Cubs Decline Option, Shota Imanaga Is Now A Free Agent

2 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I still think we should all keep in mind that the likely outcome here is still Shota sticks around on the qualifying offer.

Likely outcome? I don’t agree. It is an outcome, but I don’t think the Cubs will give him $22M for one year. Maybe they structure a contract for 1 year with a second year option. Maybe 1 year for $16M with a second year option for the same amount or a $3M buyout. This gives Shota $19M guaranteed or 2/$32M. 
I do think if they give him a QO he will take it. 

13 minutes ago, Post Count Padder said:

Past offseasons, Tucker trade aside, have not given me a lot of hope. I really think Ricketts hamstrings Hoyer/ they don't prioritize assets well.

I posted it elsewhere and while I know the Cubs have conditioned some people to feel the worst about their spending, I think it's overblown. 

First, regardless of how down you are about the Cubs spending, they are $80m under their spending level last year. And to be fair to them, while they didn't get either over the line, they made real chances to get to the $230m range with either Scott or Bregman, meaning there was some willingness to spend more. The Cubs are not going to come off of a 92 win team and drop to a $175m payroll. The optics would be so horrendously bad. So it's fair to assume they will get around, at least, what they did in 2025. That's $80m.

Secondly, the Cubs signed Dansby Swanson to a 7 year contract worth over $170m. That's in the range of what you could expect any of the biggest SP's to get this offseason. So not only have they shown a willingness to spend that kind of money on that kind of a contract under Hoyer, they also have a comp pick to do so with. Aging curve of pitchers right now is better than hitters, too. So if they're going to go 7+ years on a guy, a SP is kind of the way to go.

If you are someone who thinks the Cubs are just going to punt the offseason in 2026 with one year deals...well they just declined the Kittredge option (they traded him for cash, but it's clear they were just declining it and got a little something for that choice). If they were going to load up on 1 year deals, you weren't going to find better bang for buck than with Kittredge. It's likely his replacement requires multiple years, which kind of shoots that theory down. 

The Cubs have made fans feel negative for many of their own actions. But I also think we're jumping the shark a bit with the fear that they're going to come off a 92 win team and just throw Jordan Wicks in the rotation and call it quits. 

3 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Likely outcome? I don’t agree. It is an outcome, but I don’t think the Cubs will give him $22M for one year. Maybe they structure a contract for 1 year with a second year option. Maybe 1 year for $16M with a second year option for the same amount or a $3M buyout. This gives Shota $19M guaranteed or 2/$32M. 
I do think if they give him a QO he will take it. 

Shota literally just declined a deal for one year with an option at similar numbers.

11 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Shota literally just declined a deal for one year with an option at similar numbers.

I thought it was 1 for $15M. Nothing after that. But even so, I don’t see the Cubs offering him a QO. 

24 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I posted it elsewhere and while I know the Cubs have conditioned some people to feel the worst about their spending, I think it's overblown. 

First, regardless of how down you are about the Cubs spending, they are $80m under their spending level last year. And to be fair to them, while they didn't get either over the line, they made real chances to get to the $230m range with either Scott or Bregman, meaning there was some willingness to spend more. The Cubs are not going to come off of a 92 win team and drop to a $175m payroll. The optics would be so horrendously bad. So it's fair to assume they will get around, at least, what they did in 2025. That's $80m.

Secondly, the Cubs signed Dansby Swanson to a 7 year contract worth over $170m. That's in the range of what you could expect any of the biggest SP's to get this offseason. So not only have they shown a willingness to spend that kind of money on that kind of a contract under Hoyer, they also have a comp pick to do so with. Aging curve of pitchers right now is better than hitters, too. So if they're going to go 7+ years on a guy, a SP is kind of the way to go.

If you are someone who thinks the Cubs are just going to punt the offseason in 2026 with one year deals...well they just declined the Kittredge option (they traded him for cash, but it's clear they were just declining it and got a little something for that choice). If they were going to load up on 1 year deals, you weren't going to find better bang for buck than with Kittredge. It's likely his replacement requires multiple years, which kind of shoots that theory down. 

The Cubs have made fans feel negative for many of their own actions. But I also think we're jumping the shark a bit with the fear that they're going to come off a 92 win team and just throw Jordan Wicks in the rotation and call it quits. 

