Cubs Decline Option, Shota Imanaga Is Now A Free Agent

[Bull]

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. 

[mk49]

41 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

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. 

You took it wrong.  I wasn't suggesting at all.  It's the worst case scenario, and I just said I wouldn't be surprised.

Of course, I'm sure the Cubs are going to try to get one or two SP's,  But, What they (we) want might not be what they could get.   I want two new SP's who could pitch better than Shota.

Edited November 5, 2025 by mk49

[CubinNY]

It’s beyond my understanding that people can see how they’ve operated post WS win and still expect some sort of change. 

[squally1313]

8 minutes ago, Bull said:

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. 

Eh....I don't think so. No one was judging the trade at the time based on only getting 2 months of Kittredge, the option was always factored in. I'm not saying it's never happened, but if these types of handshake deals actually happened with any frequency, why wouldn't every team out of contention just trade all of their valuable cost controlled players out (Skenes, as an extreme example) for whatever equivalent value 2 months of Skenes would bring you (a lot) and then send some pocket change back at the end of the year? The community is way too insular/incestual to renege on a hypothetical deal like that. 

[JunkyardWalrus]

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

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. 

Same as it ever was; money. Say something in the bargaining agreement is 'payment for time not played?’ due to the lockout? OR the luxury tax does get lower, or become a harder cap? 

I don’t know how it does, but I bet they act/spend like it will. 

I don’t have any other facts to point at beyond how they, Ricketts and Hoyer, have done business post-pandemic. Or, the lack of business they have done. 

If they were going to spend money, it would have been in the Tucker year. They didn’t. They went cheap in FA, then went cheap at the deadline, keeping all that prospect capital. 

Who are the least expensive employees? (Who released Schwarber!?)

Unfortunately, from what I see, the Cubs are not about winning as much as generating the greatest profit. They are a business, not a team. A spectacle that inhabits Wrigleyville and helps drive their surrounding properties.

I’m negative as horse-feathering-feathers about ownership and its willingness to attempt to win, or merely stay competitive. 

I have no idea how it affects their bottom line, Rcal, but Tom Combover likes the clean books, like he likes to use tongue when he kisses ass, or so I’ve heard. So whether it does or not, Tom will make an excuse about ‘uncertainty’ or some feathered horsiness. Just my feeling. 

Oh, also, I hope they trade Shaw. (Gonna just keep throwing that out there. C’mon universe!)

[Rcal10]

Of the 3 scenarios you mentioned that could hurt the Cubs I can see one that makes sense. Maybe new contracts have language for the player to get paid during the lock out. But that would be a small amount of money. The luxury tax line going lower is not a realistic result of a stoppage. Players aren’t going to go for making less. And a hard cap isn’t going to hurt the Cubs either. They will not get near that number anyway. That said, I agree the Cubs might use the uncertainty of the new CBA as a way of explaining why they won’t spend money. I am not arguing that. I just feel it is a false flag. This is just the excuse for this year. No differ than the years they cried broke because of Covid. No different than once the lock out ends and they complain about massive losses they incurred due to the lock out so they can spend after 2027. I  not disputing they won’t spend over the first LT line. I am saying in the end the new CBA will not alter anything the Cubs want to do anyway. 
 

[CubinNY]

2 hours ago, JunkyardWalrus said:

Same as it ever was; money. Say something in the bargaining agreement is 'payment for time not played?’ due to the lockout? OR the luxury tax does get lower, or become a harder cap? 

I don’t know how it does, but I bet they act/spend like it will. 

I don’t have any other facts to point at beyond how they, Ricketts and Hoyer, have done business post-pandemic. Or, the lack of business they have done. 

If they were going to spend money, it would have been in the Tucker year. They didn’t. They went cheap in FA, then went cheap at the deadline, keeping all that prospect capital. 

Who are the least expensive employees? (Who released Schwarber!?)

Unfortunately, from what I see, the Cubs are not about winning as much as generating the greatest profit. They are a business, not a team. A spectacle that inhabits Wrigleyville and helps drive their surrounding properties.

I’m negative as horse-feathering-feathers about ownership and its willingness to attempt to win, or merely stay competitive. 

I have no idea how it affects their bottom line, Rcal, but Tom Combover likes the clean books, like he likes to use tongue when he kisses ass, or so I’ve heard. So whether it does or not, Tom will make an excuse about ‘uncertainty’ or some feathered horsiness. Just my feeling. 

