Question of the week: what will Kyle Tucker’s next contract cost?

[Brock Beauchamp]

If the Cubs plan to retain Tucker’s services in 2026, what number do they need to offer?

 

[Bertz]

I'd guess when the computers pop out their projections they'll peg him for something in the $350M-$400M range.

From there I sort of assume his deal will ultimately start with a 4, just because when you get into this stratosphere optics matter a lot and if the team is willing to do something like $380M or $390M why not stretch a bit more and do $400M to get it done and dusted?

12 years and $410M or something thereabouts?

[Backtobanks]

1 hour ago, Bertz said:

I'd guess when the computers pop out their projections they'll peg him for something in the $350M-$400M range.

From there I sort of assume his deal will ultimately start with a 4, just because when you get into this stratosphere optics matter a lot and if the team is willing to do something like $380M or $390M why not stretch a bit more and do $400M to get it done and dusted?

12 years and $410M or something thereabouts?

Pocket change for the other interested teams.

[Rcal10]

15 hours ago, Bertz said:

I'd guess when the computers pop out their projections they'll peg him for something in the $350M-$400M range.

From there I sort of assume his deal will ultimately start with a 4, just because when you get into this stratosphere optics matter a lot and if the team is willing to do something like $380M or $390M why not stretch a bit more and do $400M to get it done and dusted?

12 years and $410M or something thereabouts?

I think that annual will be higher, but I do think the deal will be over $400 and for at least 10+ years. If 12 years, maybe $440? I just hope the Cubs realize it is okay to get a little creative if they have to. I believe Vlad signed his deal with a signing bonus on it for a large amount. The bonus didn’t have to be paid all up front. It was also paid yearly, equal amounts. Same as his salary. But because it was a bonus he was taxed in his home state, not where he played. Gave him a lot more money, bubbling paying state tax, and didn’t cost the team anything more. If the Cubs are ever going to play with the big market teams this is the time. And if Tucker does like it here they should tell him to come to them if someone makes him a better deal and at least match it. Losing him is different then not signing the guys they passed on.  This one is here now. He needs to stay here.

[Derwood]

I don't think the emergence of PCA should make the signing of Tucker any less urgent. There is no guarantee that PCA will put up these numbers every year (or ever again, for that matter). Tucker has the track record

[Jason Ross]

Just now, Derwood said:

I don't think the emergence of PCA should make the signing of Tucker any less urgent. There is no guarantee that PCA will put up these numbers every year (or ever again, for that matter). Tucker has the track record

Absolutely. And even if you believed PCA was going to do this again for sure, there's no limit on "really good players". They play different positions. The more the merrier. 

[chibears55]

He'll likely end up close to 400, needs to get that power going again though, get to 30 HRs...

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, chibears55 said:

He'll likely end up close to 400, needs to get that power going again though, get to 30 HRs...

He has been in a homer drought, however he is still pacing to 27 homers. Personally, I think he will hit over 30 homers. But if he ends up with 29 instead of 33 is it really that big a deal if his OPS are over .900 at seasons end? I think we are always low when we discuss what guys will end up getting. They seem to get more. That is why I have him at the 12/$440 range. To me, the question shouldn’t be what does he get. The question should be “how can’t the Cubs sign him”? IMO he is a must sign for the organization. 

[Stratos]

Not sure the price matters since the Cubs very likely won't be the highest bidder.

Ricketts putting out more than double he's ever paid for a player.... don't see it happening.

Tucker trade probably let's Hoyer keep his job and gets Cubs in playoffs.   Mission accomplished.

Edited June 21, 2025 by Stratos

[chibears55]

32 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

He has been in a homer drought, however he is still pacing to 27 homers. Personally, I think he will hit over 30 homers. But if he ends up with 29 instead of 33 is it really that big a deal if his OPS are over .900 at seasons end? I think we are always low when we discuss what guys will end up getting. They seem to get more. That is why I have him at the 12/$440 range. To me, the question shouldn’t be what does he get. The question should be “how can’t the Cubs sign him”? IMO he is a must sign for the organization. 

He's definitely a must sign, and I wish they would get it done sooner rather then later. 

I think if he gets to the open market, theres going to be a team or two that will offer something crazy that TR won't come close to matching, especially if he has a strong second half.

