Jason Ross

We can play the "will Tucker have nagging injuries?" game and create narratives, but as of date, Tucker shows no signs of these. So while we can doom-boner it up and fear the unknown, we have his injury history and nothing on the list is concerning. All we can do then, is look at skill set and ask "is this a player who's skill set profiles as one who will age gracefully?" and I think the answer is a clear "yes". There are plenty of players who are aging gracefully so far. Freddie Freeman has put up 30 fWAR from ages 29 to 34 so far, posting his best seasons at 32 and 33. Bryce Harper, a 1b/DH only has managed just under 12 fWAR from 29-32 so far with a 143 wRC+, which is right next to Tucker (and from ages 24-27, posted a 138 wRC+, which is spot on where Tucker's career line is). There's no sign of slowing down in Harper land. Jose Altuve has posted 25 fWAR from 29-34, is fresh off a 4 win season at age 34. His age 24-27 saw a 143 wRC+, or right next to that of Tucker. We should expect these players to start to decline in the next year or few, but they all have strong hit tools, and don't rely overly on hitting for power. They hit for power but don't use it as a riding skill - much like Tucker. We can play this over and over. Yes, injuries can derail careers. Many of the leagues' best players, with solid skill sets age well if they can avoid the chronic injuries. If Tucker picks up chronic injuries, of course he won't age as well, but what is there to make us worry about that? Nothing at this other than the fear of the unknown. And if we're afraid of the unknown, then again, you will never sign a good player ever.

I think you answered your second question with your first. I don't think the Cubs traded for Tucker to cobble together a BP of replacement level players and guys who they need to fix. Where is the money they saved going? Probably, in part, to someone like Kirby Yates or David Robertson - a dependable back end reliever who can be signed to a one year deal.

Instead of throwing personal barbs like "I know you're never going to concede a point" and being huffy. ,maybe it's best to ask "why did he pick Justin Turner?" Player A - 134 wRC+, 15.6 K%, 9.3 BB%, .193 ISO .317 BABIP Player B - 139 wRC+, 16 K%, 10.8 BB%, .242 ISO, .284 BABIP This is what happens when you assume I'm just cherry picking. I picked a player who had a similar career line, They also have somewhat similar swing decisions and the like, but at that point we're kind of getting to a point where you'll never find two players wo did exactly the same thing. But generally speaking, I picked similar players who did things in a similar style and who had to move off of their primary position in their later years to go play 1b/DH. One of those is Turner from 29-38 and the other is Tucker. It's to show what an aging curve of someone with a similar skillset looks like. Just last season, we had 38 year old Carlos Santana post a 3 fWAR season (who posted 20.8 fWAR, as a 1b/DH with a 111 wRC+ over those ages). Are we not assuming Tucker is capable of adding 13 fWAR over him? A player who doesn't play 1b/DH, who has been 20+ wRC+ points better and who offers base running value to boot? That's basically a little over one fWAR per-season to get there. Doesn't seem crazy, does it? Let's make it sound less crazy yet - through 27 years old, Santana had a 127 wRC+ and was worth 5.4 fWAR. Tucker has a 139 wRC+ and has been worth 15 more wins. This idea that I'm cherry picking Justin Turner is inane. In 2023, Paul Goldschmidt posted a 3.4 fWAR at 36 while JD Martinez and Brandon Belt at 35 posted 2+ fWAR seasons. Goldschmidt is another example of 31 fWAR so far through 29-37 (he's 38 next year) and he's been a 1b all his career. Positionally Tucker has an advantage. And just to keep the theme, Paul Goldschmidt's career line is really really similar to Tucker as well: 11.7 BB%, 23.1 K%, .213 ISO, 134 wRC+ (from 29-38) 12.7 BB%, 22.7 K%, .222 ISO, 139 wRC+ (career) If you'd like a cautionary tale, someone like Andrew McCutcheon would be one. But I think it's important to point out - he fell off a cliff and his "fall of a cliff" without any major injury issue or the like" is pretty rare. It's either something akin to Bryant, where injuries hamper you and sap your ability (Tucker doesn't have these) or some sort of baseball flaw (hello, Javy Baez!). Sure, Tucker could McCutcheon, but it's pretty unlikely. Especially considering McCutcheon was was more reliant on his athleticism and his ability to BABIP in the mid .300's than Tucker. Secondly, low 60's fWAR does not guarantee a first ballot HoF. Larry Walker (68 fWAR), Gary Sheffield (62), Kenny Lofton (62) and Jim Edmonds (64.5) are all recent examples of OF'ers who hit the same fWAR win and either had to battle year over year to get into the HoF, or are still missing it. Putting Kyle Tucker in that type of a range is pretty normal for the arc he's on. It is also well short of being a "likely first ballot HoF". It puts him on the precipice of HoF but not necessarily in. Also, have you looked at Joey Votto's career line? 145 wRC+, 15,6 BB%, 18.8 K%, .217 ISO Man, only a stone's throw away from what Tucker's done! But he's going to take a fWAR hit because he's a 1b, and the bar for 1bover RF is much higher for offense. Yes, I think Kyle Tucker is worth $400m. I've used math,, I've used other player's who have a similar careers. I've found other 35+ year old players who had success. Yes, I picked the best players - Kyle Tucker is one of the best players in baseball - that's who we should compare him to. All you've posted is a hypothetical aging curve based on a random thought exercise and then got upset when I used a different one. If you're not going going to pay Kyle Tucker, a 28 year old with a career 139 wRC+, who has a great skillset for aging, who can move off his position down the road...then you're simply never going to pay anyone good. You'll consistently have to trade off of good players after five years and hope your MiLB side is consistently developing new ones. If that's your style, hey, you do you, man. But I think it's some small market nonsense and the way I'd assume the Reds and the Pirates would act, not the Chicago Cubs.

