Kyle Tucker: The Man and His Dream Contract

The Astros currently rank third in the American League in runs scored — not an uncommon sight for a franchise that has only been outscored by the Dodgers and Red Sox over the last decade. But they’ve done it with a lineup with some pretty big holes, with half of their eight players with at least 300 plate appearances this season posting an OBP under .300. The team’s offense has been driven this year mainly by four players: Kyle Tucker, Yordan Alvarez, Alex Bregman, and Chas McCormick, with an assist from Yainer Diaz. A year ago, Houston signed Alvarez to a six-year, $115 million contract extension that ensured he would remain in town until the end of the 2028 season. Tucker, though, does not have a long-term deal and is scheduled to hit free agency after the 2025 season. What would a possible deal look like?
There’s certainly interest from the Astros’ side, as there ought to be. The team has discussed an extension with Tucker in the past, though there are no active talks right now. But general manager Dana Brown did use his weekly radio spot in part to discuss making Tucker an “Astro for life,” so some kind of deal coming together is hardly implausible.
Based on franchise history, being one of Houston’s stars doesn’t necessarily grant a ton of leverage when it comes to landing big contract extensions. Jose Altuve signed a seven-year, $163.5 million deal before the 2018 season, but that remains the largest contract in team history. The Astros didn’t participate in any bidding wars for previous stars like George Springer, Carlos Correa, and Gerrit Cole, confident in their farm system replacing the lost talent. And that confidence has not been misplaced, as the franchise has a good record graduating minor league prospects to the majors. Even Justin Verlander’s sudden, stunning return a couple of weeks ago involved the Mets paying the majority of his remaining salary.
Tucker has certainly earned a big payday. Since grabbing the a full-time spot in the lineup in 2020, he’s hit .280/.351/.516 with a wRC+ of 137. That’s good enough to rank fifth in baseball among outfielder in WAR, at 15.1, behind only Aaron Judge, Mookie Betts, Juan Soto, and Ronald Acuña Jr. This year, Tucker’s on track to hit the five-WAR mark for the first time. He’s even showed growth as a hitter, which ought to serve him well as he ages; he’s already a single walk from matching his career high and has simultaneously cut a third of his strikeouts from his rookie season.
Let’s see what mean ol’ Grandpa ZiPS thinks:
| Year | BA | OBP | SLG | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | SO | SB | OPS+ | DR | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | .278 | .354 | .510 | 551 | 86 | 153 | 34 | 2 | 30 | 107 | 66 | 92 | 24 | 136 | 3 | 4.5 |
| 2025 | .276 | .354 | .504 | 550 | 85 | 152 | 34 | 2 | 29 | 105 | 67 | 91 | 22 | 134 | 2 | 4.3 |
| 2026 | .273 | .353 | .495 | 549 | 84 | 150 | 34 | 2 | 28 | 103 | 68 | 90 | 20 | 132 | 2 | 4.1 |
| 2027 | .272 | .352 | .490 | 541 | 82 | 147 | 33 | 2 | 27 | 98 | 68 | 89 | 17 | 130 | 2 | 3.9 |
| 2028 | .266 | .347 | .471 | 522 | 76 | 139 | 31 | 2 | 24 | 91 | 65 | 87 | 15 | 124 | 2 | 3.2 |
| 2029 | .261 | .342 | .456 | 498 | 71 | 130 | 29 | 1 | 22 | 84 | 62 | 84 | 13 | 119 | 1 | 2.7 |
| 2030 | .259 | .338 | .449 | 468 | 65 | 121 | 27 | 1 | 20 | 77 | 57 | 79 | 11 | 116 | 1 | 2.3 |
| 2031 | .259 | .339 | .446 | 433 | 59 | 112 | 25 | 1 | 18 | 70 | 53 | 74 | 9 | 115 | 0 | 2.0 |
| 2032 | .256 | .335 | .435 | 434 | 58 | 111 | 25 | 1 | 17 | 68 | 52 | 75 | 8 | 112 | 0 | 1.8 |
In my chat last week, I mentioned ZiPS suggesting nine years and $220 million as a reasonable extension for Tucker, but that was also from the start of the season. If he were a free agent, this projection suggests a nine-year, $284 million extension (or $265 million over eight years). Tucker obviously is not a free agent, and his next two years — the most likely best seasons remaining in his career — will be under team control. ZiPS expects the difference between what he would get in free agency the next two years versus what he’s likely to get in arbitration as about $40 million, taking it to a nine-year, $244 million deal. Hurting Tucker’s chances of hitting the $300 million threshold is the simple fact that while he’s not as old as Judge was when he hit free agency, he’s also going to be 29 at the start of his new contract, not a mid-20s phenom like Soto or Manny Machado.