I'll be curious to see what they do with Rea.  It's similar where you can picking it up either way.  On the positive side they're going to trade from the Assad/Wicks/Brown pool which will inherently be for something fun, or on the negative side he's going to hold down the 5th starter spot until Steele is ready.  But I feel like declining it is closer to being an unambiguous sign they plan on doing something(s) fun with the rotation.

14 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I'll be curious to see what they do with Rea.  It's similar where you can picking it up either way.  On the positive side they're going to trade from the Assad/Wicks/Brown pool which will inherently be for something fun, or on the negative side he's going to hold down the 5th starter spot until Steele is ready.  But I feel like declining it is closer to being an unambiguous sign they plan on doing something(s) fun with the rotation.

I was thinking about it on my drive home from work and I kind of came to this conclusion in general and I think the Rea decision will seal it for me;

Assuming Ricketts hasn't changed his spending habits and the LT will remain a line in the sand (generally speaking) *if* the Cubs were going to spend bigly in the off-season, I would expect them to clear out whatever funds they could to do so. Declining Shota and Kittredge feels like a start to that and if they declined Rea as well I'd feel more like that was a real plan on the table. 

We will see what it ends up being. But yeah there are some fun options right now and I'm curious to see where they go. 

It isn’t exactly this simple because Shota was very effective for ~1.8 years, but the FA market for pitchers who sit 90 is…not robust.  Maybe his IVB makes up for a couple ticks of velo in some teams models, but with a QO attached I would not be surprised if his market craters.  If his team anticipated that maybe he’ll accept a QO, though it would be a risk to turn down the player option in that case.

i love shota and i want him BACK!

Best news of the day, for me.  Now I have to cling to the hope that there is no qualifying offer being extended that he accepts.  When your "ace" is benched in the playoffs, one must reconsider if he really has an ace.  Next free agent up...

I read somewhere that Shota wants to go back to Japan, but I wouldn't put much weight into what I read. I can't even remember where I saw it. 

Seems like the Cubs gambled that Shota would pick up his player option and they lost that gamble. But it had to be a gamble they were willing to make. That or they already knew he wants to go home and these two moves opens that door. 

42 minutes ago, BigbadB said:

I read somewhere that Shota wants to go back to Japan, but I wouldn't put much weight into what I read. I can't even remember where I saw it. 

Seems like the Cubs gambled that Shota would pick up his player option and they lost that gamble. But it had to be a gamble they were willing to make. That or they already knew he wants to go home and these two moves opens that door. 

 

After the way his season ended Shota wasn't going to get that nearly $60M team option.  The choice became his player option vs. accepting the qualifying offer vs. the Cubs just letting him walk.  The calculus from Shota's POV between the player option and taking the qualifying offer is really close

Pros for the Option:

- Nearly $10M more in guaranteed money

- A choice of which of the next two offseasons to hit FA

Pros of the QO:

- Nearly 50% higher salary this year

- Getting the QO out of the way.  Guys can only be tagged once, and in the player option scenario the Cubs could still tag him with a QO and depress his market after the option years 

- The Cubs had some sort of team option after the player option.  I don't quite understand this part, specifically the timing, but I believe this meant that if Shota really showed out, got Cy votes or something, his earning potential would have been capped because the Cubs would use their option

So if the team wants to keep him it was always a coinflip on which avenue it would take.  If the team doesn't tag him it generally means they have bigger plans (yay!) or they think he's cooked (boo!).

18 minutes ago, Bertz said:

After the way his season ended Shota wasn't going to get that nearly $60M team option.  The choice became his player option vs. accepting the qualifying offer vs. the Cubs just letting him walk.  The calculus from Shota's POV between the player option and taking the qualifying offer is really close

Pros for the Option:

- Nearly $10M more in guaranteed money

- A choice of which of the next two offseasons to hit FA

Pros of the QO:

- Nearly 50% higher salary this year

- Getting the QO out of the way.  Guys can only be tagged once, and in the player option scenario the Cubs could still tag him with a QO and depress his market after the option years 

- The Cubs had some sort of team option after the player option.  I don't quite understand this part, specifically the timing, but I believe this meant that if Shota really showed out, got Cy votes or something, his earning potential would have been capped because the Cubs would use their option

So if the team wants to keep him it was always a coinflip on which avenue it would take.  If the team doesn't tag him it generally means they have bigger plans (yay!) or they think he's cooked (boo!).

