South parking lot covered with ivy. Perhaps the driveway could be moved in so that area

is expanded for picnic tables and perhaps some outdoor concessions.

As far as the housing to the East of the South parking, perhaps that could be acquired in some joint deal with a

developer to place some mixed use residential/commercial project.

Inside the Park I would like some changes but realize the money for most of them is just not there.

The scoreboard is fine except I would remove the spinning twirly birds. They harken back to the Veeck era and the circus atmosphere he always wanted to create.

Next I would minimize the modern look of the exposed tubular pipe trusses in the outfield. Perhaps some steel sheets

could be welded to make them look solid, or they could be bricked up to a point.Compare the steel work supporting the lights at Wrigley.

The outfield wall is another feature that looks like foam pads covering a chain link fence.

It would be nice if that were made permanent with masonry split arched openings echoing the shape of those from the original park and foam padding only extended up 7 feet.

If there was ever a larger pool of money I would like to see the Right field grandstand pictured in one of the links here.

I always liked sitting in the upper tank at the old park and there are no views in the new park that are comparable.

Edited February 10, 2013 by southside_hitman

Quin · February 10, 2013

QUOTE (southside_hitman @ Feb 9, 2013 -> 10:28 PM)