How Much Does Chicago Cubs' Failure to Reach Agreement With Kyle Tucker Matter?

[Matthew Trueblood]

Here's a hint: the answer starts with a 'z' and ends with an 'ero'.

Image courtesy of © Thomas Shea-Imagn Images

It's important that you understand this: Thursday's news was not important. The only thing that matters about the Cubs and Kyle Tucker filing proposed salaries of $15 million and $17.5 million, respectively, for Tucker in 2025 is that you grasp the pivotal fact that it doesn't matter. This is a non-story. This is a nothingburger. Please, please stop wasting your energy and attention on it.

Some fans balked when Tucker was the only arbitration-eligible player with whom the Cubs didn't strike a pre-arbitration deal Thursday, making it more likely that the two sides end up going to a hearing to determine how much the team's superstar right fielder will be paid this year. They felt it was a bad look, or that it indicated a dearth of seriousness about keeping him beyond 2025 on the part of the Cubs, or that going to a hearing risks alienating him. More than a handful of people can be found lamenting it as the end of any hope that the Cubs will extend Tucker, or even re-sign him when he hits free agency at the end of next season.

To all those fans, I offer this advice: Stop. Immediately forget about this, and (if it's safe to do so) go outside. This does not have any impact whatsoever, and you should not care about it in any way. The Cubs have never had a very good chance of extending Tucker, because he's a youngish impending free agent with a $500-million upside in free agency and the Cubs have still never paid even $200 million to lock up a player long-term. This development, however, is a purely procedural and banal piece of obligatory news, and it doesn't change their odds of securing Tucker at all, in either direction.

For some teams and players, going to a hearing is a frustrating and, yes, enmity-inducing outcome. Those cases, though, involve players and teams who have been together for years, with all the mutual emotional and financial investment that comes with that—including, often, simmering mistrust, or outrage at what can seem like a betrayal. It's the role of the team to talk about why a player should earn the lower of two proposed salaries, during these hearings, which can wound players who have been brought up by that organization and thought they were doing everything asked of them.

It's entirely different to go to arbitration with a player you just acquired. There aren't deep enough emotional roots for the plucking of an otherwise tender spot to hurt that much. This is, regrettably, a business, and for guys just joining a new club, arbitration is a very normal and fairly bloodless process. Tucker's not going to end up in a snit with the Cubs, even if a hearing takes place—which is still far from guaranteed.

The gulf here is wide, but it means that the sides could find any of a handful of midpoints at which to meet. At the outset of the offseason, MLB Trade Rumors projected a $15.8-million salary for Tucker. He and his agents filed at $17.5 million, and the Cubs at $15 million, meaning the Cubs are much closer to the projected mark. It seems perfectly possible that Tucker would take, say, $16.2 million, just under the midpoint between the filing numbers but $400,000 more than his projection from a few months ago.

Because $2.5 million would make such an unfathomable difference in all our lives, we sometimes imagine that a player might behave with as much gratitude and dedication in response to receiving that much money as we would. Many fans seem to think the Cubs should have just paid Tucker $17.5 million, in the hopes of buttering him up for an extension. I can't stress enough how much that isn't the real world of baseball players and their salaries. That concession would not be worth anything in terms of making Tucker want to stick around; he's playing for much bigger prizes. Even as a gesture, in the modern game, that kind of extra payout falls flat.

If (as I know is true for many) you've pinned your hopes for the team's future on a Tucker extension, I do have bad news, which is a repetition of what I said at the top of this piece: it's unlikely that he signs one. It was never likely that the Cubs would ink him to that kind of deal, and it's not even very likely that they'll re-sign him when he becomes a free agent in November. Thursday's failure to agree on a salary for 2025, though, just doesn't matter at all in that context. It's simply something that happened. The acquisition of Matt Festa is a more valuable thing to think about at length—and since Festa himself might never appear in a Cubs uniform, that is saying something.

The Cubs will still make Tucker an offer this winter. It's just not likely to be an adequate one. That's been the reality all along, and it's ok. The stakes are very high for 2025. Don't bother trying to reduce them by fantasizing about a 10-year Tucker deal. One could materialize; it's not out of the question. But it's not the reason why they made last month's trade, and it's not necessary that Tucker sign a long-term deal to justify that trade. The value of that move was the way it increased the team's viability for 2025, including the fact that it demonstrated Jed Hoyer's understanding of the need for just this kind of player. At whatever salary, he will take the field for the Cubs this season, and the important questions are about which other players the team finds to add to his supporting cast.

View full article

[CubinNY]

Trading Smith for one year of Tucker on this team makes little sense. But at least they won't have messy books like the Mets and Dodgers. That seems to be important.

[jersey cubs fan]

Kind of a hypocritical look to say stop talking about this story it’s a nothing burger over the course of 9 paragraphs 

[We Got The Whole 9]

36 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Trading Smith for one year of Tucker on this team makes little sense. But at least they won't have messy books like the Mets and Dodgers. That seems to be important.

That or signing Soto were the most impactful moves a team could have made this offseason. If he plays like he did last season and stays healthy then they should win the division. This isn't like when a 75 win team traded for Matt Garza.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I think there's two particularly good points here. One is that just meeting Tucker's arb ask doesn't move the needle on him signing an extension later.  No one picks a particular airline because they have the best snacks.

The other is about the perceived animosity created by haggling and I think it's reflective of how we tend to look at these relationships in a flat, un-nuanced way.  Tucker is new to the Cubs so he hasn't built up a relationship, and this act moves the needle from neutral to negative.  Ian Happ had many years with the Cubs so the lost equity from going to arb still left the relationship ledger in the positive and facilitated an extension.  But that's not how relationships work in practice, where potentially small slights hurt more from someone you're close to compared with someone who you just met.  Even if I were sensitive about a particular point, I'd be far more likely to chalk it up to a misunderstanding with someone I had just met compared to a close family member.

The last nod I'll make at this point is that we are talking about humans, and we are not known for our rationality in all circumstances.  Going to arb is likely a nothingburger in most cases, but possibly not all.  That said, everything we know of Tucker doesn't seem to point to the case, whereas I might have a greater concern if it were, say, Marcus Stroman they were trying to woo long term.

[Victor Reichman]

IMO, giving away Bellinger for almost nothing in return was a horrible mistake. Many teams were looking for both OFs and 1B and Belli is above average in both. To throw in another $5 mil was foolish.

What is worse is that the move for Tucker is likely a 1 yr. rental. He will command big money and to not have an extension worked out with him before the trade is malpractice. It was done because he is an upgrade over Belli, but not enough to justify a 1 yr rental. It was done by Hoyer to hopefully preserve his job and allow a good shot at the playoffs.