The Chicago Cubs need an impact starting pitcher at the front of the rotation. Nothing has changed.

Tomorrow is a big one as far as esoteric MLB offseason deadlines go, with two for the price of one: the Qualifying Offer acceptance deadline and the Rule 5 Draft rostering deadline. Each deadline comes tomorrow in the late afternoon/early evening, so I thought I’d give you the reminder of what’s coming over the next 24 hours. Qualifying Offer Acceptance Deadline Tomorrow at the end of business is the deadline for players who received a Qualifying Offer (one year, $22 million) to accept or reject the offer. The players who decline the offer will then be attached to draft pick compensation for the rest of the offseason. Teams signing them will have to give up a draft pick (or two, plus IFA funds, depending on their market size and luxury tax status). Teams losing the Qualified Free Agent will add a draft pick (the location of which depends, again, on market size and luxury tax status). The full particulars of the Qualifying Offer and Draft Pick Compensation can be found here. You can see the full list of 13 free agents who got the QO this year here, and the two Cubs were Kyle Tucker (obviously rejecting) and Shota Imanaga (big decision on deck). We won’t necessarily see a ton of roster maneuvering today and tomorrow *in specific relation to* the QO deadline – players will accept or reject – but there are absolutely a lot of offseason moves that could branch off of these decisions. Look no further than the Cubs, who’ll probably pursue either one or two starting pitchers, depending on whether Imanaga accepts. It’s a huge hinge point for their offseason, and it’s coming soon. Rule 5 Draft Rostering Deadline This is the one where we absolutely will see lots of roster maneuvering. Tomorrow afternoon is the time by which teams must add prospects to the 40-man roster in order to protect them from next month’s Rule 5 Draft, if they are otherwise eligible to be selected. That means, around baseball, you will not only see a bunch of prospects added to 40-man rosters, but also other guys moved out in order to clear 40-man space for said prospects. You may also see minor trades where Club A is not going to protect Prospect Z, but Club B would be happy to add that prospect to their own 40-man roster. Thus, minor trade. (This was how the Cubs acquired Miles Mastrobuoni a few years ago, for example.) On the internal side, there is potentially not a great deal for the Cubs to do. The Cub Reporter has the full list of draft-eligible prospects here, and there may not be too many that the Cubs add. Among the more well-known eligible prospects: Brandon Birdsell (recovering from surgery), James Triantos (down 2025 season), Cristian Hernández (has yet to play at Double-A), Grant Kipp (succeeded at Double-A, but older and limited projection), Connor Noland (reasonably solid at Triple-A, but older and limited projection), Riley Martin (lefty reliever with strong numbers but control questions), Pedro Ramirez (solid all-around infielder, but hasn’t yet reached Triple-A), Tyler Schlaffer (turned it on late at Double-A, but re-signed a minor league deal suggesting no other club wanted him on 40-man), and JP Wheat (triple-digit arm, but hasn’t pitched above Low-A). Remember, you’re adding the prospect to your 40-man roster – potentially blocking out other moves, starting their options clock, and also setting yourself up to have to waive them if you ever want them off the 40-man – in order to prevent them from being selected in the Rule 5 Draft. But if the player is not likely to be drafted and then kept on the other team’s 26-man roster, then you may not have to worry about protecting him. That is all to say, I would be surprised if the Cubs added more than two prospects tomorrow, and that’s even understanding that they have upwards of 13(!) realistically available spots on the 40-man roster right now. My guess is that one of those minor trades is more likely than the Cubs protecting 3+ prospects of their own.

