...
By Jackson Roberts
Contributing Sports Writer
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Kyle Tucker's free agency has been fascinating, and it appears set to come to a head.
On Wednesday, Will Sammon reported that Tucker's decision was possible within the next week, and Mike Puma of the New York Post reported later in the evening that the New York Mets would potentially hear from the four-time All-Star on Thursday, but no sooner.
We've known for a while that the Toronto Blue Jays were the team most comfortable with a long-term deal for Tucker, who has missed significant time due to injury over the last two years. But on Wednesday, ESPN insider Jeff Passan seemingly revealed just how much longer they were willing to go.
Read More on MLB
...
Passan made an appearance on "Sportsnet Central," and reported that the Blue Jays might be willing to give Tucker a 10-year deal, which would be significantly longer than anything the New York Mets or Los Angeles Dodgers, the other main power players in Tucker's case, have indicated they'd care for.
"The Toronto Blue Jays have really been the only team that has shown the willingness to go as deep as 10 years, potentially," Passan said.
"You don't know what he's going to take. Does he want that big-dollar contract, or does he want the security that comes with a long-term deal?"
FanSided's Robert Murray reported Tuesday that the Mets had a short-term deal (believed to be for three years) worth $50 million annually on the table for the four-time All-Star. Passan, meanwhile, assumed that the Dodgers would "get in" at the same price.
Not all 10-year contracts are created equal, and even if the Blue Jays expressed a willingness to consider that term, it also may not be their stated preference. Tucker's camp has to take everything into consideration, and we'll know their decision soon enough.
More MLB: Blue Jays Release 27-Year-Old Hurler After Rough Season
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines