Jason Ross

His xwOBA was up. Which is more predictive. In fact, it was his career high. His BABIP was ,50 points under, despite having a better than career average hard hit%, pull rate, and barrel rate. Why exactly do you think that?

Image courtesy of © Matt Marton-Imagn Images Pitching out of the bullpen is one of the more difficult things to quantify because they have the smallest sample sizes of almost any player, allowing for more wild swings in data, both year to year and month to month. There are also scoring rules that can hide poor performance, or instead, magnify struggles; if you surrender a run, but the previous pitcher put him aboard, your ERA isn't affected. Relievers of all kinds come and go, and even the best have odd years here or there. Entering the 2025 season, the Cubs had a mandate to fix an ailing bullpen. Down the stretch last season, the Cubs pen was seemingly a player short due to a handful of injuries and poor play. It wasn't a terrible bullpen, ranking 12th in ERA despite ranking 17th in xFIP and 19th in fWAR, but it was one that, over the last month of the season, just wasn't strong enough to hold together. To combat this, the Cubs added a few new faces, trading for Astros closer Ryan Pressly, Dodger's right-handed reliever Ryan Brasier, and Guardians' middle reliever Eli Morgan. They also signed veteran relievers like Caleb Thielbar. Those guys were added to returners such as Porter Hodge, Julian Merryweather, Tyson Miller, and Nate Pearson. To highlight how odd bullpens can be, the Cubs finished the season fifth in reliever xFIP despite the fact that only a single reliever who made the Cubs' Opening Day roster in Tokyo was also on hand against Milwaukee Brewers in the National League Division Series. So, with the volatility of relievers clear in our minds, let's analyze how the Cubs' relief corps performed in 2025. Ungraded due to injury: Eli Morgan, Ryan Brasier, Tyson Miller, Michael Soroka I combined the three who were added to the Cubs' Opening Day roster (Eli Morgan, Ryan Brasier and Tyson Miller) but barely made an impact for the Cubs, as they would combine for just a fraction over 33 innings on the season. Morgan would spend most of the year on the 60-day IL, Miller would suffer an early-season left hip impingement and was then released mid-year, and Ryan Brasier would battle injury after injury and never really got his feet under himself. Brasier did post a .366 xFIP over 26 innings on the year, but his ERA was considerably higher. Michael Soroka was added to be a swingman at the trade deadline with the goal of helping both in the rotation and the bullpen, but almost immediately got hurt, pitching just two innings before suffering a strain. He had a rough outing in the NLDS, but I just don't think he was ever right. F: Ryan Pressly, Nate Pearson This is a harsh grade for someone who at times looked like he might turn a corner, but for what he was brought in to accomplish, I can't give him anything else. Pressly was almost immediately removed from the closers' position after struggling early. Perhaps his most memorable moment was imploding against the San Francisco Giants, surrendering nine runs and securing no outs in an extra-inning affair in early May. By the trade deadline, the Cubs released the veteran reliever who had a -0.3 fWAR on the year. This one just didn't work out. Nate Pearson had a really interesting second half of the 2024 season. While relievers such as Jose Cuas were thrown to the wolves in September, the former Blue Jay looked like an interesting multi-inning weapon headed into the 2025 season. Sadly for the Cubs, Pearson would only log 14 innings, walking more than he struck out, posting a terribly 7.27 xFIP and being worth -2. fWAR. Bullpen life can be cruel. D: Julian Merryweather, Porter Hodge Julian Merryweather, after a lost 2024 campaign, looked like there might still be some juice to squeeze early on, posting a 1.74 ERA over the course of his first 10 innings. Then, the wheels fell off: A 14+ ERA over his next 5 2/3 inning would do the reliever in, and the Cubs released him. I hesitated to give him a full F as he provided some value and, unlike Pressly, wasn't tasked with fixing the back end of the bullpen, but if you wanted to move him down a grade, I think that'd be fair. Porter Hodge had a terrible, no-good year, but I also chose not to dump him into the F tier because I think an early injury derailed him. I also chose to grade him over Ryan Brasier because he was healthy at times down the stretch portion of the year and the Cubs chose to option him. Hopefully, a full offseason and rehab returns the 2024 version of the righty to Chicago. B : Aaron Civale, Chris Flexen, Taylor Rogers