Oh, also, I hope they trade Shaw. (Gonna just keep throwing that out there. C’mon universe!)

The idea that the Ricketts want to win* due the cratering of the RSN and how much they’ve invested in the neighborhood is laughably absurd. 
 

They drive people in by the bus load every damn day they are playing. The Ricketts are evil, not stupid. They know they can’t spend like the Reds, but they care about filling Wriggle (the easy part) than about winning (the hard part). It’s also their philosophy on the sport, build the farm and replace. It just so happens that it’s the least expensive way of doing business and has no demonstrated success overtime. 

Edited November 5, 2025 by CubinNY

[Bull]

15 hours ago, JunkyardWalrus said:

 

I don’t have any other facts to point at beyond how they, Ricketts and Hoyer, have done business post-pandemic. Or, the lack of business they have done. 

If they were going to spend money, it would have been in the Tucker year. They didn’t. They went cheap in FA, then went cheap at the deadline, keeping all that prospect capital. 

 

The way they have done business is to not go over the LT two years in a row. They were absolutely not going over in 2025 because they went over in 2024. Jed being slightly over in 24 should have gotten him fired. 

[Bertz]

Shota got tagged

 

[Dfan25]

Yeah , my guess here is Imanaga takes it and Hoyer really doesn’t mind 1/22 . It’s just the way he likes to build teams with as many 1 year guys as possible .  

If he does take it , they will add 1 SP and be done with the rotation .

Edited November 6, 2025 by Dfan25

[Rcal10]

3 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Shota got tagged

 

WOW, this surprises me. So Cubs will have him for one more year. Can’t imagine he declines the QO. Guess, at most, they sign one more starting pitcher. But I am afraid it might be bringing the gang back and hoping Steele is healthy. 

[mk49]

It didn't surprise me.  I thought there's a little over 50% chance that the Cubs would do it.

I don't know if Shota will accept it, though.  Most likely, he could get offers that have a little lower AAV, like $17m, but multi year, 2 or 3 years.  

[Post Count Padder]

So he takes it, we get him back for one year. He declines it, we get a pick. It's fine. Surprised we attached one to him but maybe there was some thought he would accept and they wanted him back for just one more year.

We CANNOT though run it back from last season's rotation. Yeah Steele is back but you don't really know what you're getting out of him.

[mk49]

7 minutes ago, Post Count Padder said:

So he takes it, we get him back for one year. He declines it, we get a pick. It's fine. Surprised we attached one to him but maybe there was some thought he would accept and they wanted him back for just one more year.

We CANNOT though run it back from last season's rotation. Yeah Steele is back but you don't really know what you're getting out of him.

Agreed.  

I still think it's going to be hard to get one of the top 4 or 5 (if you include Imai) free agent SP's, though.  Trading for one should be easier.  Either way, the Cubs should, and I think will "try" to sign one or two SP's, even if Shota stays.

Edited November 6, 2025 by mk49

[Rcal10]

4 minutes ago, mk49 said:

Agreed.  

I still think it's going to be hard to get one of the top 4 or 5 (if you include Imai) free agent SP's, though.  Trading for one should be easier.  Either way, the Cubs should, and I think will "try" to sign one or two SP's, even if Shota stays.

I guess they can trade Taillon if they signed/traded for 2 starting pitchers. But if Imanaga accepts the QO(which I think he should. I saw his FA projection at 3/$43.5) I don’t see how they add 2 guys without subtracting someone. Also, remember with a QO that makes him less desirable as a FA.

[mk49]

3 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I guess they can trade Taillon if they signed/traded for 2 starting pitchers. But if Imanaga accepts the QO(which I think he should. I saw his FA projection at 3/$43.5) I don’t see how they add 2 guys without subtracting someone. Also, remember with a QO that makes him less desirable as a FA.

Personally, I think the projection you saw is low.  That said, I see your point.  But, I don't want Jamo to be traded.  What I meant by "try to sign 1 or 2 SP's" is that one good one (that's a must), and one decent one.  Not an easy task, though.

[Rcal10]

1 minute ago, mk49 said:

Personally, I think the projection you saw is low.  That said, I see your point.  But, I don't want Jamo to be traded.  What I meant by "try to sign 1 or 2 SP's" is that one good one (that's a must), and one decent one.  Not an easy task, though.

