White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
Congratulations on winning the AL ROTY award unanimously, Jose!

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old 06-18-2014, 08:39 PM
LITTLE NELL LITTLE NELL is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sebring Florida
Posts: 7,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
Yeah, and their backup plan was to move to Tampa Bay and look what a disaster that's been.
What I'm seeing here for the most part is that WSI members who live in the city think that the Sox are better off somewhere in Chicago while suburban residents feel the opposite.
__________________
Coming up to bat for our White Sox is the Mighty Mite, Nelson Fox.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-18-2014, 08:47 PM
dickallen15 dickallen15 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roylestillman View Post
The window is starting to close on a South Loop site for a new ballpark. The only large parcel left is the old rail yards south of Roosevelt to 18th, the River to the Rock Island (Metra) tracks on the east. Given the recent late blooming success of the Roosevelt Collection, I can't believe it will be long before that parcel is sold and developed. The Ryan, Stevenson and Kennedy can all feed into that site easily, and the announced Wells Street Connection will be an easy route from the Loop. The distance from the Loop is no different than the United Center, which does OK.

I think the drum beat for a new park will begin soon. The Cell is either the 8th or 9th oldest park in the MLB. I wouldn't doubt that losses from bad weather start a retractable dome discussion. The appetite for public funding is just not there, but a new owner with deep pockets may make a privately funded stadium feasible.
Not to mention a lot closer to all downtown train stations and the thousands of workers who would be able to almost walk to a weeknight game.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-18-2014, 08:55 PM
jdm2662 jdm2662 is online now
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lombard, IL
Posts: 7,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL View Post
What I'm seeing here for the most part is that WSI members who live in the city think that the Sox are better off somewhere in Chicago while suburban residents feel the opposite.
It doesn't matter where they are. There are going to be issues getting to the stadium no matter what. Addison would've been nice for myself since I live in the near west burbs. I probably would've been in a season ticket holder in my 20s and single days. However, I'm just one person who lives in the West burbs. If they built the stadium in say, Orland Park, it be a worse location for myself than the current stadium. The stadium may not be in a cool neighborhood, but the accessibility is the easiest of all the stadiums in Chicago. Traffic around the ball park really isn't THAT bad considering I've lived by the Eisenhower most of my life...

Traffic would still suck if it's in the west/south loop or anywhere else. It's just life. It's been proven many times if the Sox aren't expected to contend, their advance sales for non-prime games are rather poor. It's life and it would be the same way if they played anywhere else in the area.
__________________
4-time WSI NFL Pick 'em vs Spread Champion
2009 2010 2011 2013
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-18-2014, 09:11 PM
jdm2662 jdm2662 is online now
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lombard, IL
Posts: 7,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
As for the Fire, Toyota Park is annoying to get to from a lot of the Chicago area and the public transportation options are non-existent (though they do run those $10 buses from a half dozen bars or so). Comparing the Fire now to their history I agree that lack of success is probably their biggest problem right now. Put some investment back into the team, and there is no reason they shouldn't start succeeding again. That said, when comparing the Fire to the rest of the league, the game has grown since the league's inception in 1997. Besides building their own stadium, as nearly every other team has done, they haven't really grown their brand in what admittedly is a very difficult market for sports (much moreso than Portland or Seattle, for that matter). Like their one-time rivals DC United, what were once model organizations sitting at or near the top of the league every year seem to have stagnated and seen the rest of the league, including a number of new teams, pass them by.
You can also throw in NE, too. They never got over the hump, but the Fire and the Revs had some memorable playoff series year after year.

The Fire sold out both of their playoff games in 2009. They also drew over 17K for their playoff games in 2007 and 2008. Only one playoff game at SF was attended more, and that was 1998 when they were the new cool thing. Playoff games never did so well because they were hard to promote in a short time (similar to what the Wolves go through). The media coverage never was great to begin with. The team just hasn't been very good in the past five years. The moving out of the city topic is over exaggerated.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-18-2014, 09:55 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 29,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdm2662 View Post
You can also throw in NE, too. They never got over the hump, but the Fire and the Revs had some memorable playoff series year after year.