Would the Astros do that deal? I’m not sure, since we’re talking an $80 million bump over their largest deal to date, and that’s way more years than the team is typically comfortable with. A six-year deal comes out at $176 million, in the same ballpark as Altuve’s deal (which runs out after 2024). It’s more than Alvarez got, but in that case, the team was able to lock up a deal before the slugger got to arbitration and so had considerably more leverage.
But in this case, I’m not positive that the Astros wouldn’t come to such a deal, either, especially if we’re talking six or seven years. They’ve let players walk before, but Tucker’s free agency would come a year after Altuve and Bregman reach the end of their deals; even if they stay with the organization, their next contracts will probably cover their declines (almost certainly for the former). That’s an awful lot of offensive production to replace quickly. When Springer was in his arbitration years, the Astros knew Alvarez and Tucker were coming; I don’t see anyone in the organization right now that fits that role. I think there’s a real chance that when Brown expressed an interest in keeping Tucker on the team for the long term, it was more than the usual fan-friendly soundbites that every public-facing front office member knows how to do by heart.
Whatever happens, the Astros have an elite corner outfielder in Tucker, and he’ll get paid a phenomenally large number of dollars for his abilities soon. Whether Jim Crane is paying it, we’ll have to wait awhile to find out.
Dan Szymborski is a senior writer for FanGraphs and the developer of the ZiPS projection system. He was a writer for ESPN.com from 2010-2018, a regular guest on a number of radio shows and podcasts, and a voting BBWAA member. He also maintains a terrible Twitter account at @DSzymborski.
One notable change is that Dusty has finally stopped burying Tucker in the lineup. He’s been batting mostly 3rd or 4th this year, as opposed to 5th or 6th where he was stuck for most of the last few years.
TBF, batting him anywhere in the top 5 spots is justified. The Astros have had a lot of good hitters from 2021-2023 (Altuve, Bregman, Alvarez, and in 2021 both Brantley and Correa). He fits the mold of a hitter in any of those top 5 spots, and he has competition.
Can’t justify batting him 6th though.
I like Tucker in the 2 spot and am a proponent of him filling in at leadoff because he can take a walk and steal a base. Since Dusty is married to the idea of spreading out left handers, he could have sandwiched Tucker and Alvarez with Pena/Dubon while Altuve was out.
Instead, Dusty’s lineups were plagued by a sunk ‘back of Abreu’s baseball card’ cost with Dusty entrenching him in the 4th and 5th spot which left Tucker to bat 5th or 6th which is…certainly a decision.
Dusty using his gut and conventional baseball wisdom to outsmart himself when all he really needed to ask is: ‘Should Tucker have more or less ABs?’ Dusty chose less.
I don’t think the Astros will be signing him for more than $200M, but it does sound like there is some space for them to come together on a deal anyway. Whether they will, IDK. If they don’t sign Tucker and Framber to long term deals…those aren’t the types of players that you can easily replace in FA.
The key fact is that they already have a critical mass of players under team control already through 2027 (Alvarez, Hunter Brown, Yanier Diaz, Cristian Javier, Jeremy Pena), some through 2028. So keeping the band together through at least 2027 makes a lot of sense. The other option is to play out Framber and Tucker’s deals through 2025 and then reboot the team afterwards.
By now they should know who, if anybody, in the farm might step up to replace Tucker and or Framber. If nobody looks likely they’ll have to look for a trade or bite the bullet because counting on FA is expensive and risky.
Looking at the projections for Tucker, I’m not sure they would want to sign him much past ’29. Maybe they tack on an option year or two after ’28. He’ll be 31 then and as the projection shows, heading towards replacement.
Framber, though, is a pitcher and pitchers get hurt. Even a five year extension is risky since he’s already 29+, so yes if they get him ’til 28 at a decent price; if not, go year by year. Odds are he’ll lose one by then.
I would try and sign everyone through 2028 if I could. Give everyone one more run together before starting over with whatever group of Brice Matthews and the current crop of teenagers gives you. If I had to give Framber and Tucker more years, then I’d do it but it wouldn’t be my preference.
I wouldn’t have too much heartburn about paying Tucker through his age 33 season (2030) if that’s what it takes. He’ll still probably be an average+ player then.
