WrigleyField 22

He might be the funnest in terms of edging out his place on the list. While many fail on like 1:3 rookie cup of tea he maneges to sneak by with multiple low PA seasons of 16:15 5:3 9:2 (on 36 PA!) Even his partial season with the 1941 Dodgers makes the list at 3:1 at 31 PA. So two teams in one season.

Sorry Gracey https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/randowi01.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hargrmi01.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gilliji01.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/ashburi01.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/ashburi01.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/galanau01.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/vaughar01.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool If 0:0 tie on 26 PA counts https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/applilu01.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool Honorable mention to Mr I Hate Walks Even Though I Walked A Lot (on two very low PA seasons) https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/morgajo02.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool The end or the career misses might be more prevalent than the rookie ones... Damn. A very modest PA minimum would turn up at least another dozen. Source list I used to find possible candidates (didn't search all 200, focused on biggest differentials, so may be more) https://www.baseball-reference.com/tools/share.fcgi?id=Egf3A

Ted Williams missing out on a year with 2:2 on a year with 12 PA is rough, lol Ozzie Smith is another who misses only on a tie 37:37 on 649 PA in 1979 Searching for other possibilities....

Nah Warren bungled this. It would never have taken this long with someone who knew what they were doing. Thats even if it meant they eventually ended up in Indiana. They probably could have been playing there by 2027, if not this year.

I have a hard time believing the interest is zero. However it's clear to me that the Indiana deal won't be a clear giveaway where it's like $4B difference or something absurd. If it's like $1B package in favor of Indiana it's all short term financial gain and will be probably all be lost in like a decade.

DBB said same thing. Of course DBB still says glowing reviews of Phillips and it seems pretty evident Phillips didn't know how to prep for a stadium deal either as he oversaw purchase and closing period until Warren came in.

Lmao https://indianaeconomicdigest.net/MobileContent/Most-Recent/Government-state/Article/Wolf-Lake-site-in-Lake-County-would-pose-challenges-for-new-Chicago-Bears-stadium-residents-say/31/124/120669

I'm fairly confident all the super confident ones are straight up mouthpiece. Thats not to say Indiana isn't real. But if the Bears want best leverage possible, they need the window on both to stay open. Even with the legislation in place in Indiana they don't have a real deal until ink is on paper with financial terms and a site plan. And having two courters strengthens their leverage no matter who their favorite is. I predicted weeks ago that the Bears would make some level of commitment to Indiana by end if Feb. And actually that statement was even less commital than I thought they'd go.

Yea people are desperate to find comparable situations when a 20-25 year stadium run is pathetic. And the Bears had other options for years that they either didn't want or fumbled on. The same people who are like "derp derp way to go Illinois" have zero self awareness of the irony of the last time the state made a deal with the same damn business.

And that's part of what never made sense from the day they put the bid on Arlington. It was always going to be a Stan Kroeke level investment. If it was just about an upgraded football facility, there is a site in Chicago with political will and is probably viable. Probably 2 actually (I'm sure minor renos to Soldier Field could address issues). Bears want a multi use facility that they don't have the money or know how to really pull off.

$855M for infrastructure was the official ask, publically announced Sept 30, 2025. Then also tax certainty in the form of a "PILOT" bill which is a mega-project bill that allows mega developments to negotiate a fixed long term payment with local taxing jurisdictions. On the first point, the Bears have never publically stated with any real specificity what that $855M covers. But reading between lines I don't beleive it is even covering infrastructure for the whole development, just the stadium. But for some context, NY State and Erie counties $850m was a record setting contribution at the time of their agreement (not in % terms or inflation adjusted, but still). We can presume cost has only risen since then and will probably have creep beyond inflationary reasons. Ultimately it's evident to me is that the AH site was a bad investment because of how much infrastructure was needed, and I don't think it's unreasonable to question if the public benefit for infrastructure would be there (let alone being paid back with new tax revenue). On the second point, I think the Bears have also been really bad at conveying specifics. There's been a lot of bad misinfo out there like "the state asked Bears to pay $200m". The state doesn't set tax rates/assessments, local taxing bodies do, and the $200m was never an ask from any government body but a third party think tank number on what the tax could be if the entire dev cost was the assessed value and taxed at standard commercial rate. And bad apples to apples comparisons are being made to much smaller properties, including Sofi where everyone is quoting as the highest stadium property tax ever at 8.8m, but that is additionally just the stadium and not entire 300 acre development. So at this point all we really know is Bears want new legislation, but even that wording they're still asking for tweaks on. And no explanation for why existing tax abatement structures like TIFs aren't suitable.