Civale just wasn't with the Cubs long enough, but he gave them some good innings when they needed him. He didn't blow anyone away, but in 17 innings with the Cubs, he posted an ERA under 2.00. I don't want to give him too much credit—most of his workload was in low-leverage situations—but they were valuable contributions. Chris Flexen was added mid-season and was shockingly good for his first 29 innings, posting a 0.69 ERA over that span. I'd give him a bump,. but there were always signs that this was pixie dust; during that initial stretch, he had a shockingly low 14 K% and a 4.69 xFIP. In other words, the wheels were always going to fall off. When that happened, it got ugly, as Flexen was knocked around over his last 14 innings, surrendering 13 runs. He too was released, but those first 29 innings were useful, even if they were a little lucky. Taylor Rogers was acquired mid-season but never really ingratiated himself to the Cubs enough to be used in an important role. His 5.00+ ERA makes it seem like he was terrible in his short stint, but a 3.49 xFIP suggested otherwise. Seven of the lefties' 10 total runs surrendered with the Cubs came in back-to-back appearances in late August and early September. The southpaw was left off the NLDS roster, which showed where he truly was in the pecking order. A: Daniel Palencia, Andrew Kittredge, Caleb Thielbar, Drew Pomeranz, Brad Keller No one in this group could be graded as anything other than an A, and you could make an argument for almost every one of these as an "A+". The reason the Cubs bullpen was as good as it was in 2025 was because these five relievers were simply amazing. More amazing is that only Caleb Thielbar was on the Cubs' Tokyo Series roster proper (Palencia and Keller were announced as a part of the taxi squad originally). Keller, Thielbar and Palencia all broke the 1.0+ fWAR barrier on the season—a truly amazing feat when you consider the circumstances. Thielbar and Keller were nothing but castoffs looking for a home where they could rebuild value, and while Palencia always flashed a fun fastball, 2025 saw him refine his control and develop a true secondary offering. By the end of the season, these were some of the most reliable relievers the Cubs have had in years. Drew Pomeranz should be considered one of the best stories in baseball this year. Having not pitched in Major League Baseball since a stint in 2021 with the Padres, the lefty found new life after a mid-season trade from the Mariners to the Cubs. No one thought much of the acquisition, and yet, Pomeranz posted a 28% strikeout rate to go with a 2.17 ERA. Just an unreal year and a superlative comeback. Lastly, the Cubs acquired Andrew Kittredge at the deadline. While Mason Miller, Jhoan Duran, and David Bednar were likely bigger names, the former Oriole outpaced every reliever in the league after the deadline who wasn't Miller. With the Cubs, who adjusted some of his offerings, Kittredge posted a 3.32 ERA, which probably hid his 1.45 xFIP and 39% strikeout rate, (a 15% increase from his time in Baltimore). Oh yeah, don't forget, he also threw an immaculate inning. Overall: B+ This is a hard year to grade. On the surface, the bullpen originally announced for the Tokyo Series was ultimately a failure, with only Thielbar and Colin Rea (who I believe should be graded with the starters, and was thus left off the list) making it onto the NLDS roster. Many pitchers were hurt, but many failed outright. Along the way, the Cubs threw some spaghetti at the wall, with players such as Luke Little, Jordan Wicks, and Gavin Hollowell getting looks. But, the Cubs should get credit for savvy pickups along the way. Chris Flexen gave the Cubs all he had for a bit, and Aaron Civale pitched well enough after being released to make the playoff rosters. Their best relievers were scrapheap pickups, like Brad Keller, Caleb Thielbar, and Drew Pomeranz. And there was some real internal development with Daniel Palencia. In the end, the Cubs finished with a bullpen that out-pitched its xFIP a bit, probably didn't strike out enough hitters all the time. Still, it was an unquestionably good group, and that's all that really matters. For every Ryan Pressly who failed, a pitcher like Andrew Kittredge transformed the pen into a formidable unit. It was the bullpen who carried a bulk of the pitching in the playoff, after all. I think there were just enough who underperformed right off the bat to keep this grade from being an A, but I cannot imagine having this much internal turnover and getting any closer to one—credit to the Cubs for identifying useful arms and getting just the right amount of luck. The Cubs don't beat the Padres without this unit. View full article

