Jason Ross

I do not think this signals anything like that. The Cubs can use him as a long man. He's great backup for the rotation. It likely means more for Javier Assad than if the Cubs are signing 1 or 2 SP's.

Essentially, for all intents and purposes, this just picks up the 2026 option and adds a 2027 one. Totally fine; cheap and effective.

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.

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.

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.

I hate ownerships' stance on budget, but part of this is who Jed is, as well. The Cubs were at least willing to consider spending around $20+m more last year had they signed Scott or Bregman. I'm not going to give Ricketts a parade for it, but I think it's important to note because I think it's likely the Cubs 2025 budget will probably mirror the 2026. That gives the Cubs $80-$100m to spend and not a lot of obvious places to spend it. Jed's aggressiveness is who Jed is. Again, not a doom and gloom, but this is who Jed has been and looks to be who he is.

I would argue though that even that door cracked is "business as usual". They were willing to do a Scott deal late in the cycle, but they rarely get aggressive and get a guy they like. Sadly, for anyone who likes aggressiveness, this is more or less who Hoyer is. It's pretty likely that this roster will be far from its final form into late January or early February again. I was hoping coming off a 92 win season would change that but it seems like, based on Sharma, that it'll be similar to the 2024 and 2025 off-seasons, as I read the tea leaves. I do hope that that belief only resonates with the pen, but who knows? That isn't to be doom and gloom, Hoyer has put together winning rosters, but just that it feels like we are getting a better and better picture each year of what it will always look like.

Sharma immediately threw cold water on the excitement for the potential BP in 2026 with an article today. To boil it down to a quick and digestible form; don't expect them to change who they are. Building from within, trading for an expiring contract and not setting the RP market seems like their plan.

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.

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.

The Cubs have $80m+ to spend next year and not a ton of obvious spots to spend it in. It's pretty likely that the Cubs will look to upgrade over Shota through adding a SP, not by just inserting Wicks or Brown.

This likely signals good things, not bad ones, if we are being honest. If you are of the belief that the Cubs were basically going to punt any multi-year deals, than Kittredge on a 2026 only contract is a slam dunk. Instead, they clearly weren't picking up the option at all. Unless you think the Cubs are just going to super drop payroll (I do not, that feels like a really bad media look and one you'd be hard pressed to come back from), it probably means the Cubs are going to target some multi-year pickups.

I'll say this: the Cubs have kind of created this situation with their own actions, but outside of fans who have created this, there isn't anything to really substantiate this type of thinking. I understand that the reason people are jumping to this is because they think the Cubs are looking to stay under a potential cap, but the Cubs could spend $100m this offseason on new contracts for just the 2026 season (and beyond) and with their expiring deals after 2026, have $85m dropping right back off. I cannot imagine a world in which a salary cap is substantially below the current first line of the LT and even if it was set at $200m, the Cubs would be way under any 2026 cap still. I'm not even very sure they'll get a cap. Frankly, I think the 2027-cap-boogeyman is more of a red herring to get other concessions to the owners anyways. Now, I'm not saying I expect the Cubs to go Dodgers-like and spend like drunken sailors, but I think there's a very good chance they sign at least one contract in the Dansby Swanson range (think 6 or 7 years and under $200m). Not only will they have a compensation picking coming their way in the way of Kyle Tucker, the aging curve on pitchers right now is much better than hitters. Six pitchers 35+ posted 3+ win seasons compared to just two hitters, as an example. I don't think they will limit themselves to non-QO players, and with their need specifically being pitching, I think there's enough data to suggest them jumping in that pool. Boil it all down, whether it's Imai, Cease, or whatever, I do think the Cubs will very much be in play for one of those guys on a traditional, no opt out heavy contract. Will they get one over the line? Well that's the rub. But I don't think the Cubs will enter the offseason excluding that kind of a deal because of a potential lockout. I think a good majority of that are fans justifying keeping their expectations low to not be disappointed, but as stated, the Cubs have created that feeling around themselves on their own, as well, so I don't blame anyone for feeling that way.

