Jason Ross

Michael Busch is becoming a favorite of mine when he hits. Just good PAs.

Normally, I'd take anything Hector said with a grain of salt. With that said, I'll say this: 1. Mike Rodriguez claimed the Cubs had approached Tucker 2. When Jesse Rogers refuted it, he doubled down. 3. This is super specific. It wasn't just a "hey Mike is right" it's got numbers and details. It feels more real for those reasons. I'm not going to say it's happening, but that feels more than just a normal Hector/Mike duet.

Its still shockingly specific.

Really glad to see the power. He's always had the body for power but struggled with barrel control at Myrtle, especially his first season. It feels like a pretty logical outcome that first would be contact, then would come the power. Keep this up and he could end up in Knoxville by the end of the year. At 21 that would be a really good ending spot for him in 2025.

JP Wheat has been fun so far. Do it again.

Boyd has some juice.

Cruz keeps getting mentioned positively. It's something I'm keeping note of.

I'm okay with that.

@Stratos I'll panic a bit now. And probably should have been more concerned earlier.

Rogers speculated that the Cubs want to let Kyle Tucker settle into Chicago before approaching him. He used the words "hometown discount" on air. It's hard to tell if he's reporting or speculating with that concept. FWIW, Mike Rodriguez doubled down on his report that the Cubs have already approached Tucker.

I'm not turning this into a Shaw vs Smith debate (Smith is just a good, recent example of someone who skipped Triple-A entirely), but I'll entertain just this much: Shaw - .212 BABIP, .298 xwOBA, 72% contact rate, 75.4% z-contact rate, 17.5% BB%, 22.8% K% Smith - .333 BABIP, .216 xwOBA ,61.4$ contact rate, 67% z-contact rate, 7.1% BB%, 35.7 K% Cam Smith has been awful. I'm rooting for him, but he's been a mess. He does have three hits in his last two games, so maybe he's turning a bit of a corner. I'll admit - I hadn't paid enough attention and missed his last game's line (the two hit affair). But Smith has spent most of the first two weeks looking exactly like he was a Double-A hitter who skipped a few levels. Matt Shaw, while the line hasn't always been great, has mostly held his own. Shaw looks like a rookie, Smith has looked over matched. The processes by which each have gone by their game is in stark contrast. Process matters. It's early, so obviously that can change. I'll leave it at that. I truly believe one of these players needs some more time to marinate. If you disagree, you're welcome to that stand point.

Oh, no, I was talking hitters. Because teams are not wanting to waste bullets, teams are moving pitching too fast for hitters to keep up, especially, at that Triple-A level. It's why I'm more willing to move a hitter quickly in Iowa versus, say, South Bend. If you can absorb the rookie hit, having them cut their teeth at the MLB level is probably the better proving ground. Granted, I'd like to see some Triple-A success, but it's also why I'm a fan of keeping Shaw up and moving through the gauntlet for a while even if there are ugly moments (also why I think the Astros need to mercifully send Cam Smith back to the minors, he skipped far too much)

I used to be a Triple-A stan, but I think I've come around that it's once again a level I'm willing to move quick on if the processes are so good. Think of it this way - we've talked a few times around here about "bullets" that pitchers have and not wasting them if you can. I believe very much that Triple-A is becoming more and more of a moving ground for pitching - guys with stuff are finding themselves at MLB levels faster and faster to not waste them. I think Triple-A has utility and use, but I'd probably be most willing to move quicker there than elsewhere because the gap between Triple-A and MLB is growing. You can find talented arms there, but if you're hitting well and the processes look good, and there's an opening for fairly consistent PA's? Cut your teeth at the Show.

Honest question that isn't meant to be rude, but are you just saying things like "The Cubs will make an insulting offer" because it would lessen a blow if he chose elsewhere? Like, I get that the Cubs haven't dropped $400m on any one, but outside of the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets and Blue Jays, no one has. If it's "the Cubs haven't so they won't" it's a self-fulfilling prophecy for 27 teams. We do know they offered $400m+ to Ohtani. We can "well he was never going to sign it" away if we have to, but I don't think we should ignore it entirely, either. As well, the Cubs haven't been big spenders, and it's frustrating, but I'm not sure they have a reputation of throwing out "insulting" offers. Do they go higher on the AAV and lower on the years? Sure, but they've signed Swanson, they've signed Bellinger (to $30m AAV). Nothing I've felt is insulting . If the Cubs sign down with Tucker, they won't walk to the table with something insulting. IDK if it'll get the job done, but I doubt anyone walks out with hurt feelings.

