Tucker

[kevinorie]

2 minutes ago, Derwood said:

This narrative that trading Cam for Tucker (and not retaining Tucker) is somehow the worst thing that's every happened is so weird. The Mets trading us PCA for Javy is like 10x worse (as Baez is infinitely worse than Tucker and PCA is infinitely better than Cam)

I'm not with you on all of that, just yet.

[Derwood]

4 minutes ago, kevinorie said:

I'm not with you on all of that, just yet.

Mets gave up PCA for a rental of Baez (and didn't re-sign him). PCA sorta sucks at the moment, but has a higher ceiling than Cam, and was traded to us for someone who never came close to Tucker's numbers

[kevinorie]

Paredes is a playable corner. Wesneski is a back-end of the rotation guy. Cam Smith carries as much prospective currency as PCA did, and made a big league roster for a competitive team almost immediately. And I don't mean to diminish PCA in any way, I love that dude. But that's alot to give up and I do agree that, Kyle Tucker is a stud and worthy of that haul. But you gotta re-sign him and my HOPE is, that has been the plan all along, regardless of the public persona.

[squally1313]

26 minutes ago, kevinorie said:

I agree. I suppose that was my point...that if they KNOW they are not willing to go however far it may be to retain him, I hate to see our return on investment end up as a compensatory pick. Understandably, that comes with a couple of extra months of fun baseball to watch as a fan if you don't trade him. Probably just thinking too much but it's a conversation I thought worth having.

Does the year of Kyle Tucker not count as part of the return?

[NorthsideAvenger]

6 minutes ago, Derwood said:

Mets gave up PCA for a rental of Baez (and didn't re-sign him). PCA sorta sucks at the moment, but has a higher ceiling than Cam, and was traded to us for someone who never came close to Tucker's numbers

PCA is "more in progress" then he does suck. 

As for Tucker, I can not help but think the impending work stoppage after 2026 is playing a role in the Cubs possibly (or not) re-signing Tucker.

[kevinorie]

Barring the Cubs winning the last game played, no. Regardless of how high a stock may go, if it drops back down below the purchase price and you sell, it's a net loss.

[The_Achiever]

If the Ricketts cry poor regarding Tucker I doubt I'll watch 10 games next season.  The Cubs have way too many built in advantages to horsefeathers around and be cheap.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, kevinorie said:

I agree. I suppose that was my point...that if they KNOW they are not willing to go however far it may be to retain him, I hate to see our return on investment end up as a compensatory pick. Understandably, that comes with a couple of extra months of fun baseball to watch as a fan if you don't trade him. Probably just thinking too much but it's a conversation I thought worth having.

At this point, it's compensatory pick, sign Tucker, or bust.

If the Cubs lose Tucker to the Mets or Yankees but made a compelling offer, that's just how it goes.

If the Cubs don't make an earnest attempt to sign him at all, shame on the Ricketts and maybe Hoyer.

[squally1313]

51 minutes ago, kevinorie said:

Barring the Cubs winning the last game played, no. Regardless of how high a stock may go, if it drops back down below the purchase price and you sell, it's a net loss.

that's not how it works. stocks don't provide value while you hold them. 

[Backtobanks]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

At this point, it's compensatory pick, sign Tucker, or bust.

If the Cubs lose Tucker to the Mets or Yankees but made a compelling offer, that's just how it goes.

If the Cubs don't make an earnest attempt to sign him at all, shame on the Ricketts and maybe Hoyer.

Who is deciding what "earnest attempt" means.  The Cubs were all in on Bregman and then we find out they offered 1 year.

Edited April 10, 2025 by Backtobanks

[Brock Beauchamp]

2 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

Who is deciding what "earnest attempt" means.  The Cubs were all in on Bergman and then we find out they offered 1 year.

That is not an earnest attempt. An earnest attempt is offering $400m when the Yankees offered $420m. Or not going to 13 years. Something like that.