Image courtesy of © Matt Marton-Imagn Images When the Chicago Cubs signed Shota Imanaga two offseasons ago, the contract they agreed upon was anything but a simple five-year pact. Instead, it was a convoluted mix of team and player options, as both sides would have agency on deciding how long the contract would truly be. Finally, on Nov. 4, both sides declined their respective options, leaving Imanaga a free agent and the team a pitcher short in their rotation. If your initial reaction was of shock and confusion, that's fair. It would have been inconceivable a few months ago that the two sides would have gotten to this point and yet, here we are. There's still a chance that the Cubs will extend the qualifying offer to Imanaga and that he will accept, foregoing free agency and sticking around on a one-year, $22 million contract, but as our own Matt Trueblood reported the other day, that would seem unlikely. Ultimately, even though Imanaga was a fresh of breath air as a human, the Cubs making this choice is likely one with reason and with a plan for the future. From the Cubs' perspective, the choice was either to pick up the remaining three years and $57 million or to decline their end of this deal (thus allowing Imanaga to choose free agency). Looking at recent free agents who signed contracts in the ballpark of 3/$50m (or so) gives us an idea of what type of a pitcher gets these kinds of contracts; Yusei Kikuchi (3/$63m), Luis Severino (3/$67m), and Seth Lugo (3/$47.5m) are likely our three closest proxies over the last two years. There are a few players, such as Nathan Eovaldi, who got three years as well, but at $75m total, it's probably fair to say his contract is a little too rich compared to the others. Looking at these four starters and seeing where Imanaga stacks up gives you a decent picture as to why the Cubs may have chosen to not pick up his option. By highlighting the season each pitcher had prior to signing their contract, we can see that Imanaga performed below most of the others in almost every category (though it is fair to point out that part of the reason why his fWAR is so low compare to others is because of his 2025 injury). His FIP and xFIP are both significantly worse than the other three, which does not bode well for the future. The only other pitcher on this list who had expected data in the 4.00 range was Severino, and part of his contract was likely a premium paid to get him to accept going to play for the Sacramento Athletics. What this means is that if Imanaga were a free agent alongside those guys, he would probably have gotten less than a 3/$52m deal in the open market. That doesn't exactly mean he's toast, but he probably didn't pitch well enough in 2025 to be a slam-dunk at that price point. You could probably make an argument that with a few mechanical tweaks you could get him closer to the guy he was in 2024, but I'm not sure he's a pitcher who's really any better than a good third option in a contending teams' rotation. Another point of emphasis for the Cubs is that to improve from a 92-win team in 2025, it will not be easy. The team appears content with losing Kyle Tucker from right field, but beyond Tucker, there aren't a lot of obvious places to get better. Most of their roster is fairly entrenched with above-average starting players, but a lack of true star power. Even in the rotation, the Cubs have Rookie of the Year finalist Cade Horton, 2025 All-Star Matthew Boyd, Jameson Taillon and Justin Steele who will all be back in 2026. By allowing Imanaga to leave via free agency, they create an opening that they may be able to fill with someone who offers bigger upside. The good news is that the offseason is going to offer a lot of options for the Cubs to take a leap pitching-wise. Free agents such as Dylan Cease (of whom the Cubs have already been linked with), Michael King, Framber Valdez and Ranger Suarez will all be able to be signed by any team. It's possible that Japanese pitcher Tatsuya Imai will be posted, and could add another high-ceiling pitcher into the mix. And we can't forget that the trade market will likely see names such as Joe Ryan, Edward Cabrera, Sandy Alcantara and MacKenzie Gore pop up from time to time as possibilities. It's not fun to see Imanaga leave, but this will allow the Cubs many opportunities to get better. If you're worried about the Cubs spending the amount of money or prospects it would take to acquire one of these names, I do think the Cubs will make at least one splashy move this offseason. Remember, the team dipped into the prospect pool for Kyle Tucker already (which would allow you to think they could be players in the trade market) and they did sign shortstop Dansby Swanson to a $177 million deal a few offseasons ago. With Tucker likely netting the team a compensation pick, they will likely be fine with bidding on even the best players in the pool. In addition, it's pitchers, not hitters, who seem to be aging better (even with the threat of Tommy John always looming). Six pitchers aged 35 or older posted 3+ fWAR seasons in 2025 compared to just two hitters of the same age. The Cubs' may not have the same reservations in signing a pitcher to a long-term contract as they do with hitters. Beyond just past behavior, the Cubs should have plenty of money to throw around. FanGraphs' Roster Resource currently has the Cubs at a projected Opening Day salary of $148m, and they ended last season with an estimated payroll of $206m. Even if we ignore late free agency attempts last offseason to sign Tanner Scott or Alex Bregman (which showed a willingness to increase that number), they are almost $80m shy of last year's (admittedly poor) total. Add in the context of coming off a 92-win season, Jed Hoyer's previous comments about creating a consistent team who wins 90 games, and the extra playoff revenue, it's likely that the Cubs will spend most of that money. Spending it entirely on one-year deals and the bench is impossible. They could easily sign two starters for $45 million combined and still have $40 million left over to address the bench and bullpen. This money will certainly play into that. Ultimately, I think the Cubs' decision to not pick up Imanaga's option makes perfect sense. He might not even get a three-year, $57 million contract on the open market, and by allowing his spot to open up, the Cubs will give themselves opportunities to improve on what Imanaga is likely to provide in the future. I'll miss the Mike Imanaga II jokes, his pithy comments, and his umpire stare-downs, but in a business world, this is a business decision. And I think at the end of the day, the Cubs will go into 2026 with a better roster because of it. What do you think of the decision to let Imanaga walk? Do you think this was a good idea, or a bad one? What other pitchers would you like the Cubs to target? Let us know in the comment section below! View full article