Yeah, there's a time for acceleration and time for patience and the Cubs have hit a good ground for me most of the time there. Generally speaking, I prefer a prospect at the level to go through an age-appropriate learning curve: 1. Success in some sustained form 2. League adjustment to success 3, Success in sustained form after adjustment I'd say that's usually around a 200 (or so) PA sample...sometimes longer if initial success takes a bit of time. I don't want to "paint-by-numbers" it, and it's not all result based (process > results, IMO) but that's my favorite path for a prospect to take. There are always age-inappropriate levels (if you played in the SEC, Low-A ain't for you long term. If you are crushing, just go to SB, please) and guys who are just hitting so well that it's likely they're just too good for a level, but those are exceptions more-than-the rule.

Per Jesse Rogers - Cubs have not yet engaged Tucker in extension talk, but expects it will happen at some point. Suggests the team is hoping he'll fall in love with Chicago.

Maybe. A reminder, that as exciting of a start it's been, he struggled there initially last year. He probably needs a few hundred PA's there to push through the improvements, allow the league to re-adjust to him, and then show staying ability through the progression. I think a mid-year move to Knoxville is on the table, so it depends on how "not long" you meant by. If it's then, then I agree.

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.

Mike usually sucks. His sources tend to be Latin America related when he has them, and this doesn't feel like it fits that category. *But* Mike tweeted details of Blue Jays/Vlad stuff around the time it was going down. Maybe that's a blind nut, or the Latin America connection...but it adds a little credence here. Mike also used to work with the Cubs a while ago - he tends to tweet Cubs related things. According to him the Cubs were interested in Correa far more than others would report. So, maybe this is that. Or maybe he's got something. On top of that, Kyle Tucker's camp was leaking numbers to Lance Brodkowski. Which makes this feel a bit more real - you don't leak numbers unless you want to talk numbers. There's always a reason to leak. On the flip side, it could be Mike trying to play off recently found legitimacy to garner clicks.

I was pretty happy not remembering Zach Davis. Thanks for ruining that.

Cosgrove is interesting. 11 degree arm angle. Thats fun.

Good to see Mule finding some consistency. Last year the stuff flashed but he was all over the place.

Horton looked much better after he warmed to. First two hitterd was a little rough but he settled in much better.

Makes sense all things considered. Killian ain't it and the Cubs would probably rather go to Cosgrove in a pinch than going with Killian at this stage.

Lance Brodkowski, on Marquee the other day, had sources from the Kyle Tucker camp that suggested 10/$475m is what would keep him in Chicago. I know the initial reaction from many will be "Omg it'll never happen", but I don't share the feeling. 1. The Cubs are generally on the cautious side of prospects when it comes to trading. It would not follow that they would just use prospects for what would be considered, a one year rental. At least, a rental without a chance to resign him. 2. Jed Hoyer spoke this offseason about how they would sign big contracts at time some point, but it takes a long time to get these deals together - that they don't happen over night. Then they traded for Kyle Tucker, 11 months before he became a FA. Sounds like a lot of time, huh? 3. Jed Hoyer just recently said Tucker is a "good player to build a lineup around. He's a good player to build a team around". Hoyer is usually pretty careful in his words. That probably is on purpose. 4. If Kyle Tucker's camp is leaking numbers - that's not a "no". You do that when you're willing to talk. We haven't heard Tucker and his camp laying down a deadline "I won't negotiate mid year" or anything. Leaking numbers is good. 5. 10/$475m isn't crazy bad. I think eventually the team who signs him flattens that 10 into 12 to spread the AAV. Also considering this is the "leaked" number is usually the high water mark, getting him down around $450m feels like it' pretty doable for all sides. Do I think the Cubs will sign him? No. But I expect the Cubs internally love Tucker the player. They have said they would be willing to sign a big name. They aren't idiots and knew what Tucker would cost. And neither camp is acting like it's a no. I do think the Cubs will put forth a real competitive offer to Tucker. I think a reasonable offer is something at 12 years and between $425-450m. I think Tucker would sign that contract.