I don’t think there is a chance the Cubs give him a QO. Bieber just took a one year option for $16M where he would have gotten $4M if he opted out. Imanaga does not deserve $22M, even for one year. Honestly, he might end up wishing he took the $15M. 
If the Cubs do give him a QO I am certain he would take it. If they did offer it, IMO that would be a bad sign if what to expect this off season. I think, at best, Shota ends up with a 3 year deal close to $45-$50M. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it came with team options after each year. 

19 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

The Cubs are not going to come off of a 92 win team and drop to a $175m payroll. The optics would be so horrendously bad. So it's fair to assume they will get around, at least, what they did in 2025. That's $80m.

Those are two pretty dramatically different numbers though right? The final luxury tax number was $228m per Cots, $227m per FG. Something in the $200m-$210m range, while a bigger decrease than last year, wouldn't be as 'horrendously bad' optics wise, but still basically just mean $30m for the bullpen and then $20m-$30m for an average starter and a Justin Turner replacement. 

Basically all I'm saying is that they've lost some of the benefit of the doubt that I've been giving them, and I'm also a little more skeptical than maybe some others around here on taking Cubs reporters trading in access' word for the competitiveness of deals they didn't sign, and the prices on trades they didn't make. It's a long offseason and it should be judged in March, not at Thanksgiving. But...I've given enough credit to Jed for building a good base. Time to show any sort of evidence he can finish the job. 

24 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Those are two pretty dramatically different numbers though right? The final luxury tax number was $228m per Cots, $227m per FG. Something in the $200m-$210m range, while a bigger decrease than last year, wouldn't be as 'horrendously bad' optics wise, but still basically just mean $30m for the bullpen and then $20m-$30m for an average starter and a Justin Turner replacement. 

Basically all I'm saying is that they've lost some of the benefit of the doubt that I've been giving them, and I'm also a little more skeptical than maybe some others around here on taking Cubs reporters trading in access' word for the competitiveness of deals they didn't sign, and the prices on trades they didn't make. It's a long offseason and it should be judged in March, not at Thanksgiving. But...I've given enough credit to Jed for building a good base. Time to show any sort of evidence he can finish the job. 

I think if that's all the Cubs did, they would be absolutely blasted in the media left and right moreso than they currently are. After a year of extra playoff revenue? Yeah, I think that's a pretty drastic downslide from the 2025 levels, which were already being ridiculed by even Ken Rosenthal. 

I think it's probably pretty fair to assume them getting to at least 2025 spending. I don't blame you for being down on them, but I also think that people are kind of getting ahead of themselves a little because it's easier to shield themselves (not putting words in your mouth, just the general vibe). 

It's the Cubs so you never know, and they certainly haven't given anyone the reason for the benefit of the doubt. But I also think they care a bit about their public perception at the highest levels and think that the budget will probably be very close to 2025. 

7 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I think if that's all the Cubs did, they would be absolutely blasted in the media left and right moreso than they currently are. After a year of extra playoff revenue? Yeah, I think that's a pretty drastic downslide from the 2025 levels, which were already being ridiculed by even Ken Rosenthal. 

I think it's probably pretty fair to assume them getting to at least 2025 spending. I don't blame you for being down on them, but I also think that people are kind of getting ahead of themselves a little because it's easier to shield themselves (not putting words in your mouth, just the general vibe). 

Let's hope so. I also don't get too excited at the concept of looking at these decisions, then looking at Jed Hoyer, Mr. February, and trying to be optimistic with like 'oh, cutting bait on Shota and Kittredge? that must mean he's got a plan that is so comprehensive that there's no room for an effective reliever on a 1 year $9m deal.' You can see the logic on Shota, there's only so many spots in the rotation, it was a lot bigger commitment, he's likely a lot closer to the Rea/Brown/Wicks category than any of us would like to admit. But the bullpen is Daniel Palencia and AAA guys. 

7 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I think if that's all the Cubs did, they would be absolutely blasted in the media left and right moreso than they currently are. After a year of extra playoff revenue? Yeah, I think that's a pretty drastic downslide from the 2025 levels, which were already being ridiculed by even Ken Rosenthal. 