Bertz pointed it out the other day, but Shota has performed worst than pitchers who got contracts similar to the years and $$ remaining on his option. The Cubs now have $80m to spend to just get back to the $206m payroll they finished with in 2025. They also attempted to spend more than that with going after Bregman and Scott, suggesting that wasn't their top line. If they add $20m to that, the Cubs could spend $100m this offseason. But they also don't have a lot of clear cut spots that need upgraded. This opens a clear spot at SP to spend, and lots of money. I like Shota but he's probably a good mid-rotation arm. There are plenty of upper end arms the Cubs could replace him with. I know many people have created a narrative that the Cubs won't spend because of the lockout, but I just don't think that's going to be the case. I think the Cubs have given themselves an opportunity to get better with this.

Assuming Pete Crow-Armstrong can't repeat a 109 wRC+ is a "horrible" assumption? Based on...what, exactly? His wOBA was .10 points under his xWOBA and he made better swing choices in the 2nd half of the season (the issue was mechanical). Sure, I don't expect him to be an MVP candidate for 2 months, but getting to a 109 wRC+ is...super doable. He's always going to be a streaky hitter, but please, there is no data-driven argument that he can't repeat a similar overall line. There are different ways to skin a cat, so if the argument is "he had a really good 2 months" he can find a different way to get to the same value and there's nothing really in his data that says he cannot. The Cubs finished with the 5th most runs scored as well. What would be a "good" offense? We're jumping the shark if the Cubs offense wasn't good last year. Even when they weren't hitting well, their dRC+ was very good (expected data, and competition level factored into wRC+). I don't expect a top-5 offense losing Tucker. I do think they'll probably be a bit better than people expect them to be offensively in 2026 without a massive addition.

The Cubs have nearly $80m to spend this offseason just to get back to last year which was well below the LT. They can easily spend $25m on Imai/Cease, $20m on another SP and still have $35m to upgrade the bench and RP's. If they are willing to approach the LT or even slightly over (optimistic I know) then they have even more. They have proven time and time again they can build a BP on a shoestring budget. They're going to be fine. Even without Shota. Yes, they probably can't buy two SP's and a big bat, but there isn't a bat I'd spend on, to be honest if we're eliminating ourselves from the Tucker competition. They had the 9th best dRC+ in the 2nd half and had some bad luck. I think they can create a great pitching team and hit well enough that if they don't get a big time bat they will be alright.

Well, to be fair, they still have the option of the QO. I was on the record of saying it was an easy pickup a few weeks ago, but Bertz did a good job of showing the level of pitcher who got the kind of money Shota's option would have put him on...and he probably fell short of that level. The Cubs rotation isn't entirely barren right now either. Horton, Boyd, and Taillon are all under contract, Steele will get tendered and be back by May 1st if not sooner. Really, they have four guys even sans Shota if he does leave and there is no QO offered. The market has a decent amount of SP's. It may change the math that the Cubs grab 2 SP's instead of one, but they have a ton of money to spend to even get back to the disappointing 2025 levels. So I think they'll ultimately be fine.

Woaaaah. I figured he'd pick that up.

I agree neither are better than Shaw, though to be fair that wasn't the original statement either. It's more that I've seen Murakami is at least viewed as as current MLB 3b by a handful of reports I've seen. Defensively it's hard to compare NPB defense and MLB defense. And to be fair to Suzuki while he isn't an MLB plus plus defender he's better than the eye test suggests; he just makes a bad play here or there that really stands out. He's been about an average type of a corner defender racking up slightly negative OAA or DRS (the bar for average corner play is low). So I'm not sure the GG thing has much to do with it. Voters routinely pick the wrong players there, even at the MLB level. I do agree Murakami isn't much of a fit. And as stated I'm a big no thanks on him.

His defense may be better than some people give credit for and I've heard that he's more likely to play 3b than the other big NPB bat coming over Okamoto. It's hard to defensively scout NPB guys, so I'll just say that I don't think either will be plus defenders. That said, a 50% whiff rate on breaking balls from the NPB is insanely worrisome. And that would be my major concern.

He will get far less than that. Those are likely poor reports based on previous play. He is looking at something closer to the $18-$20m range annually.

A big "no thanks". He swung and missed at nearly 50% of all breaking balls last season. His K% has been horrible for a while. And we can assume that against better and better breaking balls, it isn't going to be any easier. There's probably a player in there somewhere, but it likely requires a pretty strong overhaul and a plan to get him to hit the breaking ball, but with the contract necessary to secure him, I wouldn't want the Cubs to be the team to find out.

Tucker. Is. Not. A. Boras. Client. This has been a consistent misunderstanding and has been explained like 100 times. I don't disagree that the Cubs won't spend on Tucker, but Boras is not his agent. He's also never been his agent.