PCA prior to ASB-2024: 63 wRC+ PCA August 2024: 153 wRC+ PCA September 2024: 90 wRC+ Matt Shaw prior to ASB-2025: 60 wRC+ Matt Shaw August 2025: 127 wRC+ Matt Shaw September: 95 wRC+ I wouldn't be so sure. The two had shockingly similar routes in their rookie seasons. Both faced swing decision questions and had mechanical fixes implemented during the season. Both were equally as not good through the break, Shaw really took off a bit earlier, so even though PCA outpaced him in August, if we just move the needle to ASB to Aug 31st for Shaw, it's a 154 wRC+. It's incredible how alike offensively the two performed. I don't think Matt Shaw is going to be the defacto NL MVP through May 31st next year, but do I think Shaw could match the 109 wRC+ PCA put up this year? Yes. Yes I do, if not a bit more.

The issue is present with the post. You are using yearly salary ($17m) and total contract value ($300+m). If The Cubs sign Kyle Tucker, they're not paying out $300m right away. It would be around a $13m increase (or so). What Bertz is trying to say is that the Cubs can both sign Tucker, and spend on pitching in 2026 without having to be the Dodgers. They're sitting around the $170-$180m mark on spending right now, which is $60m under the first LT line. Add in the extra $25m of revenue in playoff cash, as well as factoring in the amount of money dropping off from the 2026 roster cliff, the Cubs are in prime position to spend a bunch this year and still get under the LT again in a year. I think we both know that it isn't necessarily going to happen. But if the Cubs stopped behaving in the way that they have been, this is the offseason to sign both Tucker, a good SP and stock the pen. Ultimately, the Cubs will probably pick one or the other instead.

19th round pick in 2024 out of Marshall. I'm a prospect sicko and I only recognize the name because I watch Myrtle Beach games more than I should.

Right, but they're not hypotheticals based on how Hoyer acts. And again, it ignores the situation the Cubs would be in 2026. Who is starting at 3b? Bregman has opted out. Who's starting in RF? Tucker is a free agent. The Cubs have no internal option for 3b like they do in the OF. Sure the rotation is already fixed, but this offseason is far more flush in rotational options. It opens a can of worms that really isn't being paid attention to. MacKenzie Gore had a 4.96x FIP post deadline. Bregman had a 101 wRC+ post deadline. While both would have added value prior to July, neither were looking like massive helps in the playoffs. Which once again dents the NLCS argument. You made it very simple but the equation is far more nuanced than "Sign Bregman...profit!".

Sure, I have those frustrations too. But that's 100% moving the goalposts of what I responded to originally. Your point was not that the Chicago Cubs need to operate more like a top-5-market, but that Alex Bregman would have put the Cubs in the NLCS and would have won the division, which is just almost entirely factually untrue. I wish the Cubs had a different owner, I wish Jed had a bit more of a gunslinger mentality at times, but these are beyond the scope of your original argument. We live in a world where those things would have been true had the Cubs signed Bregman or not. If we want to live in an alternate universe where the Cubs signed Bregman, Shaw would have been no more expendable to Jed Hoyer. I think the Cubs spending limits hamstrings the Cubs in a way for sure, but Jed also operates in a very meticulous and value driven way. You made it clear Jed was still in charge of the club in your post, so no, I don't think that would have changed anything.

