http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-080120cubs,1,908462.story?coll=cs_tab01_layout I have a problem with this part of the article... It would seem to me that they are locking the new owner into a stadium deal in the short term, but are making it more likely that the owner will move the team in the long term. If the owner has to pay rent and doesn't have flexibility to make changes to the park, why wouldn't he consider other options as soon as the contractual obligations are fulfilled? I think people should see through Tribune Company's attempt to make this sale about keeping the Cubs in Wrigley Field, when it is truly only about squeezing every last penny out of the team.