[Backtobanks]

1 minute ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

That is not an earnest attempt. An earnest attempt is offering $400m when the Yankees offered $420m. Or not going to 13 years. Something like that.

That's your definition.  I have heard a lot of "earnest attempts" on FA offers according to the Cubs that don't even approach your definition.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

2 hours ago, squally1313 said:

that's not how it works. stocks don't provide value while you hold them. 

more like a bond with variable coupon payments and a draft pick due at maturity imo

[imb]

i dont know about you guys but a playoff run/chance at a world series+comp pick is way more valuable (and fun!) than half a year of tucker and someones 8th best prospect. 

[Bobson Dugnutt]

1 minute ago, Bobson Dugnutt said:

more like a bond with variable coupon payments and a draft pick due at maturity imo

interest pays out daily in the form of dongs.

[Rcal10]

36 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

That's your definition.  I have heard a lot of "earnest attempts" on FA offers according to the Cubs that don't even approach your definition.

I do think the Cubs will make an honest attempt to sign Tucker. As someone pointed out, they seldom deal prospects. Giving up what they did, IMO, means there is a serious offer coming for Tucker. That said, they still might not get him. But I do expect them to offer what it takes for a super star. Which means a 10+ year deal. Probably around $37M to $42M annually. I think it it is at $42 annual there will be deferrals. I think something like 12/$420 to $450 is an earnest attempt to sign him. And I think they will be around that number. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

44 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

That's your definition.  I have heard a lot of "earnest attempts" on FA offers according to the Cubs that don't even approach your definition.

Oh, I'm sure my definition and their definition are quite different.

[Backtobanks]

14 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

I do think the Cubs will make an honest attempt to sign Tucker. As someone pointed out, they seldom deal prospects. Giving up what they did, IMO, means there is a serious offer coming for Tucker. That said, they still might not get him. But I do expect them to offer what it takes for a super star. Which means a 10+ year deal. Probably around $37M to $42M annually. I think it it is at $42 annual there will be deferrals. I think something like 12/$420 to $450 is an earnest attempt to sign him. And I think they will be around that number. 

I hope you're right, but I doubt it.  Ricketts will be thinking about how many more buildings he could buy for $40 million a year for the next ten years.

[BigbadB]

14 hours ago, imb said:

i dont know about you guys but a playoff run/chance at a world series+comp pick is way more valuable (and fun!) than half a year of tucker and someones 8th best prospect. 

Exactly. I mean, what are we really talking about here? Trading Tucker at the deadline because he wants to test the market instead of accepting whatever offer the Cubs feel like offering, while the Cubs are 10 games in first place and looking like a team that could go deep in the playoffs? 

If the Cubs traded him at the deadline and then face planted the rest of the season, no one will ever know if they had a chance to win it al or not, and the chances of winning it without him drop dramatically.

This team currently has exclusive negotiating rights to sign one of the top 5 players in the game. They traded some talent for that right, while also having a chance to win a World Series this year because of his talent. There are two scenarios going forward that are acceptable:

A) Sign him to a lucrative long term deal to make him a Cub for the rest of his playing days

B) Ride it out to the playoffs.

I don't think we can even include the thought that this team doesn't make playoffs. They are winning this division with one arm tied behind their back. So it's pointless to include C) they are out of the playoffs at the end of June and trade Tucker for a haul when he declares he'll wait out for free agency.

If you trade Tucker at the trade deadline while in a playoff race, people will absolutely lose their minds. It's absolutely not even remotely an option. As far as what it would take to sign him, I think 500m will lock it up pre-free agency. If you can negotiate for less, yahoo!

[CubUgly]

17 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

At this point, it's compensatory pick, sign Tucker, or bust.

If the Cubs lose Tucker to the Mets or Yankees but made a compelling offer, that's just how it goes.

If the Cubs don't make an earnest attempt to sign him at all, shame on the Ricketts and maybe Hoyer.

I guess

what would be considered an earnest attempt is relative.  My instinct on this is they will make an offer, maybe even an initially competitive offer, but my inclination is that when the offer is called and then raised, our side folds the cards. 