I think it's probably pretty fair to assume them getting to at least 2025 spending. I don't blame you for being down on them, but I also think that people are kind of getting ahead of themselves a little because it's easier to shield themselves (not putting words in your mouth, just the general vibe). 

I certainly do not believe Tom Ricketts' spiel about every dollar of revenue going back into baseball operations.  But the benefits to cable dying and Tom buying up the whole neighborhood is that there's now once again a fairly direct relationship between team quality and revenue.  Ownership cutting payroll just for horsefeathers and gigggles is just not a thing that's gonna happen.

13 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Let's hope so. I also don't get too excited at the concept of looking at these decisions, then looking at Jed Hoyer, Mr. February, and trying to be optimistic with like 'oh, cutting bait on Shota and Kittredge? that must mean he's got a plan that is so comprehensive that there's no room for an effective reliever on a 1 year $9m deal.' You can see the logic on Shota, there's only so many spots in the rotation, it was a lot bigger commitment, he's likely a lot closer to the Rea/Brown/Wicks category than any of us would like to admit. But the bullpen is Daniel Palencia and AAA guys. 

Kittredge's non-pickup definitely irks me a little; I'm sure you've seen but I've said I'd have picked up that easily.

What's strange is that the Cubs have, the last two offseasons, essentially, traded for a Kittredge; a mid-30's reliever on a one year contract at around $9m. An easy reproduction of that transaction was picking up his option right away, not causing you to need to scour for a trade guy later, and leaving it at that. 

And I keep coming back to that. So, do they just think they can penny pinch, like, $2m later on someone just as good? That they can just wait out a market and a Kittredge for $7m will just show up? Maybe they don't believe he's going to be good next year (though I'm not sure why). Or has their mind set changed regardless of the Sharma report? Because while I'd never put it off that the Cubs would penny pinch even $2m, even for Jed that feels pushing it. 

The whole thing is a little odd based on their behavior. They built a BP on the fly last year, so maybe they think they can just do it again, this time without even a $9m arm? Or did they shift their belief and would rather resign Keller to a $9m deal and he be the big arm? There's a lot I don't really know and the Kittredge thing really opens a pandora box of how they're going to build this pen out.

6 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Kittredge's non-pickup definitely irks me a little; I'm sure you've seen but I've said I'd have picked up that easily.

What's strange is that the Cubs have, the last two offseasons, essentially, traded for a Kittredge; a mid-30's reliever on a one year contract at around $9m. An easy reproduction of that transaction was picking up his option right away, not causing you to need to scour for a trade guy later, and leaving it at that. 

And I keep coming back to that. So, do they just think they can penny pinch, like, $2m later on someone just as good? That they can just wait out a market and a Kittredge for $7m will just show up? Maybe they don't believe he's going to be good next year (though I'm not sure why). Or has their mind set changed regardless of the Sharma report? Because while I'd never put it off that the Cubs would penny pinch even $2m, even for Jed that feels pushing it. 

The whole thing is a little odd based on their behavior. They built a BP on the fly last year, so maybe they think they can just do it again, this time without even a $9m arm? Or did they shift their belief and would rather resign Keller to a $9m deal and he be the big arm? There's a lot I don't really know and the Kittredge thing really opens a pandora box of how they're going to build this pen out.

Yeah no need to have this conversation in multiple threads, but unless there was some weird NTC baked into his option that I'm missing, this all falls apart from an optimistic point of view when you realize that 'we can trade an effective reliever on a 1/$9 deal for cash' is an option pretty much any day of the week. Baltimore doesn't do this trade in January? 28 other teams are going to have a settled bullpen on March 1?

17 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Yeah no need to have this conversation in multiple threads, but unless there was some weird NTC baked into his option that I'm missing, this all falls apart from an optimistic point of view when you realize that 'we can trade an effective reliever on a 1/$9 deal for cash' is an option pretty much any day of the week. Baltimore doesn't do this trade in January? 28 other teams are going to have a settled bullpen on March 1?

It could just come down to a "you have a trade right now, might as well make it happen" if you have a plan for the money already. At times the "Trade Bellinger" will-they-wont-they didn't always move as quickly as I'm sure the Cubs would have liked, and while trading Kittredge's salary vs Bellingers is apples to oranges, it could just have given the Cubs the feeling that "yeah, we don't plan on going this route with the pen so might as well move it now". 

