PDA

View Full Version : Per Steve Rosenbloom........


duke of dorwood
09-17-2002, 07:43 AM
:reinsy

Owns lots of land in Vegas and will eventually move the team there.

HAHAHA

He said this on 670 this morning.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-17-2002, 07:52 AM
Well, I guess that would solve Reinsdorf's problem of too many fish living near the ballpark.

:reinsy
"Sorry, Vegas Sox fans. Until more cactai and reptiles begin attending games, I'm forced to field a starting rotation that averages 25 y.o."

:ohno
"Can somebody please throw him over the side of Hoover Dam?"

Viva Magglio
09-17-2002, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
:reinsy

Owns lots of land in Vegas and will eventually move the team there.

HAHAHA

He said this on 670 this morning.

He can't do it. The franchise is bound by a lease to Chicago until 2011.

Viva Magglio
09-17-2002, 08:45 AM
Is there anything in the Tribune about this? Unless I missed it, it's not in today's sports section?

RedPinStripes
09-17-2002, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by ˇViva Mágglio!
He can't do it. The franchise is bound by a lease to Chicago until 2011.

If he owns this team in 2011, we'll be very miserable.

Viva Magglio
09-17-2002, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
If he owns this team in 2011, we'll be very miserable.

Reinsdorf would be at age 75 if he's still owning the Sox in 2011. This is why I think he may sell before he reaches that age (estate planning).

duke of dorwood
09-17-2002, 10:05 AM
Makes me wonder just how much this guy really owns outside of his share of the Sox and how rich he really is. Makes me even more mad about the way this team is run.

Procol Harum
09-17-2002, 10:16 AM
I think Rosenbloom said this with 2011 in mind, but also believes that baseball will lose its anti-trust exemption before then--perhaps on the short road there already with the Montreal fiasco.

duke of dorwood
09-17-2002, 10:25 AM
He did tie it in with the anti-trust thing.

:reinsy

Cha-Ching

voodoochile
09-17-2002, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
He did tie it in with the anti-trust thing.

Well, he won't be able to do it until 2011, because Daley would definitely sue him for completion of the lease. I just hope he wasn't lying when he talked about how badly it broke his heart when the Dodgers left Brooklyn years ago. But, I don't trust him as far as I could throw him...

:reinsy
"Hey Vegas, I can't field a winner unless some of you start playing the slots at Reinsdorf Desert Field."

:KW
"Yeah, Vegas, bright lights, hot babes, slot machines and one very happening sex machine. I LIKE IT!!!"

:gallas
"OHMIGAWD!!! Year round Elvis night promotions when we move to Vegas... Can we do this tomorrow?"

:boston
"These guys are brilliant..."

:ohno
"Watch out Vegas, they'll rob YOU blind..."

Jerry_Manuel
09-17-2002, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by ˇViva Mágglio!
He can't do it. The franchise is bound by a lease to Chicago until 2011.


Originally posted by ˇViva Mágglio!
Is there anything in the Tribune about this? Unless I missed it, it's not in today's sports section?

Phil Rogers wrote the following on September 8th:

If Montreal gains permission to move to Washington, look for Oakland to explore a new stadium in San Jose, Calif., which has been considered the Giants' territory. … While considering stadium options, do you think the western suburbs will become an issue again after 2009, when the White Sox's commitment to Comiskey Park has been fulfilled?

Jerry_Manuel
09-17-2002, 12:38 PM
A little more backround on what Steve said.

Mike Murphy pondered if maybe the Sox would try and get another new stadium after the lease ends in 2009 or whenever it does end. He mentioned like cities like Tampa are already taken, so JR really can't threaten to take the team and move it elsewhere. Steve said that Reinsdorf owns a lot of property in Vegas, and he believes that anti-trust rules will be gone due to the 'Spos.

nut_stock
09-17-2002, 01:19 PM
Another team will probably move to Vegas before then....Florida, tampa????

rmusacch
09-17-2002, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
A little more backround on what Steve said.

Mike Murphy pondered if maybe the Sox would try and get another new stadium after the lease ends in 2009 or whenever it does end. He mentioned like cities like Tampa are already taken, so JR really can't threaten to take the team and move it elsewhere. Steve said that Reinsdorf owns a lot of property in Vegas, and he believes that anti-trust rules will be gone due to the 'Spos.

Yes but there are other towns that are not taken that would like a major league team, like Portland and Charlotte for example.

voodoochile
09-17-2002, 01:25 PM
Does anyone else see the irony in the White Sox (arguably one of the worst marketed teams in professional sports history) moving to Vegas (where glitz and marketing are everything).

Bring your dog to the park day isn't going to cut it out there...

hold2dibber
09-17-2002, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by nut_stock
Another team will probably move to Vegas before then....Florida, tampa????

I saw a published report yesterday (I believe it was on espn.com) that quoted Selig as saying that moving the Expos to Vegas or Charlotte were not options because MLB did not believe either of those cities could support a major league team.

DrCrawdad
09-17-2002, 02:07 PM
Take Jay Mariotti, add sarcasm and a small amount of wit and you get...

voodoochile
09-17-2002, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I saw a published report yesterday (I believe it was on espn.com) that quoted Selig as saying that moving the Expos to Vegas or Charlotte were not options because MLB did not believe either of those cities could support a major league team.

I think Bud is right on this one. No one goes to Vegas to watch baseball, no matter how family oriented they've become...

:gallas
"I've got it! Bring your grandma' to the park... We've got slots, too..."

:reinsy
"You people better start dropping more quarters in the slots if you want to see a winner. How can I make it to a billion.... er field a winner if you cheap bastards... er the fans won't pull the levers?"

Foulke You
09-17-2002, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I saw a published report yesterday (I believe it was on espn.com) that quoted Selig as saying that moving the Expos to Vegas or Charlotte were not options because MLB did not believe either of those cities could support a major league team.

I have to agree that those cities couldn't support a MLB team. Charlotte couldn't even keep the Hornets around and Las Vegas's biggest attraction is gambling and tourism. What tourist flies to Vegas to catch a ballgame? I just don't see it happening there.

Not to mention baseball's reluctance to put professional baseball in the gambling capital of the world. With baseball's already checkered past in relation to gambling problems a la Pete Rose and the 1919 White Sox, one would have to worry about ballplayers in Vegas for a full season being seduced by Sin City.