‘Willingness to Stop’ Only Thing Preventing Cubs from Being Unequivocal Favorites to Sign Kyle Tucker

There’s just something about the Cubs and elite sluggers named Kyle. While many across the team’s fandom continue to litigate the choice to non-tender Kyle Schwarber in light of his recent four-homer game, the debate rages around what they should do with Kyle Tucker. First, it was that they absolutely needed to break the bank to extend him after making such an aggressive trade to pry him from the Astros. Then his production took a nosedive and folks suddenly felt Owen Caissie was the better long-term answer in right field.

I’m obviously being reductive there, but the conversation has taken on a different tone over the last month or so, even among the most pragmatic fans. Despite a hand fracture contributing to a slump that lasted most of August, Tucker is still going to command a massive contract in free agency. And even after being booed in his home ballpark, the Cubs have to be considered the frontrunners to give him said contract.

There is, of course, one massive caveat to that possibility. We’ve seen more than a few times in the past that the organization is unwilling to stretch to the same lengths as other big-market clubs when it comes to (over)paying for a superstar. Whether that’s Tom Ricketts setting a restrictive budget or Jed Hoyer’s dogged adherence to his value algorithms, there is a line in the sand the Cubs won’t cross no matter how much they want Tucker.

“I’ve said yes in the past and I will still say yes now, but I think the Cubs are going to have a limit that they’re not gonna want to go past,” Jeff Passan told Marquee’s Lance Brozdowski on the Cubs Weekly Podcast. “The reason I have pause on saying, ‘Unequivocally, yes, they are the favorite,’ is because I’ve seen this time and again. We saw it with Alex Bregman.

“The Cubs should have gotten Alex Bregman in the winter. I know that would’ve kept Shaw away, and he wouldn’t have been able to go through the growth that he has this season, and maybe he would have been traded. I’ve seen the Cubs have a willingness to stop, and to say, ‘We are not going to go a penny over that, and you can keep pushing and you can keep trying and you can keep cajoling and you can keep telling us we’re not going to get the player, but we’re not moving.'”

None of this is new, per se, as you should all be aware by now of how the Cubs operate. Still, there’s a Charlie-Brown-kicking-the-football optimism that maybe this time, for this player, things will be different. I suppose you could be among those who side with financial austerity, reasoning that the Rays and Brewers manage to be competitive nearly every year with much smaller payrolls. Whichever side of the argument you fall on, it’s reasonable to assume that opting against meeting the requisite price for Tucker means the Cubs are never landing a premier free agent again.

They may still get the occasional Dansby Swanson, who was the fourth shortstop in his class, but that might be the extent of it. While I can understand not doing what it took to get Juan Soto, my concern is that the Cubs won’t leverage their greatest advantage over their immediate rivals. Their capacity for revenue generation far outstrips the rest of the NL Central and most of the other teams across MLB, yet they remain content to sit well below the top tier of spenders.

“One could call that either discipline or foolishness, and maybe it’s a little bit of both,” Passan continued. “But I think that the Cubs are going to have a number [in their mind that they are not willing to] go past. If they do lose Kyle Tucker, that’s going to be the reason. Because they were steadfast in their position and refused to move off of it despite the market forces doing what they need to do.”

Now, it’s possible this won’t even matter if Tucker doesn’t prioritize the Cubs when it comes time to make a choice. Whether it’s the way fans have treated him negatively or the way Wrigley Field’s conditions have negatively impacted his performance, this winter’s most coveted hitter might seek more friendly confines. Tucker’s 149 wRC+ on the road would put him in MLB’s top 10, ahead of Juan Soto, if extrapolated across his whole season. His 119 mark at home, however, would tie him for 61st.

Maybe that won’t concern him if he’s already secured the bag, but Tucker doesn’t strike me as a guy who’ll be happy to collect a paycheck and be merely a solid player for the next 10 years. Then there’s the fact that we’ve seen more than one Scott Boras client — including at least two of Tucker’s former Astros teammates, Bregman being one — forced to go with pillow deals or short-term pacts with opt-outs because no one was willing to pony up a monster contract. If that’s the case for Tucker, playing half of his games at Wrigley probably isn’t the best way to maximize his chances of getting a huge deal in another year or two.

Then you’ve got the strong likelihood of a work stoppage following the expiration of the current collective bargaining agreement at the conclusion of next season. Uncertainty around the league’s financial structure could have the Cubs and other teams even less willing to commit hundreds of millions over a decade or more to one player. We can save that for at least a few more weeks when Tucker’s courtship commences in earnest. Until then, let’s just hope he starts doing things to make ponying up for him look like a no-brainer again.