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

[PeanutPunch33]

It's a catch 22.  Obviously we all want the Cubs to win the World Series this year, but if they do, I don't see a scenario where they extend Tucker. 

They'll go back to the fanbase and say "see!  we know what we're doing!  stop calling us cheap!" and they'll just stick Caissie in RF next year.  Hope I'm wrong.  

 

[Rcal10]

39 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

It's a catch 22.  Obviously we all want the Cubs to win the World Series this year, but if they do, I don't see a scenario where they extend Tucker. 

They'll go back to the fanbase and say "see!  we know what we're doing!  stop calling us cheap!" and they'll just stick Caissie in RF next year.  Hope I'm wrong.  

 

I don’t see it that way at all. If they win a World Series how does he then let Tucker go? Why not show his fanbase they mean business and want to win again? Regardless of winning or falling short, IMO the cubs will be very aggressive about signing Tucker. I don’t think how this year ends will factor into the equation. 

[Backtobanks]

4 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

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. 

Sure, they can assuming a bunch of prospects come up and replace some of our regulars, but that is highly unlikely.

[Rcal10]

5 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

Sure, they can assuming a bunch of prospects come up and replace some of our regulars, but that is highly unlikely.

What bunch of prospects? If they move either Happ or Suzuki and one prospect comes up (not a bunch) they can have Tucker and be under the LT. They actually don’t even have to do that, but knowing Ricketts they will have to lower cost somewhere. 

[PeanutPunch33]

31 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I don’t see it that way at all. If they win a World Series how does he then let Tucker go? Why not show his fanbase they mean business and want to win again? Regardless of winning or falling short, IMO the cubs will be very aggressive about signing Tucker. I don’t think how this year ends will factor into the equation. 

I just think back to after they won in '16 and had a really good '17.  They didn't really commit to spending.  I recall they traded for Quintana and then signed that pitcher from Colorado.  But no other significant moves.  Maybe I'm misremembering.  But it seems that ownership gets complacent or content when they have success.  

[Rcal10]

Just now, PeanutPunch33 said:

I just think back to after they won in '16 and had a really good '17.  They didn't really commit to spending.  I recall they traded for Quintana and then signed that pitcher from Colorado.  But no other significant moves.  Maybe I'm misremembering.  But it seems that ownership gets complacent or content when they have success.  

Different situation though. They also didn’t lose a star. I agree they did not add. As you said they traded for Quintana during the year. But they didn’t let any big time player go. Losing Tucker would be losing a big time player. 

[Derwood]

They didn't re-up any of the stars who got them there, though

[Rcal10]

28 minutes ago, Derwood said:

They didn't re-up any of the stars who got them there, though

Yep, 5 years later they let them go. 

[Backtobanks]

3 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

What bunch of prospects? If they move either Happ or Suzuki and one prospect comes up (not a bunch) they can have Tucker and be under the LT. They actually don’t even have to do that, but knowing Ricketts they will have to lower cost somewhere. 

Who is the one prospect that's going to step into Happ or Suzuki's shoes and keep us competitive?  Remember our last two "can't miss prospects" really struggled for months.  They do have to pay PCA, Steele, whoever we acquire in the Happ/Suzuki deal (I'm assuming they won't be prospects), and Tuckers $37-40 million dollars.

  

[Rcal10]

18 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

Who is the one prospect that's going to step into Happ or Suzuki's shoes and keep us competitive?  Remember our last two "can't miss prospects" really struggled for months.  They do have to pay PCA, Steele, whoever we acquire in the Happ/Suzuki deal (I'm assuming they won't be prospects), and Tuckers $37-40 million dollars.

  

Well they are almost $30M under now. And that is with paying Tucker $16M. So if Tucker gets paid $36M they are still $10M under without trading Happ or Suzuki. If they traded one of them for prospects they would be back to about $30M under. They can always sign a veteran bat who can platoon with whatever rookie they want to bring up. They would still have Tucker, PCA, Busch, Swanson, Hoerner, Amaya, Shaw and whoever they didn’t trade between Happ or Suzuki. That is still a very good line up, assuming Shaw is better next year. So there wouldn’t be that much pressure on the 9th bat in the line up, whether it is a FA guy for $8M or a rookie. There are several ways they can go. Signing Tucker doesn’t mean they have to be over the LT or play all rookies. And for that matter, they can go over next year because the year after, if they didn’t get rid of any of the guys in 25 several would be gone and they can be replaced cheaper. I am not a GM. I don’t have all answers. But I do know they can sign Tucker and still stay under, for at least the ‘27 season and probably even ‘26. 

[Stratos]

6 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

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. 

I meant Tucker being a Cub pre-free agency changing the math on them wanting or not to sign him to a big contract.

But yes those aspects you mentioned are essentially the math.

Ideal scenario here is Ricketts bumping up payroll by tens of millions and re-signing Tucker.  I'd wager a big payroll team will sign him, which we aren't right now (we're 13th out of 30 teams in payroll this year).

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/tax

Edited June 23, 2025 by Stratos