Kyle Tucker Topping Cubs Fans’ Wishlist Following Word He Isn’t Untouchable in Trade Talks
Cubs fans are jonesing for some sort of offseason fix because all they’ve gotten so far is product that’s been stepped on so much it may as well be a doormat. That’s exactly what everyone fears the North Siders are on their way to becoming after consecutive 83-win seasons with a squad that has actively eschewed the pursuit of superstars in favor of value via volume. But anyone who’s ever purchased a five-gallon tub of cottage cheese at Costco knows that price per ounce means precisely dick when you throw half of it out after spotting mold blooms on the lid.
No offense to Matthew Boyd, Eli Morgan, Matt Thaiss, and Carson Kelly, it’s just that their acquisitions aren’t exactly spurring fans to customize $500 jerseys before they become available at the team store. That may be the case for any free agent moves at this point, with Jed Hoyer sitting on more prospect capital than payroll purchasing power as he tries to coax at least seven more wins out of a philosophy that leaves little room for excessive spending.
So with options limited and nearly every rumor concerning the addition of starting pitchers and relievers, it’s understandable for fans to start frothing over the mere possibility that Astros outfielder Kyle Tucker might be available. A lefty batter who turns 28 in January, Tucker is expected to earn just $16 million in his final run through arbitration after his fourth straight season with 20 or more homers.
Though his 23 dingers were his fewest since the truncated 2020 season, a persistent right shin injury limited him to just 339 plate appearances. Despite a trip to the 60-day IL and frequent rest days following his activation, Tucker posted a career-best 180 wRC+ with 4.2 fWAR. The former was 42 points higher than any Cubs hitter and the latter trailed only Dansby Swanson‘s 4.3, and that’s with Tucker missing literally half the season.
Tucker also walked more than he struck out this past season, leading to a gaudy .408 on-base percentage that was nearly 120 points higher than his .289 average. His .296 ISO was higher than every player in MLB (min. 300 PAs) not named Aaron Judge (.379) or Shohei Ohtani (.336) and his OBP trailed only Judge (.458) an Juan Soto (.419). Oh, Tucker also has a Gold Glove and Silver Slugger to his name. That’s the kind of guy whose availability is going to raise an eyebrow or three.
All the online hubbub stemmed from a relatively innocuous answer from GM Dana Brown about whether being open to improvement could mean trading two of their best players with limited club control remaining.
“Yeah, everybody, I think you would list on all the players,” Brown told MLB.com’s Brian McTaggart when asked specifically about the availability of Tucker and Framber Valdez. “I don’t think that you would turn a deaf ear to any of these guys. I think the big thing is, if you have an opportunity to make the club better then you would at least listen to other clubs and see if there’s something that makes sense for the club in the present and also long-term.”
I’m personally not too excited about this because it’s really just a matter of Brown keeping doors open the same way Jed Hoyer would if asked about any of his players or prospects. Like how a report that the Cubs were “determined” to trade either Cody Bellinger or Seiya Suzuki sprouted from the idea that they’d be open to listening on the better hitter with a more desirable contract if they can’t move the guy they’d hoped was going to test free agency.
This sounds far more like a case in which Brown is chumming the waters and hoping for a whopper of an offer that essentially forces them to accept.
“We’ll listen on anybody,” Brown added later. We’re not trying to aggressively move anybody out the door…If it doesn’t make sense, we wouldn’t do it. So it really would have to make sense. Because right now we’re a good team and we’re not motivated to move any of these guys.”
A right fielder by trade, Tucker’s fit becomes natural if Bellinger is indeed moved as pretty much everyone expects at this point. However, that also means thoroughly blocking the matriculation of multiple outfield prospects for at least another year. And since it would be completely asinine to trade for Tucker sans extension, you have to figure on him becoming a fixture in right with Pete Crow-Armstrong holding down center for the foreseeable future.
Oh, and you can stop with the hopes that Ian Happ will be traded. Setting aside the full no-trade clause that a not-insignificant number of people seem to think is little more than a formality, why would the Cubs want to jettison a three-time Gold Glove left fielder who just wrapped up what was arguably the best offensive season of his career? I get that good is the enemy of great, but there’s also that whole thing about being careful what you wish for.
With all that in mind, any trade for Tucker would have to be predicated on parting with one of either Owen Caissie or Kevin Alcantara, plus a controllable pitcher like Jordan Wicks or Javier Assad and at least one other player. The Astros have expressed interest in Bellinger, so maybe he could be included along with cash to offset his 2025 salary and a pinkie promise to kick in more if he opts into the final year of his deal as well.
In addition to his individual production, acquiring and extending Tucker would serve as a signal to the rest of the league that the Cubs are indeed serious about winning. Thing is, it sure doesn’t sound like he’s truly available so much as the Astros just aren’t going to treat calls on him like suspected spam. I’m not putting much stock in this possibility, though I do believe the Cubs are actively pursuing big arms and could be real players in the Garrett Crochet sweepstakes.
They’ve got the prospects to make both big deals possible, but that would mean nearly emptying out the top of the farm system while also having to guarantee what would likely be the two largest contracts in club history. Barring a serious departure from the blueprint Hoyer has followed this whole time, I don’t see that happening. But hey, I’m open to being surprised.