I think "impact" move and "needle mover" are subjective. I don't think any one of us thought Matthew Boyd was an "impact" move, but he was great last year; he was 15th in ERA and 18th in fWAR, so looking back on it, Matthew Boyd was an impact move. He was a "value" move but also an "impact" one. And I don't think that was luck, either - he was great with Cleveland when he came back. The Cubs identified him and signed him.
We are jumping the shark around here where people seem to just want to see the Cubs spend money more than they do win baseball games. And listen, the team is cheap and I'll scream from the rooftops too that the team should do that, but there have been pockets of Cubs fans across the internet who have decided that now if the Cubs sign Imai and it's not for like $125m than he must not be very good - it has everything to do with the money and not the player.
The Cubs are still $40m or so away from the LT. The bulk of money is getting spent somewhere, on something. We all have our preferred impact signing, but I think we have to move past this idea that it has to be some massive contract for it to be impactful.
Said another way, if the Chicago Cubs sign Zac Gallen for 3/$60m, they're letting you know they think that's an impactful signing to them. I might have reservations on his fastball shape, I'd rather have Dylan Cease, etc, but the Cubs aren't dropping $20m a year on a guy who's there to eat some innings. And frankly, the Cubs have probably earned the benefit of the doubt a bit, too.