It's just so hard seeing this ending up anything other than a Meadowlands type stadium ABC 7 Chicago | This is the area where the Bears stadium would be... WWW.INSTAGRAM.COM 1,713 likes, 696 comments - abc7chicago on February 19, 2026: "This is the area where the...

I rarely go to games as is. It would probably become a Meadowlands type dump, and I'd go even less. So I'll move on, but I bet they'll see their franchise value grow more slowly than it could I bet. They'll still end up on the hook for a decent amount of the cost of trying to make Hammond a destination and when that fails they won't have made that much more to their name. Or at least less than if they prioritized a good location.

They're a poorly run business. Have been for a very long time. They've had several good offers in Chicago since Soldier Field's was thier "temporary home" in 1971. And turned them down for suspect reasons. We got the worst of the options eventually with a SF reno and now theyre solely focused on it being this multi-use entertainment district. Something they never really ever brought up until AH became available... Even today if they just wanted a nice football stadium, it could probably happen in the city. But they want to socialize even more cost to create a playground they are the sole benefactor of. Socialize cost. Privatize profit.

I think they need to change the fight song though. "You're the pride and joy of... Chicagoland" ?

Sir, do you know what a millenial is?

Yea. NWI by and large identify as Chicagoans just as much as every Cook County or collar County suburbanite does. Obviously it's not always mutual from our side haha, but it should be.

Well let's just say our old friend Sulley is threatening the same over at x dot com (and to become a Packers fan at that) I'd say it meets the meatball threshold if Sulley is on same side 😂 I'd dislike Hammond more than AH, but it's no different than any a number of teams. I'll probably never sing the fight song again though lol... or not that one line.

I believe Bears would be able to block that. NY Jets/Giants grandfathered in and in LA Rams didn't have the media rights so league could get both in at once.

It's definitely not a done deal. Bears couldn't just flirt with Indiana on this. Now they're dating. But it's like the Bachelor and they're dating multiple people. They're gonna tell each side they're special. The details will matter. Already the Indiana state leadership is saying Bears would commit $2B. This isn't a total free ride giveaway like it's been portrayed the past few weeks from many. Time will tell how close the packages are at the end of the day, but Cook County has a larger tax and economic base than all of NWI does, and I think the emotional appeal is still in Illinois' favor. Indiana may still be willing to sell their taxpayer away though and the most likely outcome is a long line of stadium deals that fail to deliver on the rosy picture they paint.

Bears are gonna be able to block any move to Chicago media market, I'm pretty sure. Don't think they'd have much luck luring a NFL expansion because of that. But it already is a top 10 (in revenue) concert venue for large venues. Obviously they'd have to compete against the new Bears stadium in Hammond or Arlington too. But it would probably do okay. And it could aggressively court itself for international soccer matches, and have no scheduling conflicts without Bears and Fire. But Bears and Fire both leaving will undoubtedly be a big hit. I'd imagine it can still clear enough revenue to pay it's upkeep costs for a while at least. At some point in the far future that probably stops being the case, and then it's teardown and parkland, which really is what the site would be best for.

It's not clear to me that he even did much to ask state early on. As I recall when he was rolling out the Chicago plan and parading around support of Mayor Johnson the word from downstate was that they weren't part of that planning. Lmao. It's like Warren had heard about the Chicago political machine and didn't understand the mayor hasn't held that type of sway since it was a Daley in the role. They kind of backed off Chicago in spring of last year, but didn't really focus solely on Arlington until September. I totally get downstate not treatimg them seriously and prioritizing their plans with that type of role out. The Bears appeared wholly disorganized IMO. I'm sure the Indiana pitch has helped accelerate the timeline. Time will tell if it actually creates pressure on the economics.

There were definitely bids on the property. I think they may have lost out if they had to get a public deal first. But they literally wasted like 2.5 years on Chicago. I don't know if that was supposed to be leverage or sincere, but it was a dead on arrival plan. I don't think they were actually ready for a plan. Soldier Field lease was still on for 12 years when Arlington Park got on market. So they scrambled to make it happen and then did... Whatever the heck that last 3 years was.

I think Rams-49ers is already week 1 in Australia. So yea, Bears best option. Only argument I've seen against it is that opening game will do ratings no matter what - so why waste a ratings cheat code with Bears - when you can pump up a later season game.

The most confusing directional part of Chicago is driving on 90/94 E-W