Is Owen Caissie Capable of Replicating Kyle Tucker's 2025 Production On His Own?

[RandallPnkFloyd]

Image courtesy of © Patrick Gorski-Imagn Images

We don't know the extent to which the Chicago Cubs attempted (or might still attempt) to keep Kyle Tucker on the North Side long-term. The fact that they (seemingly) aren't pushing to retain him is an indictment of the organization's way of doing business. In all likelihood, they'll have a new right fielder in 2026—and it's likely someone already in-house.

The most likely scenario is that Seiya Suzuki resumes his role (at least part-time) on the outfield grass, freeing up the team to rotate different bats through the designated hitter spot. While his defensive shortcomings were part of the reason he was pushed out upon Tucker's arrival last offseason, there's a certain flexibility attached to not having a permanent designated hitter. It would also allow the Cubs to ease in some of their imminent arrivals from the farm who are destined for more permanent roles in 2026. Most notable among that cohort is Owen Caissie. 

Let's step into fantasy land for a moment. Assume a world wherein Suzuki retains his post as the team's designated hitter, with Caissie taking the full-time gig in right field. If such a world exists, is it possible that he'd be able to approximate the production that Tucker generated in his lone season with the Cubs? 

The important distinction to make before diving into such an imaginary world is that this thread is not about whether Caissie can be Tucker, in a broad sense. When healthy, Tucker is one of the best all-around players in the major leagues. It’s fairer, though, to ponder whether the 2026 iteration of Caissie can provide the Cubs with something akin to what they got from 2025 Kyle Tucker, and only that version of him. 

Tucker's 2025 campaign included a .266/.377/.464 line, with nearly identical strikeout (14.7%) and walk (14.6%) rates. He hit 22 homers, stole 25 bases, and ended the year with a 136 wRC+ that trailed only Michael Busch among Cubs regulars. His 4.5 fWAR lagged only Pete Crow-Armstrong (5.4) and Nico Hoerner (4.8). His defense wasn't quite at the level of years prior in the eyes of the metrics, but his Fielding Run Value (which accounts for both range and arm) was 0, so he was essentially average.

That year was far from Tucker's best, but the all-around play for which he's known shone through. The approach was elite; the power showed up when he was healthy; and he was strong on the bases. Factor in the adequate defense and you've got a player succeeding from pretty much every angle, even when accounting for some second half struggles wrought by health issues. 

Is that something that the Cubs could possibly hope for Caissie to replicate? Probably not. Caissie made 433 trips to the plate with Iowa in 2025. He carried a .286/.386/.551 line, with 22 home runs and five steals. His strikeout rate lingered around 28%, while he walked at a 13.2% clip. His wRC+ came in at 139. His 27 plate appearances in the big leagues showed where the adjustment will be needed, as he struck out 11 times, walked just once, and wasn't able to get the power going within such a minuscule sample (.154 ISO).

Even if you translated Caissie’s production from Triple A directly to the next level, you're not getting the all-around production someone like Tucker provides. He lacks the approach, and he's not the same quality of baserunner. At best, you're getting the power that Tucker had and some of the ability to work a walk. Perhaps even more so, considering Caissie’s power upside. The strikeout avoidance and the steals are glaring areas where Tucker's departure would be notable, should Caissie assume a full-time role. One does have to wonder, though, the impact that an upgrade in the power alone could have on the offense considering the wealth of contact and baserunning skills that exist throughout the rest of this lineup.

For what it's worth, STEAMER projects a .237/.315/.405 line (good for a 103 wRC+) in 322 plate appearances for Caissie in 2026. Given that we don't know what his role for next season will look like, it's a justifiably conservative projection. It would, though, seem to indicate that Caissie would be cycling through as more of a reserve outfielder and designated hitter than an actual outfield regular. That should probably be the expectation at this point, given Suzuki's prior work in right field.

It’s also important to consider the idea that perhaps the Cubs don’t need the replication of Tucker’s production to come solely from that position. Moisés Ballesteros is going to be a factor in all of this, too. STEAMER likes him for a .266/.330/.408 line (108 wRC+) and a more aesthetically pleasing output in the strikeout (17.2%) and walk (8.2%) rates. With him as part of the equation, you’re introducing two left-handed hitters with different swings and different skill sets. Add Suzuki in and you’re cycling three players through two spots, allowing Craig Counsell to deploy any of the trio within the platoon advantage that can maximize outcomes. That element starts to get the Cubs in a direction where they’re able to work toward getting the same (if not better) production in the aggregate, rather than relying on a single player to do so. It changes the calculus altogether.

Ultimately, the Cubs don't need Caissie (or Ballesteros, for that matter) to be Tucker, but they're going to need to find ways to at least replicate some of the all-around production he provided throughout much of last season. If Caissie can provide coverage in the areas where he excels (power and getting on base), that would be a massive boon to the group at large, even if the other areas where Tucker contributed suffer as a result.