The Fire sold out both of their playoff games in 2009. They also drew over 17K for their playoff games in 2007 and 2008. Only one playoff game at SF was attended more, and that was 1998 when they were the new cool thing. Playoff games never did so well because they were hard to promote in a short time (similar to what the Wolves go through). The media coverage never was great to begin with. The team just hasn't been very good in the past five years. The moving out of the city topic is over exaggerated.
The Revs actually have a decent team this year, but they might be in an even worse situation as an organization considering their location. It's one thing to get fans out to Foxboro for the Patriots 8 times a year, on weekends in the fall, but it's quite another for Revs games.

I think all other things being equal, a more centrally located stadium would've been better for the Fire. But I don't know where that would be, and the team got a pretty sweet deal from a tiny suburb. Whether it's the park or the team on the field or the organization as a whole, I look on at other MLS teams, many of which are much newer, with a bit of envy.
__________________
Attendance records:
09 : 3-2.
10 : 2-3.
11: 0-1.
12: 2-1.
14: 2-3.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-18-2014, 10:31 PM
Railsplitter Railsplitter is online now
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Streamwood, IL
Posts: 6,330
Default

I'm closer to Addison to any point in the city. What might not work with some would work well with others.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-18-2014, 10:34 PM
SI1020 SI1020 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Deep in the heart of Dixie
Posts: 4,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
Also, I think it's kind of cool that the Sox have played in the same neighborhood for so long. I'm not sure how many other teams can claim that (I think the Pirates, for one).
The Pirates played at Exposition Park 1882-3, Recreation Park 1884-90, and a newer Exposition Park 1891-1909. Those parks were located in the city of Allegheny which was annexed by Pittsburgh in 1907. It is Pittsburgh's north side. The Pirates moved into a brand spanking new baseball stadium Forbes Field on June 30, 1909. Forbes Field was located in the Oakland neighborhood in the eastern part of the city. Oakland is a high density urban neighborhood where the University of Pittsburgh is located. In 1970 the Pirates returned to their north side roots with the opening of Three Rivers Stadium. They moved into the impressive PNC Park, also on the north side in 2001.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-18-2014, 10:44 PM
FielderJones's Avatar
FielderJones FielderJones is offline
WSI Village Atheist
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Clarendon Hills
Posts: 4,992
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL View Post
What I'm seeing here for the most part is that WSI members who live in the city think that the Sox are better off somewhere in Chicago while suburban residents feel the opposite.
I think the Sox are better off in the city.

It's going to be Reinsdorf's successor that will have to deal with a new ballpark.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-18-2014, 11:00 PM
Golden Sox Golden Sox is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oswego, Illinois
Posts: 799
Default

I read a interesting article last year about one of the politicians from Milwaukee. He said if they had to do it all over again they would of built Miller Park in downtown Milwaukee. He said there's one location in the downtown area where the park could of been built. He said the city of Milwaukee rushed to build a park without giving alot of thought to it. Building stadiums in the downtown areas of the city brings people downtown and keeps them downtown if they decide to go to a game after work. This has worked for most cities and I wish the White Sox had done the same thing.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-18-2014, 11:07 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 29,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SI1020 View Post
The Pirates played at Exposition Park 1882-3, Recreation Park 1884-90, and a newer Exposition Park 1891-1909. Those parks were located in the city of Allegheny which was annexed by Pittsburgh in 1907. It is Pittsburgh's north side. The Pirates moved into a brand spanking new baseball stadium Forbes Field on June 30, 1909. Forbes Field was located in the Oakland neighborhood in the eastern part of the city. Oakland is a high density urban neighborhood where the University of Pittsburgh is located. In 1970 the Pirates returned to their north side roots with the opening of Three Rivers Stadium. They moved into the impressive PNC Park, also on the north side in 2001.
Thanks! I was looking into this a couple weeks ago and either forgot or got that wrong. I do remember there being 1 or 2 teams that have played in more or less the same location longer than the Sox, but I don't remember who those teams were.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-19-2014, 08:00 AM
Steelrod Steelrod is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL View Post
I'm not so sure about any extensive research on Sportsvision, I think that was all Einhorn's idea and because he was a TV sports genius he thought Sportvision would fly. Horrible idea but because I was a die hard I was one of the idiots that bought into it.
Pay to watch sports on television. A genius idea, but before it's time. Look thru your channel guide and see how much of it is there now!
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-19-2014, 09:43 AM
WhiffleBall WhiffleBall is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roylestillman View Post
The window is starting to close on a South Loop site for a new ballpark. The only large parcel left is the old rail yards south of Roosevelt to 18th, the River to the Rock Island (Metra) tracks on the east. Given the recent late blooming success of the Roosevelt Collection, I can't believe it will be long before that parcel is sold and developed. The Ryan, Stevenson and Kennedy can all feed into that site easily, and the announced Wells Street Connection will be an easy route from the Loop. The distance from the Loop is no different than the United Center, which does OK.

