Thoughts on Kyle Tucker Trade Rumors, Potential Interest in Pete Alonso, Need to Switch Lanes

The Thursday of the Winter Meetings is like the last day of vacation, with everyone packing up and dragging ass after a whirlwind few days. Rumors that seemed hot two days ago are now choking the air like stale farts and everyone is trying to piece together why this didn’t happen and why that still might. That includes the Cubs, who somehow haven’t even managed to finalize the deal they were reportedly close to with catcher Carson Kelly.

Reports of talks between the Cubs and Astros for Kyle Tucker dominated the conversation on Wednesday, rising to a crescendo before quieting behind word that he’s not interested in working out an extension. There are also conflicting rumors about what it would take to get him with many suggesting Seiya Suzuki would have to be part of the deal even after Ken Rosenthal reported that the Cubs are “highly unlikely” to move him. The inclusion of Isaac Paredes, on the other hand, drew rave reviews from everyone.

Lines start to get drawn when proposals feature both Paredes and Suzuki plus a prospect or two. The Astros reportedly wanted either Matt Shaw or Cam Smith, but the first isn’t on the table at all and the latter wouldn’t be included if the Cubs were giving up those two vets. While Tucker is superior to Suzuki, a swap only makes sense if the Cubs could guarantee that production over far more than one season.

Flipping Suzuki for Tucker would be kind of like having one dude standing in a hole and then replacing him with a slightly taller dude. Still in a hole, just a better view. It might make sense if we were talking about a team on the precipice of contention that just needed a little nudge to get over the top. But the Cubs need to bank on at least seven more wins than they’ve generated over each of the last two seasons, and Tucker alone isn’t going to get that done even if the Cubs keep Suzuki.

All that said, I’m very much in favor of acquiring the All-Star right fielder even if the cost is painful and he is intent on testing free agency. Paredes is a given, and we looked at a proposal yesterday that would see Owen Caissie, Hayden Wesneski, and corner infield prospect Cole Mathis heading to Houston. Maybe the Cubs could avoid parting with Caissie if they know it’s just one year of Tucker, but I firmly believe this is the kind of move they need to do to get out of the middle lane.

Though he didn’t come out and say as much, GM Carter Hawkins certainly made it sound like the Cubs are willing to get a little risky in pursuit of a better record.

“The term you’ll hear is the marginal value of a win,” Hawkins said when asked about the value of a rental player. “Going from 85 to 87 is really, really important. That might be the difference between making the playoffs and not making the playoffs. You’re also going to put more leverage on those additional wins [if] they’re going to change the potential outcome for your team. When you do that, you’re willing to pay more for those. So, yeah, I think that definitely goes into the calculus.”

Oh, one more note on the Tucker situation: Why is everyone making a big deal out of the idea that he or his camp is saying that he doesn’t want to sign an extension? Of course that’s what they’re saying, they’d be stupid to give up leverage by indicating that an extension is very much on the table. As much as the Astros would love that for the sake of their return, Tucker’s reps at Excel don’t give shit one about how well Houston makes out.

Whether it’s just a product of our collective consciousness or spurred by a bit of speculation from Jon Heyman, Pete Alonso has suddenly entered the conversation. He’s been mentioned in trade rumors going back to at least last year, but now he’s coming up again as a possible free-agent target.

“I throw the Cubs in the mix for Alonso,” Heyman said during a Thursday livestream. “They’ve long been rumored to be interested in him.”

Part of me wonders whether this is just Freudian given all the cross-connections between the Yankees and Cubs on a number of different players. But if I squint just right, I think I can see a way this could make sense. If the Cubs get Tucker and have to give up Suzuki and Paredes to do it, they gain about $6 million in payroll space Trading Bellinger to the Yankees will clear up some money, though exactly how much is a matter of dispute at the moment.

Let’s just say the Cubs agree to eat $7.5 million this year and $5 million next year to either cover the buyout or pay down some of Bellinger’s 2026 salary if he opts in. That gives them another $20 million, putting them roughly $66 million below the CBT threshold that we’re assuming serves as a hard cap for Jed Hoyer. That’s more than enough room to float a $40 million AAV extension for Tucker and still have room left for smaller additions. Or to save for a rainy day.

But what if Tucker really is serious about testing free agency? While I have already noted that I’m still in favor of acquiring him, the uncertainty of being able to keep him is enough to make me agree with the idea of pursuing Alonso to provide thunder as a DH/first baseman. It doesn’t make as much sense to me if Suzuki stays because the Cubs really need that DH spot to make this work.

Projections on Alonso fall around the five-year, $125 million range, which isn’t exorbitant for a masher of his caliber. My issue is that he’s pretty much a one-trick pony whose home run numbers barely make up for his subpar defense, poor baserunning, and a batting average that has really fallen off over the last two seasons. Michael Busch developed into a Gold Glove-caliber first baseman and put up 2.3 fWAR to Alonso’s 2.1 this past season. Even if we place a generous value of $10 million per incremental win, Alonso might not be worth the cost of the deal.

He would, however, make up for the right-handed thump they’d lose if Suzuki is dealt and we can probably look at last season as the floor for his production through age 34 on a five-year deal. The question then is whether the trio of Tucker, Alonso, and Shaw is preferable to Suzuki, Bellinger, and Paredes. I’d wager most Cubs fans would say yes to that if only because it represents the kind of aggressive overhaul Hoyer has been either too cautious or stubborn to attempt thus far.

As dangerous as it can be to make change for the sake of change, it’s become painfully evident that this conservative approach to roster-building doesn’t work. Something needs to shift, even if that’s just spinning off a few veterans and replacing them with prospects. At least that indicates a specific direction, even if the flip side is that it could seen as ownership being cheap.

Going into the luxury tax penalty for the 2024 season says very clearly that the Cubs are far from cheap, but winning only 83 games at such a high cost says even more clearly that they are both ineffective and inefficient. There’s a commercial out there for either Prime or Wal-Mart that shows a house festooned with lights a la Christmas Vacation and then the neighbor just has a sign with an arrow pointing to that house that reads, “Ditto.” As weird as it sounds, I want the Cubs to be one of those two things.

Not in terms of one spending a ton and the other spending almost nothing, but one going balls to the wall in this direction and the other taking a turn in that direction. Sell a big chunk of the farm or lean into prospects, but get this half-assed bullshit off the screen I’m paying $20 a month to hate-watch. Whew, felt good to get that off my chest.