2028 is fine.
Much beyond that you’re looking at a lot of sunk costs and, worse, low value ABs. 6 years is a long time down on the farm. By then they shoud be able to surface at least one 2WAR player at league minimum.
After all, the replacement question isn’t about finding somebody who can match today’s Tucker/Valdez but what they might be in ’20-30+.
I don’t know what the future holds. But in 2029, I feel fairly confident that with the state of the Astros’ farm system they’re going to either
(1) have a Steve Cohen-ish payroll
(2) get absurdly lucky drafting position players that are quick to the majors
(3) be mediocre (or worse)
And I don’t think #1 or #2 are all that likely.
That said, my take is this: Who cares if you have a couple of guys left over from the glory years who aren’t earning their keep? They won’t be adding salary at that point. It wouldn’t be my preference to keep them past 2028, but if it takes tacking an extra year or two beyond that and the total dollars aren’t exorbitant, I’d do it.
The Astros behavior to date suggests: none of the above.
They seem to care about not having dead money on their payroll. As long as the farm keeps on churning out league average players they won’t have to pay $30M for an aging 2WAR player.
The luxury tax creates some incentives to enter into those long contracts just to spread things out. I wouldn’t offer a whole lot of additional total value for age 34 and up seasons, though.
Hes is the complete list of position players age 34+ with two or more WAR in 2023: Whit Merrifield, Paul Goldschmidt.
There are another 7 with WAR more than 1 but less than two.
Altuve will need to be extended. Unlikely to deliver excess value at 25mm aav, but he’s the soul of the franchise and can’t be allowed to walk imo. Bregman is younger, but less certain to be extended at a giant number if his production keeps declining.
I’d say 2029 is a far way away. I expect the Astros will have a bad year(s) in which they can recoup some prospect value or trade for players with club control that extends beyong 2029 if they keep winning. I think 2025 will be big decision time for the Astros and what happens with Tucker and Framber would likely add options to 2029.
Maybe the most Underrated player in the league, great amateur and prospect too
There’s an OF on his team that has averaged 4.3 fWAR/600 PAs for his career (2021-2023 with 1023 PAs) that routinely gets benched so 1-WAR or less players can get some playing time. There are likely other people more under-rated as well, because once a player starts getting known as the most underrated player, they cease being it.
Bah, missed the opp to say great HS and MiLB player instead of ^^…Kinda dumb to point it out too, great HS player can get pretty nebulous
Does ZiPS track his performance with / without batting gloves?
You have to check GRiPS for that.
This brings up something I’ve wondered about from time to time –
How much is it worth to a MLB prospect to be drafted by Team A as opposed to Team B.
For example, if Team A tends to extend young stars early in their career and Team B doesn’t. If you sign with Team B, you won’t become a millionaire until at least your first Arb year and won’t get a truly big contract until free agency (unless you are traded). With Team A you might get a big contract after 2-3 years.
This has to be worth quite a bit of money – money prospects might even pay if it were up to them – and makes a system that forces players to accept the results of the draft seem grossly unfair. Nothing new about the unfairness, but this about money and not just which city you’ll be playing in.
Obviously, the main issue here is the risk involved in postponing a payday that might never come, due to injuries, advanced age etc.
Great point. The fact that (almost all) players have at least a couple of years in the minors before reaching the Majors (if they do) really complicates the issue too. In most cases, I think the danger of washing out really makes the bonus the most important consideration.
The recent CBA including a bonus pool for pre-arb players really helps to level the playing field across organizations. We’ll see how it shakes out but perhaps those bonuses will be enough to make it easier for players to resist being locked up long-term before reaching free agency. We’ll see I guess.
I’m always curious about how ZIPS changes over time and this is a good example of what interests me. Prior to the season, ZIPS projected Tucker at 4.8/4.7/4.7 WAR from 2023-2025. In 2023, he appears to have surpassed that projection: he’s on pace for a little more than 5 WAR and his wOBA of .395 tops the projected .361. I would expect that would mean his prior projection of 4.7 WAR for 2024 would improve. However, it instead drops slightly to 4.5. I’m sure there’s a good reason and I wonder what it is.
Considering inflation both generally and specifically in baseball contract, a deal in the $200 mil to $250 mil range seems comparable enough to Altuve’s deal that the Astros would consider it. Something like 8/$225 mil (your estimate of 8/265 minus the 40 for the arb years) seems about right.