[Rcal10]

7 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Not sure the price matters since the Cubs very likely won't be the highest bidder.

Ricketts putting out more than double he's ever paid for a player.... don't see it happening.

Tucker trade probably let's Hoyer keep his job and gets Cubs in playoffs.   Mission accomplished.

I still think Tucker is different than any other mega star FA. He is coming up to free agency after a year with the Cubs. This is a first for them. It isn’t like not being the highest bidder for a Bregman or Judge or anyone else people want to use as an example to explain why the Cubs won’t sign Tucker. In the end, maybe they don’t get him. Maybe someone offers him 12/$540 or something outlandish like that. But I do think the Cubs will made their most serious effort to actually sign a guy to a mega contract. I don’t believe Jed traded for him without at least having an expectation they will try keeping him long term. 

[Rcal10]

10 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

He's definitely a must sign, and I wish they would get it done sooner rather then later. 

I think if he gets to the open market, theres going to be a team or two that will offer something crazy that TR won't come close to matching, especially if he has a strong second half.

I don’t see him extending. Doesn’t mean they can’t still keep him. Also doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be trying. But if I were him I would wait, even if my intent was to stay with the Cubs. Why not? If he wants to stay he can also give the Cubs the option to match his best offer. At lesser he would know he got top dollar. 

[muntjack]

Trying to be objective,  I'm doubtful about him signing here.  I think they are going to avoid any big contracts prior to '27.  In lieu of that, they made the big trade in an attempt to keep favor.  I could see them doing something similar this offseason.  

[Rcal10]

25 minutes ago, muntjack said:

Trying to be objective,  I'm doubtful about him signing here.  I think they are going to avoid any big contracts prior to '27.  In lieu of that, they made the big trade in an attempt to keep favor.  I could see them doing something similar this offseason.  

The issue with the “27 season is fair. But I would think they could work around that somehow if they really want Tucker. 

[Stratos]

14 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

I still think Tucker is different than any other mega star FA. He is coming up to free agency after a year with the Cubs. This is a first for them. It isn’t like not being the highest bidder for a Bregman or Judge or anyone else people want to use as an example to explain why the Cubs won’t sign Tucker. In the end, maybe they don’t get him. Maybe someone offers him 12/$540 or something outlandish like that. But I do think the Cubs will made their most serious effort to actually sign a guy to a mega contract. I don’t believe Jed traded for him without at least having an expectation they will try keeping him long term. 

Well it usually takes some stupid money to win the bid on a mega-contract, and Jed isn't stupid and Tom is cheap.

Would be nice if they re-sign him but i'm not expecting it.

[Brian707]

The question should be is PTR going to be cheap?

I think we know the answer.  We will hear how the Cubs made a competitive offer but they will finish 4th while Tucker signs with Boston/NYY/NYM/LA

[Rcal10]

3 hours ago, Stratos said:

Well it usually takes some stupid money to win the bid on a mega-contract, and Jed isn't stupid and Tom is cheap.

Would be nice if they re-sign him but i'm not expecting it.

So it sounds to me like you would love to have him but don’t want a 10 year or more deal for him. In the past with mega FA that has been a stance you have taken. Would you call 10/$370 or even 12/410 stupid money? Would you be saying the Cubs shouldn’t have signed him if they do for this amount? Or would you rather they did something like 8/$312? Or by stupid money do you think someone will come up with $450-$550 and blow him up entirely? I think at those numbers there will be a lot of deferred money. And up until now the Cubs have not really shown a willingness to do that sort of deal. But as I have said before, Tucker is a different situation than any other FA people have wanted the Cubs to sign. He is here already. 

[Backtobanks]

As much as we all want the Cubs to re-sign him, the fact is that Ricketts knows that we don't need him to be competitive in the woefully weak NL Central.  We've got the assets (farm system and money) to acquire what we need for the next few years.  Ricketts will be just as happy with an 85-win team and money in his pocket than with a 93-win team with less money in his pocket.

[Geographyhater8888]

23 hours ago, Derwood said:

I don't think the emergence of PCA should make the signing of Tucker any less urgent. There is no guarantee that PCA will put up these numbers every year (or ever again, for that matter). Tucker has the track record

PCA is also under team control through 2030 making an extension even less urgent. What good does an extension do if it’ll hamstring their payroll when you sign Tucker with the hope you’ll get 5 highly productive years out of him in the front end of his deal and you’ll be adding less talent to the big league roster during a championship window, especially if Tom is adamant on being a fringe top 10 spender.

