I'm going to weigh in on this, and I'm going to try to avoid the hyperbole that's been exhibited from some on both sides. Also, I'm going to fully admit that since I'm a non-Chicagoan Cubs fan, I may not be as knowledgeable or in tune with all the nuances of the Chicago-area fans. The emphasis and priority should be continuing to play at Wrigley. The field is uniquely linked to the franchise, and there's no doubt it is an experience that is unique and has value. However, the supremacy of this option is also linked to the Cubs being able to schedule, market, do what they want with their field, as most other teams can. If that happens to not be the case.... then, the Cubs may have to explore other options. How these other options compare will depend on a variety of factors. The main issue for the Cubs will be profitability away from Wrigley vs profitability at Wrigley, taking into account the limitations that playing at Wrigley contains. While everyone may have a preference, the real question will be how much moving will hurt them as a franchise vs the gains that moving may or may not bring. For example, if the Cubs build a new stadium and field in an area such as Rosemont and also own the parking lots, that could produce a revenue source that may make up for loss of attendance. Also, they could have more luxury suites in such a park. Finally, let me state so no one misunderstands my view. I believe the Cubs should do everything they can to continue to play at Wrigley, but if they continue to be unecessarily limited, then moving may not be a bad option, depending on a lot of other factors, such as how much a suburban area will contribute to a new stadium, how much the Cubs could make at the new stadium in areas other than just ticket sales, etc.