I think the drum beat for a new park will begin soon. The Cell is either the 8th or 9th oldest park in the MLB. I wouldn't doubt that losses from bad weather start a retractable dome discussion. The appetite for public funding is just not there, but a new owner with deep pockets may make a privately funded stadium feasible.

I would guess that the talk for a new Sox stadium won't begin until the US Cellular sponsorship runs out at the very earliest, which is around 2023? It also would never happen as long as JR is running things. A deep pocketed new owner would probably love the idea of moving to the South Loop but the state of IL might make them an incredible deal to stay at 35th. The state will not have much leverage when the stadium deal comes to an end. They would be stuck with this massive stadium that would see little to no use if the Sox move.

I live in Frankfort and have no problem with the current location (other than wishing there was a skyline view). Tons of families take metra to games and use the 35th stop. It's around a 30 minute drive from most south suburbs which is where a large majority of Sox fans live.

The condition of the current stadium is great. While it does not feel brand new, everything is nice and clean. The seats are fine, restrooms are clean, and there definitely is not that rundown feeling that you get at Wrigley or old Comiskey. It would almost be a crime to tear the place down any time soon.

I would also love to see this so called "study" that said that Addison would have been the ideal spot to build a new stadium in relationship to where the majority of sox fans lived at the time. I'm 100% sure JR the tax lawyer/real estate developer picked the Addison location for financial reasons and the study was fabricated.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-19-2014, 09:45 AM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,524
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL View Post
What I'm seeing here for the most part is that WSI members who live in the city think that the Sox are better off somewhere in Chicago while suburban residents feel the opposite.
I live in DuPage and the Addison park would have been more convenient for me personally. But, I still think it would have been a disaster overall. I'm willing to bet that many suburbanites think the Sox were better off staying in the city than moving to the suburbs.

I have learned long ago to not believe JR and EE when it comes to what they learned from market research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelrod View Post
Pay to watch sports on television. A genius idea, but before it's time. Look thru your channel guide and see how much of it is there now!
Looking through my channel guide, I see MLB teams that show their games on basic cable, not high priced premium channels. Paying $15/month (equivalent to $35 today) for one poorly rated team (especially with a crosstown competitor showing their games for free) was a complete failure in 1982 and it still would be a complete failure today.

As usual with Sox ownership, there was a kernel of truth to what they were trying to do, but they were totally tone deaf to the reaction of the fans and badly missed the mark.

I suppose if Einhorn was truly allowed to implement his genius unfettered by anyone else, the Sox would be making a fortune playing on a premium channel in Tampa/St. Pete.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06-19-2014, 10:55 AM
Golden Sox Golden Sox is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oswego, Illinois
Posts: 799
Default Hitmen77:

Don't let anybody tell you differently, Einhorn wanted to move the White Sox to St. Pete. When the White Sox agreed to stay in Chicago, Einhorn sold virtually all of his White Sox stock to JR. He then disappeared from the scene in Chicago and moved to Arizona. I was surprised to see him at the World Series parade. He is rarely here in Chicago. Maybe he was badly wounded by the Sportsvision fiasco. He thought the franchise was better off in Florida. He didn't like playing second fiddle to the Cubs here. I have no doubt in my mind that he would of still rather moved the team to Florida. He would of rather been a big fish in a small pond than play second fiddle to the Cubs. He even threw a dig at White Sox fans the week of the final stadium vote when he said "I really don't know how much of a fanbase the White Sox have in Chicago". Former sportswriter Jerome Holtzman responded by saying'' Did he forget the 2 million plus people the White Sox drew in 1983 and 1984"? He not only was wrong about Sportsvision but he was also wrong about St. Pete. The present ownerships handling of Sportsvision and the stadium issue have hurt the franchise badly.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-19-2014, 01:18 PM
SoxFanCPA SoxFanCPA is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 239
Default

When I lived in Beverly, I attended games all the time, but now that I'm in the suburbs, the travel time is always above an hour. I just don't want to sit in traffic anymore. A suburban stadium would be great for me.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.