The Kyle Tucker Trade is the Only Thing Holding Up an Otherwise Rough Cubs Offseason

After landing Kyle Tucker, Chicago was "in" on names like Alex Bregman, Roki Sasaki and Tanner Scott. It ended up with none of them, though, and had to shop on the discount rack instead.

That's not a knock on some of the signings, like veteran infielder Justin Turner. Turner agreed to a deal with the Cubs on Tuesday. The 40-year-old can still get it done at the dish, slashing .259/.354/.383 in 2024 at age 39.

The problem is that the signing comes after a weeks-long pursuit of Bregman. At one point, it seemed the Cubs were destined to land the former Houston third baseman. Instead, he signed with the Boston Red Sox, and the vibe of coverage in the wake of that news has been bad—especially from national writers.

In the week since Bregman got his money, numerous reports have surfaced that the Cubs weren't seriously in contention. Take Buster Olney of ESPN, who dedicated an entire article to slamming the Cubs for clinging to their own pocketbook.

Quote

Nothing about the Cubs' offer could've given them a legitimate shot at landing a player who would've been a perfect fit. The Tigers offered the most total dollars on the table; the Astros offered a chance for Bregman to continue his Houston legacy, without being tapped for state taxes. The Red Sox deal offered the highest average annual salary, with contractual flexibility. It was as if the Cubs wanted Bregman to play for less money and the privilege of being part of their organization.

That's a radical oversimplification, and a bit of a mischaracterization. That Bregman passed on (a whole lot) more guaranteed money from Detroit tells us two things:

1. He didn't really want to play in Detroit, anyway; and
2. More guaranteed money wasn't going to tip the scales.

So, that critique is built on a foundation of sand. The Houston offer was a stalking horse, really. It was rescinded weeks before Bregman signed, and that was because he left it on the table for weeks in his own right. Only Boston offered a higher annual average value than the Cubs', and while creative deferrals gave them the ability to grab headlines with a high topline number, the real value of their deal was not wildly above the one the Cubs were offering. 

Still, the national media has the privilege of setting the tone of national baseball discussions, and right now, those discussions are going against the Cubs. Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic and Fox has been a constant critic of owner Tom Ricketts and how he's steered the franchise. Saying Rosenthal has been a critic, in fact, is a nice way of putting it.

Quote

The Cubs in 2023 were top five in both revenue and franchise value, according to Forbes.

But their current estimated luxury-tax payroll ranks 14th, according to Baseball Prospectus. They potentially are wasting what likely will be their only season with Tucker, who would have benefited from the addition of Bregman to the lineup. If Ricketts couldn’t land Bregman on a short deal, why should anyone expect him to keep Tucker long-term?

It’s not as if Ricketts’ payroll commitments are suffocating. Only two Cubs are under contract past 2026: left-hander Shota Imanaga (through 2027 if he exercises player options) and shortstop Dansby Swanson (signed through 2029). The team is more than $31 million under the luxury-tax threshold and possibly could have remained under even if it had signed Bregman, through deferrals or other moves.

It's hard to argue any of those points, and together, they make a mockery of Ricketts's "just break even" comments at Cubs Convention. Point, Rosenthal.

With the trade for Tucker, the Cubs put on the facade of a team investing big in the now. Give them credit for making that move, but the real defining moment will come next winter. They'll have a chance to put their money where their mouth is next offseason by re-signing Tucker, one of the premier outfielders in MLB, to a fair deal.

If the Cubs bring a broom to the batter's box hoping to hit a home run in contract negotiations with Tucker and his representation, they'll surely strike out in their efforts to convince the fanbase they were "in" the running.

Some are praising the Cubs for at least pivoting elsewhere, after losing out on Bregman, and landing Turner. Has it really gotten to that point with this franchise?

Turner provides a solid bat and veteran leadership. Bregman provides that, a Gold Glove at third, more power and 10 extra years of youth. That's why one cost more than five times what the other did, of course, but it takes a lot of mustering to generate optimism based on Turner after having had a shot at Bregman.

There's reason for optimism this year; don't mix it up. The National League Central is wide open and the Cubs made the biggest move in the division. They will enter the season as clear favorites to win the division crown. 

Winning the division and getting back to the postseason for the first (real) time since 2017 would be a feather in the cap for the front office. It wouldn't, however, be enough to truly turn around the narrative building within this fan base.

Nobody is expecting the Cubs to compete financially with the likes of the Los Angeles Dodgers and New York Mets. Coming up short on bigger names time and again, though, is a whole other problem.

Cubs fans are rightfully excited to see Tucker patrolling the outfield at Wrigley Field. That one move saved the Cubs from what has otherwise been an underwhelming offseason. Now, the season needs to save them from frustration over Tucker.