It seems like all of the stores with property owned by the company that close have everything to do with location (leased properties are another story -- the company doesn't want to make a commitment, regardless of the particular location's profitability, so it opts to close them when the lease is up).
Sears can get top dollar for those stores in good locations, so it sells/closes them to make way for someone else. Meanwhile, the properties owned by Sears Holdings that aren't as appealing as far as location and economic viability is concerned tend remain open, even if the store is losing tons of money.
It seems like there are a lot of those kinds of stores left. All of the better performing stores with higher volume and decent profit have went away or will go away because they were either leased, or if the property was owned by Sears Holdings, it would make a decent amount of money selling it off.
To me, it looks like the company is going after short-term, one-time gains by closing stores with a measurable potential of large returns based on those stores being situated in "prime" locations attractive to other retailers or other venues. However, as these stores close, the stores that have little to no viability on the commercial real estate market tend to remain open and are often a major draw on the company's bottom line, so the short term gains of real estate transactions are offset by losses incurred by remaining, underperforming stores that the company keeps open.
As a semirhetorical question, what will happen with all of these stores in/on property owned by Sears Holdings that are basically worthless in the commercial real estate market?