Let's look to how the Cubs handled the succession plan to Kyle Tucker for inspiration to see what they would have done to succeed an opting out Alex Bregman. I think it's becoming pretty clear to all of us that the Cubs are not going to win a Kyle Tucker sweeps this offseason and likely have been planning for that case in some fashion. They did not trade any of his direct successions, either at RF (Caissie, Alcantara) or at DH if they moved Suzuki back to RF (Ballesteros, Long). Matt Shaw was the direct plan here - Long can't play 3b well enough and they had already moved Cam Smith. Do we really think the Cubs were going to move off of Shaw? The answer is almost assuredly no. It's easy to say "well just trade him!" but the Cubs already opted not to trade for Gore at the deadline it's probably equally unlikely they'd have managed to make that swing including the Bregman succession plan during Spring Training. What the Cubs would have likely done with Matt Shaw is exactly what they did with the rest of these prospects; sent him to Iowa for a 2025 season. I'm not advocating the Cubs not flex financial muscle and add to their team, but you can make a compelling argument that based on how the Cubs operate that they're in a better position in 2026 having not done this. The Cubs don't typically make mechanical changes for players until they struggle and Shaw has enough data in Iowa for us to know he wasn't going to struggle there in 2025. We know what a rookie 2025 Shaw looks like and a rookie Shaw in 2026 looks very similar, almost assuredly. But instead of having a healthy and bashing Kyle Tucker in RF to offset, the Cubs will probably have a second rookie (be it Caissie or Ballesteros) in the lineup. As stated, the fWAR difference doesn't make up the Brewers amount of Ws and Bregman probably doesn't change much in the playoffs until you get to 4 PA's in Game 5 to hope for a different outcome. All of this comes right back to the original point; you're over valuing the difference in 2025 outcomes by signing Bregman.

Brujan, Berti and Workman did not add up to a negative 3 fWAR at the 3b position. Combined they were less than a full win. The Cubs still lose the division by multiple games. Secondly, you seem to want to gloss over the Hoerner stuff, but the talk was offsetting the price spent on Bregman as to why the Cubs considered it. That's probably an important factor. Again, the return is a fictional answer with nothing but conjecture, however if the Cubs were looking to actually offset money than Shaw wasn't going to be traded. We can take what we want for that reporting, but it can't just be entirely ignored either. Even if we want to say "trade Shaw", what player do we think was available for a rookie that late in the off-season? What player would have tipped the scale more? It's unlikely that late into the off-season you are getting an established player for a rookie. What else might have been added? We begin running into a lot of what ifs here. Because of that, I'll say again, you are over zealous on your assumption that a Bregman signing gets the Cubs the division or beyond the NLDS.

The Cubs finished five games behind the Brewers. Matt Shaw was worth 1.4 fWAR and Alex Bregman was worth 3.5 fWAR. The Cubs would have still finished behind the Brewers. They would have added two wins of value, it doesn't matter if Bregman was better than Shaw early, they finished here; that's their total value, it's all that matters in this discussion. And if we are to believe that the Cubs were going to trade Hoerner to offset the price of Bregman (I'm not sure for who, or what, or how at that point), there's a reality where the Cubs were made worse by trading Hoerner, who was better than Bregman anyways. There's lots of arguments that surround the Cubs being a player short for the 2025 season, but I think you're over rating what an Alex Bregman signing would have resulted in. The Brewers still probably win the division with a few games in hand, and while one hitter may have resulted in a different NLCS outcome, I don't think one Bregman changes games 1 or 2 (they lost by 3+ in each game). They won games 3 and 4 without him. So really, it comes down to a fictitious few PA's against the Brewers in game 5 as the one chance to change that outcome. I'm always in favor of the Cubs spending money and improving but I think you're just a bit over zealous on what Bregman would or wouldn't have changed on his own.