First, I don't think his career is going to really look like that. That gets him 32 wins between 29 and 38. To compare, Justin Turner, who was probably never as good as Tucker is, picked up 34 wins from 29-38. So I think he's probably sitting at something closer to a 35-37 fWAR return on those 10 years. Either because his peak is a bit above 5, or because he ages more gracefully than you've given him credit for. Carlos Santana found a three win season at 38. Tucker's a pretty excellent player who's got an excellent health track record. I think he's going to age better than that. So let's say, instead, it's 35-37 wins. I think that's perfectly fine. At 35 wins you're looking at $315m of value at $9m per fWAR and 37 gets you $333, It's a bit under, but you're also adding in some extra things - when you're talking 5+ fWAR players you're going to pay a little extra for that because it's consolidating wins. Secondly, real world $40m today will come down significantly in 8 or 9 years. Once you approach more than 37 wins, you're probably getting into "win" territory even if it doesn't look like it matches fWAR/$. The Cubs are a large market and sometimes you trade some surplus and efficiency for getting a good ass player. So yes. I would give Tucker a 10 year contract. And I don't really think twice.

I will say this; publicly this is a bad look. Regardless of where the Cubs are with Tucker, being just $2.5m away looks bad when you just acquired him. The Cubs have made it pretty clear the last few years that they don't care about what they seem publicly too often, but not a great look. I hope it's not a nickel/dime situation and the two sides come to some sort of positive agreement - whether it's long term or just one year right now.

I said it was the rosy version. Not the logical one! 😞

The rosy version of this is that the two sides are engaged in a deep contract negotiation and just decided to file while they work through it. The negative version of this is that the Cubs are nickel and diming their new acquisition over a few million.

