You didn't "pick a player who had a similar career line" as Tucker because Justin Turner didn't have a season above replacement level until age 29 and he's not an OF. Turner had a 0.3 career fWAR at Tucker's current age. You picked the outlier aging case that most conveniently backed your argument, you can say otherwise but its not the 1st time you've done this debating with me.
If we're going to project what a player will do from age 29-38 then every competent projection system in the world is going to assume the typical average case, which is what I tried to eyeball, not what Justin Turner did, who has an extremely weird career line and age regression.
I'd much prefer the Cubs spend payroll like a large market team but they don't. They spend like an upper mid-market team, ranked 10th and 9th in tax payroll in 2024 and 2023. I'd love if Ricketts spent more and extended Tucker. Hoyer is in a tight spot.
If the FO is forced to have tax-line level payrolls I see no issue if the Cubs FO behaved somewhat like the Brewers but had the money to extend any key players and add better FA's, so similar to the Braves. They can trade guys like Happ, Suzuki, Nico before they hit FA, reload on prospects and keep the prospects they want and trade others for guys like Tucker/Paredes etc. Rinse and repeat, seems better than watching your best & most expensive assets depreciate in value every season. Nobody should complain the Braves don't sign "star" FA's and let their FA's walk if they won't extend. They won a WS and had 2 straight 100-win seasons before some injuries hit.