View full article

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Thank you for asking, no he is not

[Bertz]

I think a good expectation for Caissie (or Mo) that toes the line between optimistic and realistic is something like Michael Busch's rookie year.  Michael Busch put up a roughly 120 wRC+ as a rookie, and that game with the benefit of significant platoon support.

Busch, like Caissie, took two go arounds at AAA.  Busch, like Caissie, improved significantly his second go around.  Busch, like Caissie, very much felt like he had mastered the level when he finally got his cup of coffee at the MLB level.  Unlike Caissie, Busch was able to get his K rate under 20% in his second go around, which led to him being a tier better as a hitter at AAA.  That said I think that is balanced, hopefully more than balanced, by being three years older at the same career step. 

But Caissie just being 1 for 1 a Kyle Tucker replacement is probably something like a 95th percentile outcome.  It's not impossible but if we're already seeding expectations there then this highly petulant fanbase is going to eat him alive.  Let's not do that.

[Tryptamine]

1 hour ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Thank you for asking, no he is not

Yeah, this OP didn't even deserve a well thought out rebuttal, simply a "No" and moving on is best for everyone.

[Tryptamine]

4 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I think a good expectation for Caissie (or Mo) that toes the line between optimistic and realistic is something like Michael Busch's rookie year.  Michael Busch put up a roughly 120 wRC+ as a rookie, and that game with the benefit of significant platoon support.

Busch, like Caissie, took two go arounds at AAA.  Busch, like Caissie, improved significantly his second go around.  Busch, like Caissie, very much felt like he had mastered the level when he finally got his cup of coffee at the MLB level.  Unlike Caissie, Busch was able to get his K rate under 20% in his second go around, which led to him being a tier better as a hitter at AAA.  That said I think that is balanced, hopefully more than balanced, by being three years older at the same career step. 

But Caissie just being 1 for 1 a Kyle Tucker replacement is probably something like a 95th percentile outcome.  It's not impossible but if we're already seeding expectations there then this highly petulant fanbase is going to eat him alive.  Let's not do that.

I think even that is wildly optimistic.

[chopsx9]

Well I think if you look at it as Cassie + whatever you spend Tucker's money on it's a little more favorable proposition.

[squally1313]

33 minutes ago, chopsx9 said:

Well I think if you look at it as Cassie + whatever you spend Tucker's money on it's a little more favorable proposition.

Aggregating war from multiple spots to replace one guy is not a strategy you want to indulge in very often, and I think you’re going to struggle to find someone at $16m to pair with Caissie that matches tuckers production anyways. 

[Rcal10]

5 hours ago, Tryptamine said:

I think even that is wildly optimistic.

He did say a 95% outcome. Which means Cassie plays to close to his absolute ceiling. I don’t think Cassie having a 4.5WAR year playing to his absolute highest ceiling is wildly optimistic. He didn’t say he would do that. Thinking he plays to his 95% ceiling is wildly optimistic. But if he did, which is Bertz point, he would be a guy with a 4.5WAR or better. 

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

I know he could replicate two months of Kyle Tucker last year. Probably not the other four.

[Arlen]

Thanks, but neither STEAMER nor a palm reader can predict what such players will hit next year.

[chopsx9]

20 hours ago, squally1313 said:

Aggregating war from multiple spots to replace one guy is not a strategy you want to indulge in very often, and I think you’re going to struggle to find someone at $16m to pair with Caissie that matches tuckers production anyways. 

Who said anything about doing it very often?  You also wouldn't be paying Tucker 16M this year so that number isn't really pertinent.  Teams do it all the time although they don't do it specifically in terms of WAR.  The Cubs problem is the lack of an obvious offensive position to upgrade if we are starting with the assumption that Cassie is playing.  You could conceivably do something at third I suppose or plow it into pitching.  Really the point was that simply comparing Cassie to Tucker isn't the entire equation.  I also didn't say anything about the production matching - I said the comparison would be more favorable.

Edited December 4, 2025 by chopsx9

[squally1313]

13 minutes ago, chopsx9 said:

Who said anything about doing it very often?  You also wouldn't be paying Tucker 16M this year so that number isn't really pertinent.  Teams do it all the time although they don't do it specifically in terms of WAR.  The Cubs problem is the lack of an obvious offensive position to upgrade if we are starting with the assumption that Cassie is playing.  You could conceivably do something at third I suppose or plow it into pitching.  Really the point was that simply comparing Cassie to Tucker isn't the entire equation.  I also didn't say anything about the production matching - I said the comparison would be more favorable.

It is pertinent because we're comparing hypothetical 2026 production per dollar to what we got in 2025. Yeah, it would cost you more to retain Tucker's 2026 performance, but losing it is still a downgrade in terms of actual output. And you need to spend more money or trade capital to make up the difference.

The actual equation is Caissie plus whatever they do with $16m vs Tucker and whoever/whoevers that $16m replaces. We didn't have a lot of black holes last year, so you're going to be losing some additional 2025 production on top of Tucker in this scenario.