This is such small market mentality. The Chicago Cubs should, every year, run a salary next to, if not a bit above the LT. The LT is something that is getting larger each year. Now, there's some CBT stuff that's going to go down shortly again, but I think it's probably safe to assume that the LT ain't going backwards. Add in inflation, and we have story, after story, after story where within 2-3 years many of these mega deals are all of a sudden not that big. For example, remember when people were surprised about Corey Seager coming in above market projections? He currently sits 21st in baseball, It's taken two years for six contracts to sign above him, and will likely continue to move down the pecking order. By next year alone he could be outside of the top-25. Bryce Harper was another story - he's been almost a bargain when you see where he currently sits in AAV (outside of the top-30 already) What it mans is as time goes, the contract, even if it feels big now, will become a smaller and smaller fraction to the LT and compared to his peers. The point I'm making is this: Kyle Tucker doesn't have to be a 5+ win player every year with the further increase in contracts, the adding to the LT.... We also know that contracts have surplus value up front (at $40m, you'd be paying him for under five wins - wins are going around $9m+ on the market). So you pay more later, but inflation and the LT helps balance that loss out, as well. Lastly, Tucker has a pretty great skillset. He's got a great approach (a skill that ages well) and is not overly reliant on his athleticism. He's capable of moving off RF down the road, and could play 1b as he ages (and his bat will likely play okay). Is there risk? Sure. There's risk. There's literally risk getting in your car every day, there's risk getting out of bed, there's going to be risk signing someone to a 10-12 year deal. However, the risk here is the right risk. Just sign Kyle Tucker. Not only can the Cubs afford it, he's a really good player and a good bet to age well. There shouldn't be much of a debate here. If there is, you'll literally never sign a large contract. Ever. There is no such thing as a perfect player or a perfect contract. But Kyle Tucker is about as safe of a long term deal as you're going to find.

Yep. There's a handful of guys who will make the roster barring health and probably 2-4 spots that can go to the older, veteran pitch-model guys or could easily be cast off (low cost of acquisition, no long term commitment) for younger players forcing their way in.

Honestly? I think he's going to struggle a bit. And I think there's a bit of a road ahead of him in terms of developing as a pitcher in the Western game ahead of him. He does some things really well - namely, he throws super hard. But he's a very low spin (Lance Brodzowski has him in the bottom 10% of spin in the MLB) even with the smaller, tackier NPB ball and his fastball shape and location are pretty "meh". I think you've got to look at him as a BORP (like, say a #4) in 2025 who's going to struggle to give you more than 120-130 IP but by the end, could be a really damn good pitcher if he takes to changes immediately. Now that said, you 100% go hard after him regardless. You're not really signing Sasaki for 2025, you're signing him for 2026, 2027, 2028...and I think there's a lot of raw stuff there that a good pitching developmental team is going to get a TORP out of him. Remember, he throws really hard and with some tweaks to the shape, some repertoire tweaks there's a Logan Gilbert guy there (Gilbert is another guy who throws really hard but has super low spin rates). That feels negative, it's not meant to be, I just think he's a lot more raw than a lot of people are giving him credit for. Despite that, this is a "push all of your chips in" situation - especially considering the amount of chips you're playing with is basically "free". But I do think people are especially overrating how good Sasaki is going to be immediately. He's not a ready-made product like Yamamoto nor do the tweak seem as minor as Imanaga (basically, it was "hey dude, throw your amazing fastball up more!"). It is also why I think the Cubs will sign another SP no matter what. Get a Hoffman/Flahrety/Lopez to fill the current top-3 spot and then let Sasaki grow into it.

Two things: 1. 78 games isn't nothing, either. It's a large enough sample that all of the data is stable and not random. So it's small, but relevant. 2. Using projections here is a self-filling prophecy of some sorts. 2024 saw a shift in Tucker, as he hit for more power. But projections take data from his last few seasons, and his 78 games would thus be outweighed in those projections. If those changes stick, projections wont see it. So yes, his *projections* are in line with his career, but they always will be. If a change was made, that's not where you'd look to begin with. Ultimately you're underselling just how good Tucker is regardless. 5 win players don't grow on trees. There's no salary restrictions that should cause the Cubs to punt a potential extension here. Sign Tucker.

His market is quickly disappearing. Most teams who were after the biggest SPs have signed them already. The Yankees got Fried, LAD did the Snell thing, Baltimore is obsessed with acquiring #4 SPs... There's a decent chance he's going to come in decently under what people thought he'd get.