I just think right now, the move is odd and while there's a very real possibility that the Cubs are doing the "maybe something better will come in January" game they've played, I think there's enough weirdness here that going in a different direction entirely with how they build a pen is probably a very real possibility too. Because the gameplan for the former has been to acquire, exactly, an Andrew Kittredge in January and this time they decided against a version of that right away.

I see them dropping payroll as low as they can before the lockout. The Tucker year was the year to spend, and they didn't, in prospects or $$. Happ and Nico expire, doesn't Seiya as well? Leaving what, Dansby and no one on payroll. Seems by design.

1 hour ago, JunkyardWalrus said:

I see them dropping payroll as low as they can before the lockout. The Tucker year was the year to spend, and they didn't, in prospects or $$. Happ and Nico expire, doesn't Seiya as well? Leaving what, Dansby and no one on payroll. Seems by design.

 

I get where you are coming from and there are a few more posters who feel this way, too. So I do respect this opinion. But what I don’t understand is what is the Cubs end game on this? Why do they need expiring contracts after the lockout? What realistic outcome of the lockout would cause issues with the Cubs if they had a few more guys under contract for larger salaries beyond 2026? Do you really think the LT line will be lower? Do you really believe there will be a salary cap that will be so low as to affect the way the Cubs do business? I just don’t see it. While I think the next CBA can affect the highest spending and lowest spending teams, I don’t see it having any bearing on the Cubs. But maybe I am missing something. Can you tell me a realistic option where the Cubs can get hurt if they signed or traded for 3 or 4 guys with contract beyond 2026? Let’s say they sign Cease for 5 years, trade for Cabrera and then sign or trade for a right handed bat who might sign for 2 or 3 years. Someone like Okamoto, Bohm, Laureano,Hays, Andujar, Bader, etc… maybe they also sign or trade for a pen arm who has a 2 or 3 year deal. How does this hurt them after 2026? 
Keep in mind, I agree they might be doing what you are suggesting. I just think it is all a BS excuse to use the lockout not to have guys past 2026. 

I don't know what the Cubs are thinking about the lockout and contracts, but the fact is pretty much every player, except for Dansby and ARB/Pre-ARB guys will be FA, after next season.  I think a few, like Boyd and Kelly have options for 2027.  But, that's about it.  I'll be pissed if they don't extend Nico, and sign at least one good SP with a longer than 1yr contract.  As I mentioned in another thread, I won't be surprised if the rotation looks like Boyd, Cade, Jamo, Assad and Ben Brown/Wicks or whoever, before Steele comes back.

24 minutes ago, mk49 said:

I don't know what the Cubs are thinking about the lockout and contracts, but the fact is pretty much every player, except for Dansby and ARB/Pre-ARB guys will be FA, after next season.  I think a few, like Boyd and Kelly have options for 2027.  But, that's about it.  I'll be pissed if they don't extend Nico, and sign at least one good SP with a longer than 1yr contract.  As I mentioned in another thread, I won't be surprised if the rotation looks like Boyd, Cade, Jamo, Assad and Ben Brown/Wicks or whoever, before Steele comes back.

I would be shocked if that was the rotation. I absolutely believe they will either trade for another starter or sign a FA starter. No chance it is what you are suggesting. This is just doomsday posting at its finest. 

Jamo should be the 5th starter. That should be the goal IMO, at least, if they want to get serious. 

3 hours ago, squally1313 said:

Yeah no need to have this conversation in multiple threads, but unless there was some weird NTC baked into his option that I'm missing, this all falls apart from an optimistic point of view when you realize that 'we can trade an effective reliever on a 1/$9 deal for cash' is an option pretty much any day of the week. Baltimore doesn't do this trade in January? 28 other teams are going to have a settled bullpen on March 1?

This was almost definitely part of the original deal, no? Baltimore willing to trade him as a rental with a handshake they would get him back for next year. Sure the Cubs could have reneged, but not without the word getting out. I don't think we as common fans realize how often these kinds of "you owe me one"'s happen. THe most obvious is the old PTBNL. If we get this result from the main piece, we give you this player, if a poorer result, then this player.