Our own Matt Trueblood had reported that the Cubs were considering still a Nico Hoerner trade as a corresponding move to Bregman. As of today, while I would guess he isn't entirely unavailable, it's highly unlikely he would be dealt. It is clear Jed Hoyer highly values defensive players and well rounded ones, Shaw had a great second half and is controlled for the foreseeable future and the Cubs have no clear internal replacement. There aren't a ton of 3b available this off-season, and the Cubs already called at trading for Suarez. Trading Shaw this off-season feels as equally unlikely as trading Pete Crow-Armstrong was last off-season.

I would certainly hope that the Cubs can carry two. I think if there's one thing they should have learned the last few years is that while they've had a strong ability to build a bullpen through your castoffs, finding excellent relievers such as Brad Keller, Drew Pomeranz, and Caleb Thielbar types with enough regularity, but they routinely seem to come up one reliever short. If it's just one of those types, I'd probably agree, that the answer should be someone else, I'd be partial to a Brad Keller extension myself, I think he's a great reliever. But I will say that if the Cubs are going to only go one of these types and it's going to be a one year type,. in the way they have gone recently (Neris, Pressley, for examples) than Kittredge would probably be on the top of my list for the "one year" types. After the Cubs got him, he posted a 1.45 xFIP, a 39% K%, and a 3.7 BB%. Velocity was stable, stuff took a leap with better placement...I don't think he's probably that good, but if the stuff holds into age 36 (and there doesn't appear to be a concern there in the data) than I expect he'll be very good on a 1/$8m. Ultimately, I think the Cubs, if they're going to let Tucker walk, which it seems like they're going to do just reading tea leaves, than investment into stable pitching is the way you spread out that money, and Kittredge would be apart of that. At least for me.

I think the Cubs could walk away with four gold gloves this year. Part of me thinks four for one team feels absurd and that voters will have some fatigue, but in terms of NL ranks at their position you have: PCA; 1st in OAA, 1st in DRS Nico: 1st in OAA, 1st in DRS Happ: T-1st in OAA, 1st in DRS Boyd: lead the league in +9 RV in limiting bases and 1st in pickoffs

Kittredge at 1/$9m, in my opinion, would be an easy slam dunk. Mason Miller is the only RP who had a better xFIP in baseball (not of traded relievers, of every reliever in baseball) post the deadline. I'm fine admitting that probably can't be expected, but part of the reason he improved drastically dealt with how the Cubs had him adjust his offerings. At 1/$9m, you don't take on much risk. The Cubs have spent similar money on one year deals for Hector Neris and Ryan Pressley, and while Kittredge is also older, there isn't much under the hood in common. The previous two had seen some velocity drop and I think you could make arguments on both as to signs of decline; Kittredge got better as the year went on. There's no such thing as a bad one year deal. I'd pick his option up and not think twice.

I think horrible overstates the issue. His ERA was horrible, but there was a lot to make you think he's just fine and was someone who dealt with bad sequencing and some luck. First, his xFIP was 3.56. Compared to his xFIP since 2021, which is 3.65, it's actually a bit higher than average. His 29.8 K% is the highest he's had since 2022, and while his walk rate of 9.8% was higher than 2024, it was lower than 2023, 2022 and virtually identical to his 9.6% in 2021. His total stuff+ last year was 110 and his stuff+ this season was 108. His xERA was 3.47 and his ERA last year was 3.47. There was certainly some rough edges he had some starts where bad things happened, but overall, I'd side with all of the under hood data over the ERA. His BABIP against was .320, bus his xBA was .220. He was 72nd percentile in hard hit% and very high in whiff and chase. I really don't think he was bad.