[Jason Ross]

9 minutes ago, CubUgly said:

I guess

what would be considered an earnest attempt is relative.  My instinct on this is they will make an offer, maybe even an initially competitive offer, but my inclination is that when the offer is called and then raised, our side folds the cards. 

They may. I do think a side effect of the Vlad contract is that we have a range now. For example, I don't think Kyle Tucker will top the total of $500m by Vlad for a few reasons; most notably age - Vlad is younger and thus you can extend his contract out longer. Tucker will likely top the AAV of Vlad. So this puts his deal around $3375-$450m IMO. The number the Tucker camp dropped to Lance Brodzkowski is $475m over 10. Expect that to be higher than what they'd sign for - it's a media leaked number. I don' think this is far away from what Tucker would have been expected to sign, say, in December when they traded for him, though, and again, with the Vlad cap, I think we have an idea that these numbers seem...relatively in line and not crazy.

I think it's fair to assume two things about the Cubs as well:

1. They're not run by ignorant idiots. You may not always love every move, but every move remains logical and defensible if you look for it. It means they know the number Tucker would need pre-trade and have discussed that

2. That the Cubs didn't trade 3-years of Parades and Cam Smith just to put out a token offer to appease fans. 

I don't know if they'll get the job done, but the difference between $375m and $450m over 12 years is $6.25m. Justin Turner makes $6m in 2025. Again, assuming #1, that the Cubs aren't run by idiots, the difference between the low and the high numbers of that field is a Justin Turner each year - a backup corner expected to get maybe 300 PAs. In 10 years, with inflation, it will likely mean significantly less. It probably means an "in for a penny, in for a pound" situation - there just comes a point when you don't ring your hands over Justin Turners. If we expect the Cubs will earnestly offer the low end, I'm fairly sure that they would offer the high end if #2 remains true. 

I can also go through the Hoyer quotes again, but I'll leave that be. Point is...I really think the Cubs will give a good run on Tucker and that the end will probably be Tucker's choice more so than the Cubs refusal.

[CubinNY]

This is an interesting situation for the Kids. They let Jed go after him. If he produces and they don't/can't re-sign him, they look horrible and will take a hit in the media and with fans. A big hit. 

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that they make a good, not great, offer at an extension, and he goes to free agency. Then they try to get him in free agency, going "beyond their comfort level" (TM), and he signs elsewhere. 

That way, they look like they tried at every step to get it done, and they have plausible deniability for not trying to win stories that will come out. 

 

[squally1313]

I think they sign him. If I were being spiteful I would go back to the original trade thread and find all the people who thought we'd never actually make the trade. But I'm not, so I'm just going to say that they get it done. The luxury tax line is going to keep going up, and I think Ricketts/Hoyer got enough flack from not spending to that line this year. The cost controlled guys are going to stay cheap, he's going to be spending $150m or whatever every year  on non-controlled players, and that number goes up yearly, and we have basically just Swanson after next year, who's contract looks more and more reasonable every day. Lock in the elite player and then, if you want to be pessimistic, just run out overmatched AAAA players to fill spots instead of middling free agent signings to save money on the back end. 

[Brian707]

Ricketts doesn't care what people think. I hope they sign Tucker, but I think the reality of that happening is probably 5%. Especially with what their president is doing to the stock market.

[squally1313]

Like, if you're projecting a future where the payroll drops to $120m after 2026 because of various Evil PTR reasons*, sure, there's no chance. But if he's going to publicly come out and say that they're going to spend close to the luxury tax line, why does he necessarily care whether it's one Kyle Tucker or 2.5 Jameson Taillons? They'll just be less active in free agency and have a guy to point to when they sit out future top free agents. But the money is going to be spent either way.

* To clarify so goalposts aren't moved, Tom Ricketts is a terrible human being who deserves no happiness or joy and I would strongly prefer he sells the team yesterday, if not sooner.