Cubs' Love of Flexibility Is Equal Parts Understandable and Maddening

This week, Shota Imanaga and the Chicago Cubs both declined their respective offer sheets on his contract option(s). What was unthinkable going into the season became a reality on November 4. Imanaga, at this time, is a free agent.

The Cubs likely are telegraphing their plan for this offseason with this move. To make a long story short, they have been avoiding long-term deals (i.e., contracts that go beyond the 2026 season) for some time. 

Excluding Dansby Swanson and pre-arbitration players like Pete Crow-Armstrong and Matt Shaw, the Cubs are nearly bare of veterans after 2026. Using Spotrac's salary tracker page, only Swanson is signed after 2027. Ian Happ, Seiya Suzuki, Nico Hoerner, Jameson Taillon, and Colin Rea are free agents after this next season. Carson Kelly and Matthew Boyd have team options for next season; they also can depart after 2026. 

The Cubs clearly are not going to make any long -erm commitments to players until they know what salary structure they will be dealing with in the wake of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. Keeping Imanaga around after his wobbly finish to the season for three more years doesn't track with Jed Hoyer's typical modus operandi.

For jaded Cub fans, the question has to be asked: Where are we going with all of this excess payroll space? Is this just a salary dump, like Cody Bellinger? Will they repurpose this money at all? What can we expect this offseason?

Well, they won't stand pat. Players will be added to this team. But the big splash, another move like Kyle Tucker, may not be in the cards. The Cubs don't pay that high of a salary to free agents, and they lack the prospects to pull such a blockbuster trade off. Don't expect a multi-year, high-dollar, flashy signing out of the front office this winter.

They will seek to find value in the market as they typically do. This year, that resulted in now-staff-ace Matthew Boyd, but also in Jon Berti and Vidal Bruján, as an example of the downside of the strategy. They aren't averse to paying market value in the right circumstance and especially love finding shorter-term deals. This offseason looks to be one ripe for finding good players on one-year contracts, even at raised salaries.

So, Imanaga's money will be redeployed in an effort to build a bullpen nearly from scratch (again) and finding rotation depth on the cheap (again). Think short-term, high-upside deals that mitigate the downside of long-running contracts. The front office values flexibility over blockbuster spending. Bigger deals that run the risk of serious damage to roster and payroll flexibility after the new CBA is put in place don't seem to be on the menu.

The Cubs are designed to maximize optionality; develop and use prospects internally, strategically sign free agents that won't break the future budget, and manufacture a payroll that can easily be adjusted up or down as the need arises. It's reassuring and maddening at the same time.

The glass-half-full view of this is that we probably won't see a team locked into a bad contract, hamstringing spending in the future. It's frustrating, though, as well, because ever since 2017, it feels like the Cubs never seem to be committed to putting the best product on the field no matter what. Instead, it seems the plan is to ensure profit margins while having a pretty good squad year after year.

It's technically a solid way to build a team, but it certainly is more tedious. Fandom doesn't typically fall in love with values; we fall in love with players. Andre Dawson signing in 1987 is still remembered fondly today not because he gave the Cubs a tremendous discount, but because he brought "The Hawk" (and a MVP award) to Chicago.

Ultimately, this is the hand Cubs fans have been dealt. The franchise has telegraphed their moves and plans to to be as flexible as possible in 2027 and beyond. The question is: Is flexibility really a plan, or the absence of one?