Reputation over 2025 data set, is the likely answer. Turng was a +7 DRS and a -2 OAA in 2025, but in 2024 lead the league in DRS at 2b. I agree that Hoerner is a better defender - he beat Turang (and the entire league) in 2025 DRS, and 2025 OAA and was 4th in the league in 2024 OAA (7th in 2024 DRS). It's safe to assume that when it comes to defense, both in voting and in commentary, that opinions will be far wider and varied than in other aspects. Defense is still the hardest to quantify and people are generally the furthest behind.

The game logs don't mention an injury, they're just game logs. They show only his MLB time. Matt Shaw was the start 3b and then has gaps too. Could I have taken a second step, look at his MiLB section of his game logs to confirm an assumptions? Yep! Did I move too fast? Yep! Have I admitted this already? Yep! Did I make things up? No. I also didn't make a direct comparison. I think you'll find with a quick search of my history of posts I hate the concept of them and while I think there are players who can remind you of others, comps are not something I subscribe to as often as possible. Bringing up Kirk, therefore, is an anecdote that body size isn't an immediate disqualifier for catcher not that I think Ballesteros is Alejandro Kirk. It is to show that players who have a similar body type are actively finding success at the position. What Ballesteros is and will be is not tied to Kirk's timeline. But he is also very young for his position, and he could take two+ more years to develop defensively and still be well within a normal catching developmental timeline. I doubt he will win a gold glove or be considered excellent. If the Cubs even got him to 70+ game starter at C while splitting time at DH, they would be sitting on what is likely a strong offensive weapon at a weak offensive position.

I liked the trade at the time. Still think it's perfectly fine. It allowed the Cubs to develop Matt Shaw (130 wRC+ post ASB, + defender). They got a 140 wRC+ hitter. They lost Parades who is a good player but his data is skewed in Houston, which has one of the shortest porches in LF vs the Cubs which have the longest. For a pull hitter with poor natural power, he would have been a good player in Chicago but is much more suited to him as a player. The same can be said about Bellinger. Cam Smith might be good eventually but unlike Matt Shaw did not show progress in 2025. He has a 41 wRC+ in the second half of the year. There was bad batted ball luck in there but even with good batted ball luck he was terrible. There was no obvious signs of getting better. The Cubs didn't fleece anyone. But I do believe the trade was both fair value then and despite not winning a WS, remains fine. I know people want to factor in a lack of extension, but I don't think that's a fair thing to do. Sign and extends just don't happen in the MLB like in other sports and had Tucker has more control his price would have been much higher. The reason he was able to be had for what he was had for was because of the control, so it's baked in. Overall, I understand it sucks he was here for what appears to be one year. But I also still think the trade was of fair value and that the Cubs aren't necessarily hurt in any way by it.

I'm not entirely certain the Cubs could know yet. The reality is very, very, very few catchers make their debut at the age Moises Ballesteros is. The last two college catchers to go 1-1 in the draft were Adley Rustchman and Henry Davis. You can make arguments that Davis wasn't the top player in his draft, but Rustchman was widely considered the best player and one of the best all around college catchers in a while. He made his MLB debut at age 24, three years older than Ballesteros. I don't mean to boil this down to a series of anecdotes, but the reality is that at Ballesteros age, he's incredibly young for a catcher and most at his position have years of defensive development to go before they're deemed MLB ready. I do believe the Cubs believe they can get him there, but he could take two more years defensively and he would still be probably right in line for normal catching development. Which goes to speak how well he has hit more than anything.

Currently Ballesteros is listed at 5"8 197lbs and Kirk at 5"8 245lbs. Big Mo is clearly out of date and no one believes he's still under 200. IFA numbers especially are rarely updated until they make an OD roster. It'll be interesting to see them when they're updated for sure. They're the same height, it seems, but weight wise I would guess Mo isn't like, crazy off of 245 or anything.

