MLB Analyst Explains Why Blue Jays Aren't All In on Cody Bellinger
In this story:
The Blue Jays chased Kyle Tucker relentlessly, reportedly offering a 10-year contract worth around $350 million. When the Dodgers landed him for $240 million over four years, Toronto turned to Cody Bellinger. The approach feels different.
The reason why became clear when former MLB general manager Jim Bowden appeared on Foul Territory this week. According to Bowden, the Blue Jays see major red flags in Bellinger's profile that simply weren't present with Tucker.
"I think it's the risk with how he's gonna age with the swing," Bowden said. "We saw him fail in Chicago and a year ago, the Cubs had to eat part of the contract to trade him to the Yankees."
Why aren't the Blue Jays in on Cody Bellinger in the same way they were for Kyle Tucker?
— Foul Territory (@FoulTerritoryTV) January 19, 2026
"I think it's the risk with how he's gonna age with the swing," says @JimBowdenGM. pic.twitter.com/t5RWcNJYJC
That concern speaks directly to how executives Mark Shapiro and Ross Atkins operate. Both have built their reputations on avoiding risky long-term deals, particularly when a player's track record shows volatility. And Bellinger's career has been nothing if not volatile.
His 2019 MVP season with the Dodgers stands as the peak: .305 average, 47 home runs, complete dominance. But the three years that followed were brutal. He hit .239 in the shortened 2020 season, then posted a career-worst .165 average in 2021. Another down year in 2022 led to the Dodgers non-tendering him rather than pay his arbitration salary. He bounced back with Chicago in 2023, struggled again in 2024, and the Cubs ended up eating money just to move him to the Yankees.
Blue Jays See Different Risk Profiles Between Tucker and Bellinger
The contrast with Tucker couldn't be starker. Tucker has never posted an OPS below .800 in any full season, showing the kind of consistency that makes front offices comfortable with long-term commitments.
Bowden drew that exact distinction during his appearance.
"I would have been fine giving Kyle Tucker 10 years, 350, like the Blue Jays offered," he explained. "Bellinger's not that kind of player for me. There's too much risk now."
Even Bellinger's defensive versatility doesn't change the calculation. He can play all three outfield positions and first base at an above-average level, which should add value. His 2025 season with the Yankees was strong: .272/.334/.480 with 29 homers and 98 RBI. The problem is betting on which version shows up over the next seven years.
Bowden acknowledged those strengths but kept returning to the same question.
"I love him defensively. I love the power. I love this season with the Yankees. I loved one of his seasons with the Cubs, but where was the rest?"
The usual explanations don't satisfy him either. The pandemic disrupted everyone. Injuries happen to lots of players. Yet other players didn't experience such dramatic performance swings during the same period.
That philosophy explains why the Blue Jays and Yankees remain at an impasse. New York has offered Bellinger five years at $155-160 million. Agent Scott Boras wants seven. Toronto showed willingness to go a full decade for Tucker, yet they seem unwilling to match even Bellinger's shorter request despite missing their primary target.
The front office has already committed over $337 million this offseason to pitching like Dylan Cease and hitters like Kazuma Okamoto. Losing Bo Bichette to the Mets for $126 million over three years created another lineup hole.
After consecutive free agency disappointments, the pressure is mounting. But when it comes to Bellinger's inconsistent track record, Toronto's risk tolerance has a clear limit.
Recommended Articles
Jayesh Pagar is currently pursuing Sports Journalism from the London School of Journalism and brings four years of experience in sports media coverage. His current focus is MLB coverage spanning the Blue Jays, Astros, Rangers, Marlins, Tigers, and Rockies, with additional expertise in basketball and college football.