Could open up Flaherty as an option. His market is getting cloudy.

His posting window ends today. If he does not sign, he would return to the KBO. He could become a free agent next year with no posting necessary.

Neither Brujan or Workman are obstacles. Both are incredibly replaceable and DFA-worthy (or in Workman's case, returnable). The Cubs dont and wouldn't need a multi-player trade to upgrade or decide to move on from either. Sign Moncada, Solano, Canha? There goes one of them. Easily.

It'd be weird if articles were optimistic on Tucker. Tucker is going to be a tough sign - he's a very good player, who's never played in Chicago and the Cubs dont generally give out 7+ year deals. That doesn't mean it won't happen, but the odds are against it. The odds were against them trading for him, as well. Much of it is a self fulfilling prophecy though. He's going to sign a contract that's among the 5 or 10 largest so there's really no precedenct for almost any team here. I think the Cubs will engage him earnestly, however. And while it's hard to be *optimistic* about it, I feel there's a real chance. Secondly, I think its far more likely a trade happens for a SP. They didn't make a move for Luzardo but they were in heavily on him. It's unlikely they just give up there. But there's options so let's wait and see. There's plenty of time. This is an incomplete roster. People got worried when they didn't even bother engaging with Soto but they went and got Tucker. I wouldn't be worried that the team just said "well Luzardo or bust!" at SP. They'll have another. I feel pretty confident about that. As have Mooney and Sharma, the most connected of the bunch.

I'm not going on anything other than people who have reported what the Cubs can spend. That's not a thought or an assumption - that's real reporting from people who have real connections to the team. Nothing should have changed that math. The debt structure wasn't some new wrinkle or anything. So it doesn't make sense to doom boner and worry about some random idea that all of a sudden the math has changed because they signed Caleb Thielbar. Instead, it's probably the best to just...not even worry about their spending. They will probably still bring in those players, and spend around $30m or so more.

Well, what reason would Jed Hoyer have to not spend? That'...doesn't make sense haha. I mean I don't expect them to be a "massive" spender, but they're probably going to bring in: At least 1 SP At least 1 more BP guy 1 or 2 bench players (a 3b and a RHH 1b/OF) That's going to cost $30-$40m probably. So they won't sign a Bregman. But there's probably 3-5 more players coming in. So you can classify that as "massive" or not, but that's probably a baseline expectation.

The Cubs have been reported, over and over again, to be able to spend up to around $8-$10m under the LT. I think it's unlikely that any of that is what's going on - and more likely that the Cubs have other players they would rather spend the Bellinger money on.

Meh. He's okay, if you can bounce him back some. At age 37, there's no guarantee that will occur, however. Feels like a pretty low-ceiling signing and without a ton of upside. Not entirely hating on it, but with the options available, this one isn't much of a needle mover. Hopefully they bring in a far stronger option in the pen in a bit as well.

It actually very well could be the correct figures however. Players very regularly take the best deal. These leaks are likely not *lies*. At this point, Burnes nor any team has a reason to just outright make horsefeathers up. What they have the reason to do is skew the truth. Toronto, and Canada has very high tax rates. Arizona, conversely, much, much lower. So Corban Burnes gets the Arizona fans on his side by leaking the $240m offer - it sounds like he's turned down money. Toronto leaks the $240m offer because it makes a compelling "we tried" argument - he turned down more money. In reality, with taxes, he probably didn't turn down much at all, especially if one deal had an opt out (Arizona had an opt out) or if one was less years (we haven't really heard length of the other offers). In the end, everyone wins the media game - Burnes and Toronto.

Out of options. Was once a very highly regarded prospect but has been terrible in limited MLB action. Bounced around a bit from Tampa, to Miami and now with us. Wouldn't be surprised to see him DFA'd at some point and tried to be snuck down to Triple-A.

It won't be anything the player push for, however, as they know the owners won't open the books. I do expect owners to push for it. But because they know it's a cost saving measure on their end.