I don’t know if you’ve seen it yet, but David Kaplan and Gordon Wittenmyer sat down with Cubs President of Baseball Operations Jed Hoyer for a *fantastic* hour-long interview on the Cubs Rekap Podcast/Youtube Channel. We’re going to dig into a number of items Hoyer discussed during that chat (we’ve already started!), but you should immediately go listen to the entire thing. It’s probably the best Hoyer interview we’ve gotten in years. Among the first topics I wanted to dissect, however, was the conversation around the lack of an arbitration agreement with Kyle Tucker and what that means for any potential extension plans the Cubs have for their new superstar.
Kyle Tucker Extension Talks
As a reminder, Kyle Tucker is under control with the Cubs for just one season, meaning that he’s about ten months away from hitting free agency as one of the best (and still young) players in the game. If he has even a typical Kyle Tucker season in 2025, he’s going to be set up for a long-term deal that probably starts around $300M. If he’s just okay, he’ll still get $200M+.
And if he’s hitting his 90th-percentile outcomes, I don’t think anyone could – at this point – rule out a deal that starts with a four. That’s just the nature of where these deals are headed. Tucker may not be as young as Juan Soto or Vladimir Guerrero Jr., but he’s a very complete player.
Why No Arb Deal?
And yet, the Cubs failed to come to an arbitration-avoiding agreement for 2025, filing just $2.5M below what Kyle Tucker was reportedly seeking ($17.5M). But if you ask Hoyer, that’s no skin off his back.
Wittenmyer: You didn’t get anything done with (Kyle Tucker) in arbitration, and there’s the idea of him maybe being in line for an extension if you could do it. But then there’s talk that maybe That ain’t gonna happen. So first of all … how come something didn’t get done on a one-year deal and does that indicate that there’s more conversations going on about a multi-year (extension)?
Hoyer: No, no. There’s not….Arbitration is such a complicated process. There’s the team and then there’s the player, but you don’t have the ability to say “You know, I really want to pay this player X, so I’m going to pay him that.” Because, obviously, the whole process is based on precedent and all these different things. So there’s times when you end of exchanging numbers because of that. And I told Kap the other day, when we exchanged numbers, I’m not concerned about it at all. It says nothing about the relationship between me and (Tucker’s agent) or between us and (Kyle Tucker).
Later on, Gorden Wittenmyer pushed back on Hoyer a little bit, asking why he didn’t just give him the extra $2.5M to help grease the skids on future extension efforts. But again, Hoyer leaned on this concept that it’s … more complicated than that because of precedent. He added that his “heart rate doesn’t go up one beat” because he failed to get an arb deal done with Kyle Tucker.
A few comments/reactions to that. There’s some nuance here (in Hoyer’s favor), but some other points against what he said, as well.
- First, it’s important to note that Hoyer isn’t wrong about the precedent thing: Arbitration is all about precedent, not only for the arbitrators making the decisions but also for every player that goes down this road. Caving or making an exception this time might cost them only $2.5M today, but it could cost them even more down the line with other players.
- Second, if the Cubs are going to seriously try to extend Kyle Tucker, there’s at least some value in demonstrating that you won’t just immediately cave to any request. Let’s not be naive there.
- Lastly, just because the Cubs ($15M) and Tucker ($17.5M) have officially filed at those numbers does not mean that’s where their negotiations were before they were forced to etch a number into stone. Tucker could have been asking for a lot more (or the Cubs could have been offering a lot less). We just won’t ever know.
- HOWEVER, it’s also now true that the Cubs are going to go to arbitration with Kyle Tucker over $2.5M. And that’s pretty silly. Although the Cubs, like many teams, have become a file and trial organization, nothing is preventing them from – right now – giving Tucker his extra $2.5M to settle the deal.
- Which is to say, maybe Hoyer is correct in guessing that taking Kyle Tucker through arbitration won’t actively hurt (though after hearing about arbitration cases from other players, I strongly disagree). But he could have – and still could at any time – demonstrate some goodwill by giving him his extra $2.5M to avoid the ugliness of the arb case.
Okay, got all that? Onto the extension stuff.
What About an Extension, Then?
Following this chat about the lack of an arbitration deal, Jed Hoyer got into the extension talk. Though, I’ll warn you, it’s moderately disappointing.
Wittenmyer: So…does that indicate that there’s more conversations going on about a multi-year (extension)?
Hoyer: No, no. There’s not….
Hoyer (later on): I mean, clearly, he’s a player that you’d love to have for a long time. That’s obvious. He’s young, he does everything well. That’s a process that will go on in the future. (But) The biggest sales point for the Cubs, he hasn’t experienced yet in a lot of ways.
Kaplan: Yeah, a packed house at Wrigley, especially if you’re winning.
Hoyer: For me, you know, there’s a time for that. I’m sure at some point I’ll have a lot of conversations with (Kyle Tucker’s agent) about that. But I also think I’m just excited to get him in…this weekend there’ll be the convention. I’m excited to get him, we’re going to Japan, we’re gonna come back and play at Wrigley. This place sells itself. I enjoy the recruiting part of this job. But one of the best parts of this job is you’ve got Wrigley and you’ve got the fans and you’ve got Chicago in the summer. Those are all things he hasn’t even experienced yet that I’m sure will have an impact on him.
So first and foremost, no, there are no active extension negotiations with Kyle Tucker. At least, none Hoyer was willing to share publicly. Hoyer did warn that he doesn’t like to share that sort of information (we all know that’s true), but he did seem earnest in his denial.
To the latter point, I don’t want to harp too badly on the “Wrigley sells itself,” stuff for two reasons: (1) It’s true! Chicago in the summer is great and Wrigley Field is a famously great place to play. And after the renovations in the clubhouse, it’s not just about the history/stadium either. By most accounts, the Cubs take very good care of their players, and we know the fans do too. (2) We’ve made the argument before that acquiring players one year ahead of free agency can give a team a leg up on extensions. You get an entire year to show them what’s so great about your team and get them comfortable/familiar with their surroundings. But…
It doesn’t always work out. The Yankees acquired Juan Soto last offseason and he left for the Mets one year later. So the lesson here is if you have a window to get something done – i.e. the player is open to talking – you better JUMP at that opportunity. You never know what can happen in a year, and it doesn’t always work out in your favor.
If I had to guess, I think the Cubs probably will at least open up the dialogue of an extension with Kyle Tucker – either now (during the arb process) or in Spring Training, when most of these discussions go down. But I don’t think it’ll happen. Short of a horrible/completely injured season, Tucker is going to get paid next winter no matter what. If he bets on himself, the variance in how much more he can earn – after some of these recent deals – will increase exponentially. And that’s probably a bet he’ll want to take.
So that leaves us having to hope that he really loves his time in Chicago and wants to stay and that the Cubs are willing to pony up what it’ll take to keep him.