I agree they need one TOR starter. After that I would rather get a better pen arm. 

[Post Count Padder]

Is Gallen broken? He has ace stuff but had a really rough year. Feel like I read it was a combination of bad luck and his curve not working as well as it had. He'd be cheaper than the other top options.

[mk49]

4 hours ago, Post Count Padder said:

Is Gallen broken? He has ace stuff but had a really rough year. Feel like I read it was a combination of bad luck and his curve not working as well as it had. He'd be cheaper than the other top options.

I watched him only once in 2025, so I don't know what was wrong with him.  His stats look bad, although he looked better in Sep.  A few articles I read today said the Cubs is one of the  destinations for Zac, which does make sense.  Personally, I don't want him.  Maybe, he will pitch really well next year, but this year didn't look good at all, way worse than Shota who was fine in the 1st half of the season. 

[Rcal10]

I am sure people will tell me I am reading too much into this, but I think offering Shota $22M for one year is a sign of things to come this off season. I think they will be very careful on offering any contract beyond one year. If they do it will have an opt out or option after next year. I don’t expect much from them this off season. Maybe a trade for a guy with one year left, plus maybe a team option. I think they are going to roll with the EXCUSE of a possible lock out making it hard for them to do business this year because of what the new CBA will be. And I think most of us knows it won’t affect the way the Cubs do business once there is a new CBA. It may alter other teams plans. The very high or very low spenders, but there will not be anything there that would hurt the Cubs, even if they did sign guys to multi year deals. This is a convenient time for a possible lock out for the Cubs. It gives them a built in excuse not to go hard after multi year contracts for free agents. WHICH SUCKS.!

[Jason Ross]

15 hours ago, Post Count Padder said:

Is Gallen broken? He has ace stuff but had a really rough year. Feel like I read it was a combination of bad luck and his curve not working as well as it had. He'd be cheaper than the other top options.

As is, yes, Gallen is broken toa degree. His numbers dropped across the board, got less swing and miss, his fastball velocity was all over the place, his HR rate shot through the roof, and damage done on the fastball, his most used pitch over his career, was way up. There is something broken or these wouldn't be the case.

He was better in the second half, his xFIP dropped below 4, but he also saw further reduction in K%, He also saw a .50 point reduction in BABIP against, but I'm not sure it's actually because he pitched better or just luck; his batted ball data isn't drastically different and with a reduction in strikeouts, it's hard to really buy it. He did really up the GB%? So maybe we can point to that? But I still come back to some form of broken right now in his profile. 

But he might not be forever broken. I think it takes a smart baseball mind and a pitch lab to fully diagnose, but if you have a very defined pathway to fix these things, change a pitch mix, tweak a mechanic...yeah he probably isn't forever broke at age-30. But you cannot treat him like a top-rotation arm entering 2026 currently. 

[Bertz]

Gallen feels a lot like Shota to me.  He's likely still a pretty good pitcher, he's very unlikely to be the pseudo-ace he was at his peak, and the qualifying offer assures it's not going to be super cheap to find out.

Like Shota, I'd guess it's best for both the Dback and Gallen for him to just accept the offer.

[BKHoo]

I don’t understand the QO to Shota. If he signed elsewhere, great. But there is a risk. 

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, BKHoo said:

I don’t understand the QO to Shota. If he signed elsewhere, great. But there is a risk. 

In almost every situation, there is no such thing as a bad one year deal. If Shota accepts the contract, at 1/$22m, you get a devil you know and one who really wasn't as bad as I think the last few starts made him seem. There was a 10 start run where he was more than capable of outpitching his HR issues. Then he had the last couple of starts and things went off the rails. So you probably feel comfortable if he's your fourth best SP behind Steele, a new guy, Horton and Boyd.

If he doesn't accept, you get the comp pick and you look to sign someone else. 

[Bertz]

Pitcher homeruns are by far the flukiest thing in baseball.  Like in Taillon’s three seasons here he's had two separate half-season long stretches of giving up dong after dong.  He's come out fine on the other end both times.

Shota is probably more Jameson Taillon at this point than 2024 Shota, and it's fair to be disappointed in that, but it's totally worth paying 1/$22M for that.