Jason Ross

I highly doubt the Cubs signed him to be a bullpen guy. Or to complete the bullpen.

It feels like the Cubs are kind of getting to a "capped out" level of "guys who could do something in the BP but might not". And while $5m isn't a lot, it isn't nothing, and they've kind of acquired enough Poteets, Festas' and the like that adding a $5m guy who you might cut bait on...feels excessive.

Yeah....that's my feeling here as well. I'm hoping it's the first. I'm dreading the last.

Yeah. I'm struggling on the appeal here. Maybe Assad is about to be traded in a move for a better SP? And he's the Assad replacement? But he shouldn't belong in a rotation. And I dont get what role he fills.

1/$5m

Eh, it sounded more or less like he has no idea. "I have not heard if he's going to visit Chicago. I dont believe he is. I do believe he's maybe visiting other cities". There wasn't a lot to go on there. The negative view is that Rogers hasn't heard anything to make him think he's coming to visit, so maybe he isnt. But the inverse is that the entire thing sounds like he's guessing. It could very well be that the Cubs have kept it under wraps and Jesse doesn't know. He didn't offer a single city he *was* visiting. And even then it was "believe". He didn't use the word source or anything. So you can take that for what its worth. I still think the Cubs are unlikely, but Brett's tweet feels more negative than I took Rogers - who just kind of sounded guess-worky along the lines of "no one told me he's coming, so I guess he isnt".

I also think there's is some residual fears from Heyward, Bryant and Baez (though obviously the Cubs are not on the hook for the latter two). A fear that the next big contract will go the same way - Tucker will become injury riddled and no longer hit.

Justin Turner had 318 PA's before his 29th birthday in the MLB. He had a sub 100 wRC+, and negative fWAR. Comparing Turner's pre-age 29 to Tucker is both unfair, nor relevant, as the Justin Turner we know today was not a thing yet. We could do that comparison, but by that level of measurement, Tucker runs such circles around Turner that we could conclude he'd be liable to put up 90 fWAR over his age 29-38 years. Conversely, Tucker's fWAR of ~21 compares very favorable to both Goldschmidt ~20 and Freeman ~23 fWAR through ages 23-27. It should also be noted that Tucker's age 23 year, worth roughly 1.8 fWAR was the 2020 covid shortened season, which means he's unfairly penalized. Tucker posted a 143 wRC+ compared to Goldschmidt's 145 wRC+ and Freeman's 145 wRC+ as well. I already compared Santana's age 23-27 to Tucker in the previous post. If you're going to worry about a bone bruise as a significant injury moving forward causing chronic issues...well then be my guest. That's ridiculous. That is not an issue that anyone should have any concern moving long term, and is easily dismissible. Both because it's not something that will be reoccurring (it was misdiagnosed causing the lengthy down time), nor did it effect him, as Tucker returned just fine as he had a 193 wRC+ after his return. The point of my post was to show players who had similar skillsets and how they aged, not comparing them through their aged 27 season. But if you want that, there you go.

There is survivor bias here, for sure. But when we look at Rendon, we again look at someone who's had injuries ravage him. He's been hurt again and again. Now, most of this is post-extension, so these things happen. And if we really want to go down the Anthony Rendon path - he's on record as saying he doesn't love baseball. So we can maybe question how that plays into here if we really want to skewer Rendon, but I'll pass on going down that road more than just pointing it out. So when it comes down to it, the injury thing is the risk you inherit when you sign these contracts. The risk exists, it's understood in the contract and it's just the life we live. With Tucker, you can look at his injury history and his game and at least come the conclusion that he's not someone who requires an exceptional level of athleticism like McCutcheon did to BABIP in the .350's, he's not someone with an extensive or nagging injury list, he doesn't have a skill flaw (like Baez)...so I feel very confident that the risk here is properly mitigated. It can never be zero. There's always what-ifs and unknowns. But generally speaking, you won't find a 28 year old player who has as few mitigations, IMO, as Kyle Tucker currently. And without a crystal ball, it's all we can do. (Not disagreeing, more just expounding)

The team has been chronically connected to almost every of the better RHH RP's in the offseason, either through more reputable people like Sharma and Mooney down to more spurious connections. The Cubs love to wait a market out and get the best value - and the entire back-end-RP-market is frozen. I very much suspect the Cubs will end up with at least one of Hoffman/Estevez/Robertson/Yates (though Hoffman could be seen as a SP).

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.