I suspect it's either: Tucker + fringe upgrades and one year stuff and something around an upgrade in the rotation + better fringe upgrades. Based on the recent reporting from Sharma, it does not look like the Cubs are intrigued with Tucker as a long term option. If you want to be overly optimistic, the Cubs have an easy reset into 2027 with a lot of money coming off and have just hosted five playoff games. I think there's an argument to be made that they'd be willing to go beyond the LT this season by a bit and stay in the first bracket. I'm not saying that's what I would expect them to do, only that they're set up to be in a situation to do it. Ultimately, my expectation is that they will spend similarly to this year. Which still leaves a decent amount of action to happen. Lately, I think it's important to remember that I think last offseason entering it, a similar feeling of "small changes, maybe a SP upgrade" felt like it was the strong path forward and they went an traded multiple starting players from their lineup, added Boyd and Rea, brought in Tucker and tried to get Bregman and Scott at the end. The Cubs tend to be creative in their own pursuits and any offseason likely has two or three curveballs in it.

Nothing was "made up". You are correct, I missed in the data set that he was hurt during the one season and that was wrong of me. Sadly, as much as I wish I was perfect, I am just as flawed of a human as the rest of us. I have also admitted I missed that, so I've already owned up to my miss there. Please, however, it's not fair to me to characterize it as I just "made" things up.

Kyle Tucker is an easy $300m+ player in my book. The injuries he's had recently are not ones I find a lot of concern in. The calf issue at the end of the year is likely the first one I'd raise an eyebrow out, but is not a consistent issue. Beyond that, he fouled a baseball off his shin; that's not going to be a reoccurring fear for me. I do think the potential for a CBA with a cap could impact this down the road, but whether or not there is a cap or not, I'm going to try to look at it from a "today" standpoint. We know that teams are paying between $8 and $9m (or more) per win, and there is some nuance, as a player accumulates wins, he becomes more valuable as well. For our exercise, let's use the $9m number, with the understanding there's a good chance that's a little low. At $300m, you're asking for roughly 33 wins out of Kyle Tucker over the length of a contract. At 10 years, that's ~3 wins a season. Tucker has been worth 4.9 and 4.2 wins in every season of material, and his lowest output was last year at 4.2 because of the shin thing. Assuming he's good for what he's doing I think a possible aging curve for him looks like this: 5, 4.5, 4, 3.5, 3, 2, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1 over a 10 year deal. That's 27 wins, so it does come in a little shallow if he decays at a .5 fWAR pace year over year. 11 players aged 29 or over finished with 4.5+ wins this year. Five of those players were 32 and up, so almost half of the sample size. Tucker keeping a 4.5 win pace into aged 32 would get you to 29.5 alone if the rest of the decay was identical, but if it was again a .5 decay after 32, you're probably well into the black on wins/salary. When we factor in things such as inflation, there's probably an even better argument to be made here. If you want to say that you don't think he's a half a billion dollar player, I think you're probably exactly where I am. But I also think it's important to remember that Kyle Schwarber put up a 152 wRC+ season out of the DH spot which was good for 4.9 fWAR, and since 2021, has averaged a 143 wRC+, which is a stones throw away from that. There's probably a strong argument to be made that he could both be a valuable DH and that with that in tow, we could consider his value to extend out even more than this process accomplished. EDIT: To add one other thing - the team who signs Kyle Tucker to a deal worth $300m (and to be clear, I think he will get above $300m) will be doing so with the assumption that he is probably not going to provide surplus value. Teams who are in this market have an understanding that their advantage is money and they don't need to operate at a pure value proposition. So even if he's more expensive on paper than you plan it out on, that's probably assumed from the get go. If you want to have players give surplus value always, you'll likely never sign the best free agent to begin with.

Doubling down on the Kirk comp is not "awful", it remains relevant here as it did elsewhere when we did this last time. It's a much more meaningful data point than "look at this picture" where we ogle his size. Frankly, I bowed out of that prior because it's a waste of time to go around and around on it. I have no interest in continuing it a month later in this thread. I think your position is a poor one, but you're entitled to your position regardless. Beyond that, I'm uninterested in it again as nothing as changed in terms of information. It would simply be rehashing the same thing.