I’m going to preface this by saying that you know it as well as I do: The Cubs aren’t going to retain Kyle Tucker. That seems completely obvious to anyone who’s followed Tucker’s saga from being traded to the Cubs last winter, to becoming a free agent the day after the World Series ended.
Why am I writing this article, then?
First, to say that I’m not sure Kyle Tucker is the $400 million player everyone seems to think he is, though it seems possible someone (cough Dodgers cough) will give him that money,
or something close to it.
Tucker has now spent significant portions of the last two seasons injured. Does that make him injury-prone? That’s a question worth asking for anyone who signs him, not that we necessarily have the answer.
The Cubs were 77-57 when Tucker started a game in 2025. That’s a .575 winning percentage, or the equivalent of a 93-win season. The Cubs were 15-13 in games Tucker did not start in 2025. That’s a .536 winning percentage, or the equivalent of an 87-win season.
Tucker was a 4.5 bWAR (same in fWAR) player in 2025, missing 26 games, so perhaps a 5 WAR player. So the difference in winning percentage with and without him seems just about right.
Personally? I would not want the Cubs to invest that much money in Kyle Tucker.
Why? The primary reason is that by giving him that much money, the Cubs would thus be making him the face of the franchise. Tucker does not seem like the type of player who would do well under those circumstances. As you saw during the 2025 season, Tucker goes about his business in a quiet way. He doesn’t take BP on the field. He doesn’t do a lot of interviews, and doesn’t interact much with Cubs fans. Making him “the guy” on the Cubs franchise might put too much pressure on him. We’ve seen how some players have reacted when put in similar situations (Anthony Rendon comes to mind).
If Tucker signs with the Dodgers, for example, well, Shohei Ohtani, Mookie Betts, Yoshinobu Yamamoto and Freddie Freeman are already there — Tucker doesn’t have to be “the guy” in Los Angeles. Honestly, it seems like the perfect fit for player and team, and if and when he does sign there, sure, fans will moan about the Dodgers “buying another championship,” which isn’t really the case.
It was nice having Kyle Tucker around for a year, and the return to the Astros wasn’t really as much as one might think. Isaac Paredes spent much of 2025 injured and is a good player, but likely not a huge star going forward. Cam Smith made headlines by making Houston’s Opening Day roster out of A ball and got off to a good start, but his 2025 season was just okay, not headline-making. And Hayden Wesneski had Tommy John surgery in May and likely misses most or all of 2026.
If the Cubs had been able to even get to the World Series with Tucker, then I think many of us would have said the deal was worth it even if he left. They didn’t. They’ll have to replace his production, somehow. And somehow, I think they can do it for less than $400 million. Perhaps you disagree.
In connection with that, here’s one thing I would like from you, the BCB reader. We already know that many of you are unhappy with the Cubs’ lack of spending. I concur. What I don’t want is for the comment sections of each of these posts to devolve into “Cubs are cheap” rants. We get it. Nothing I write here is going to change that. It doesn’t have to be repeated over and over and over. Thanks.
In any case, the bottom line is that Tucker’s not coming back to the Cubs.
