With one definite year of Kyle Tucker, and having sent a substantial package to the Houston Astros for it, the Chicago Cubs appear to be in win-now mode. The question that faces the Cubs presently is: are they ready to win now?
The Cubs unquestionably have a strong team. But despite their strength, it’s still up in the air whether they can beat the Los Angeles Dodgers or the other titans in the NL. One MLB insider recently wrote on why the Cubs “the Cubs can’t go halfway at the deadline.”
In his column for The Athletic, Ken Rosenthal gave Cubs fans reassurance that the Cubs’ roster would still be strong after Tucker’s departure. Still, according to him, the long-term outlook is not bright, noting there are five other players that will hit free agency after 2026.
“Their situation is not now or never, not with the emergence of center fielder Pete Crow-Armstrong giving the 2026 roster a formidable look even if Tucker departs,” he wrote. “But ownership’s reluctance to sign players long-term, coupled with the possibility of a work stoppage in 2027, adds to the perception of a shrinking window. Or, to use a more dire analogy, walls closing in.”
Of course, all Cubs fans are waiting to hear that Chicago has extended Tucker. With Tucker in Wrigleyville for the foreseeable future, most of the team’s concerns sort of melt away. Unfortunately, a Tucker extension isn’t very likely.
“The addition of Tucker has been that transformational, producing ripple effects throughout the lineup,” Rosenthal explains. “His value, like the value of all elite sluggers, goes beyond his numbers. But his price might exceed $500 million.
“Even if Ricketts was willing to pay Tucker that much – another open question – would he be willing to increase the Cubs’ payroll enough to build a strong team around him? The prospect of Tucker and Crow-Armstrong in the same lineup for the next five years should be enticing … The Cubs actually are positioned perfectly to sign Tucker. Their only player under contract beyond 2026 is shortstop Dansby Swanson, who is signed through ’29. Of course, the reason their commitments are so low is because Ricketts seems resistant to the notion of paying a player in his decline years. Which, with Tucker, he almost certainly would need to do.”
As Rosenthal notes, there are two factors working against signing Tucker long-term: the overall price and the potential of overpaying him through his declining years. Owner Tom Ricketts has been adamant about keeping the purse strings pulled tightly. Will this stop him from paying to keep Tucker? Maybe, maybe not. But if history serves as a precedent, the chances aren’t good.
-1750599283-q80.webp "Ranking Every Player on Packers’ Roster, Part 4: Five Linemen")