[Geographyhater8888]

2 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

So it sounds to me like you would love to have him but don’t want a 10 year or more deal for him. In the past with mega FA that has been a stance you have taken. Would you call 10/$370 or even 12/410 stupid money? Would you be saying the Cubs shouldn’t have signed him if they do for this amount? Or would you rather they did something like 8/$312? Or by stupid money do you think someone will come up with $450-$550 and blow him up entirely? I think at those numbers there will be a lot of deferred money. And up until now the Cubs have not really shown a willingness to do that sort of deal. But as I have said before, Tucker is a different situation than any other FA people have wanted the Cubs to sign. He is here already. 

The other glass half full possibility is that Jed is simply a smarter spender. Of the free agent short stops of the 2022-23 class, Swanson is the cheapest and has a higher BWAR than Turner, Boggarts and Correa.

Soto and Ohtani were out of their price range and I’ll give them a pass because those guys went their preferred destinations anyways, but Tuckers game projects to age well and it makes no sense to trade smith for a rental and slash payroll if he’s not part of the long term plans. Jed isn’t an impulsive spender. He won’t be making north of $600 million and a long shot for over $500 at that. 
 

much like the early years of the Epstein era the cubs didn’t break the bank and then went out and signed Lester Heyward Lackey Zobrist and Darvish when the contention window opened with the youngsters up on cheap deals.

end of the day it comes down to how serious ownership is about fielding a championship product vs Jerry Reinsdorf’s 88 win aspirations that’ll keep fans engaged while spending just enough to accomplish it, especially with 6 playoff seeds.

Edited June 22, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, Backtobanks said:

As much as we all want the Cubs to re-sign him, the fact is that Ricketts knows that we don't need him to be competitive in the woefully weak NL Central.  We've got the assets (farm system and money) to acquire what we need for the next few years.  Ricketts will be just as happy with an 85-win team and money in his pocket than with a 93-win team with less money in his pocket.

If the bottom line is team budget and not about what they pay one man, they can sign Tucker and still stay within the imaginary salary ceiling they want to be at. 

[Derwood]

1 hour ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

The other glass half full possibility is that Jed is simply a smarter spender. Of the free agent short stops of the 2022-23 class, Swanson is the cheapest and has a higher BWAR than Turner, Boggarts and Correa.

 

Turner has a higher fWAR over the past 2+ seasons, and if given the choice, I would probably trade him for Swanson straight up

[Geographyhater8888]

46 minutes ago, Derwood said:

Turner has a higher fWAR over the past 2+ seasons, and if given the choice, I would probably trade him for Swanson straight up

46 minutes ago, Derwood said:

Turner has a higher fWAR over the past 2+ seasons, and if given the choice, I would probably trade him for Swanson straight up

10.8 for Swanson vs 10.2 vs Turner since signing their deals, while paying Swanson $123 million less and 4 fewer years. I’d prefer Turner too,but I can live with it if it’s getting the best bang for your buck vs financial constraints set by Tom.

[Stratos]

4 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

So it sounds to me like you would love to have him but don’t want a 10 year or more deal for him. In the past with mega FA that has been a stance you have taken. Would you call 10/$370 or even 12/410 stupid money? Would you be saying the Cubs shouldn’t have signed him if they do for this amount? Or would you rather they did something like 8/$312? Or by stupid money do you think someone will come up with $450-$550 and blow him up entirely? I think at those numbers there will be a lot of deferred money. And up until now the Cubs have not really shown a willingness to do that sort of deal. But as I have said before, Tucker is a different situation than any other FA people have wanted the Cubs to sign. He is here already. 

No I'm not saying they shouldn't sign him for like 10/400. I haven't really thought about it.   I'm saying they probably won't.  I'm not sure him being here already changes the math for them much.

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, Stratos said:

No I'm not saying they shouldn't sign him for like 10/400. I haven't really thought about it.   I'm saying they probably won't.  I'm not sure him being here already changes the math for them much.

Changes the math? What are you referring to? Amount of wins with or without Tucker, playoff chance with or without, or team salary with or without Tucker? I think him here changes the first two but doesn’t have to change the payroll. Just allocate more to one guy.