As Michael mentioned in the Lukewarm Stove yesterday, Royals lefty Kris Bubic is garnering some trade interest right now, according to Will Sammon at The Athletic. Given the Cubs’ reported interest over the summer, and given how extremely compelling he was looking as a trade target at that time, I wanted to give this rumor a little more attention. Firstly, I want to note how Sammon frames the situation: “At a time when club executives are doubting whether some top-of-the-rotation pitchers get moved, Kansas City Royals lefty starter Kris Bubic, an All-Star last season, is garnering trade interest from multiple teams, league sources said. In need of offense and boasting some pitching depth, the Royals are open to the possibility of dealing Bubic, people familiar with the club’s thinking said.” Let me just state up front: this is 100% coming from the Royals. I’m not saying that Sammon is carrying water here, but this is a message the Royals clearly want to get out to the entirety of MLB to be sure they get the best possible offers before pulling the trigger on a trade. It’s a sales pitch (hey, no one else is getting traded, come talk to us about our guy) and an explanation (we need offense and we have pitching depth) all right up front. The article goes on to explain why Bubic is an attractive trade target despite the fact that he missed the final two months with a shoulder injury (he’s totally healthy and will have a normal offseason, the piece notes!). My point here is that Bubic is very, very, very clearly available. Short of setting him on the corner with a FOR SALE sign dangling from his neck, it doesn’t get much more transparent than this. Now, then. You could take that as concerning. A team has a great pitcher, who is coming off a shoulder injury, and they’re eager to trade him. That flag is bright red. Or, if you’re more generous, you could conclude that it’s simply a matter of a team legitimately wanting to trade from an area of depth, on a guy who doesn’t have much team control left, and who will have some questions going into 2026. You could probably convince me of either lane, but for now, I’ll be generous and say that the fact that Bubic is going to be a free agent after 2026, and will make upwards of $6 million in his final go at arbitration, means that the Royals do have a reasonable explanation for wanting to see if there’s trade value there. Let’s assume, then, that he’s healthy enough and any risks in 2026 are the same as you’d expect for any pitcher who has had arm injuries. Does Kris Bubic look like a good trade target for the Cubs? Well, he certainly fits their mold. It’s a one-year commitment, which the Cubs always love. It’s a pitcher who is still only 28. It’s a guy who transformed his game coming off of injuries and a bullpen conversion, and looks like he really figured some things out this past season. It’s a guy who limits hard contact and gets the ball on the ground. He’s not a hard-thrower (92 mph), but he doesn’t walk a lot and records strikeouts at a touch better than league average. Debate the extent to which YOU like that profile, but it’s inarguably one the Cubs like to target. (via FanGraphs) Another point in favor of acquiring Kris Bubic? The salary is not going to preclude the Cubs from also making another significant addition to the rotation in free agency (depending on what happens with Shota Imanaga’s Qualifying Offer decision). Also, because of the injury risk and the single year of control, you can presume the acquisition price on Bubic would be considerably less than that of Joe Ryan, MacKenzie Gore, or Edward Cabrera. You get what you pay for and all that, but if the Cubs were big believers in Kris Bubic repeating as the guy he was in 2025, then you’re more than happy to get him regardless of the price difference (that’s just a bonus). My guess, in the end, is that the Cubs are among the teams who are interested in a Kris Bubic trade. They’re probably far from alone, and the Royals are clearly trying to get the word out to more bidders. But the fit is pretty obvious, and I think this bears keeping on your radar. Kris Bubic was pacing to be an AL Cy Young finalist before a shoulder strain ended his season early He posted a 2.55 ERA and 2.89 FIP across 116.1 IP on the heels of a deceptively good fastball and an array of strong secondaries. I am excited for his return in 2026! pic.twitter.com/1HeEhVAiZW— Thomas Nestico (@TJStats) November 12, 2025 Kris Bubic's 2Ks in the 6th…and Sword. ⚔️ pic.twitter.com/NebqI7bdSO— Rob Friedman (@PitchingNinja) April 6, 2025 Kris Bubic's 2Ks in the 7th. pic.twitter.com/G8NXIRzcG4— Rob Friedman (@PitchingNinja) April 23, 2025

I wouldn’t say Japanese ace Tatsuya Imai is the top starting pitcher on the free agent market this year, necessarily, and I wouldn’t say it’s a lock that the Chicago Cubs pursue him in any case. But I would say that, on paper, the 27-year-old appears to have big-league-caliber stuff, has dominated in Japan to a similar degree that we’ve seen from other starters who’ve come over and had success, and could give the Cubs a different look at the front of their rotation. The Cubs are not unique in being an obvious fit for Imai, but that fit is pretty clear. So I was glad to hear Bruce Levine and Lance Brozdowski seriously discussing the possibility of the Cubs targeting Tatsuya Imai this offseason, once he’s posted on November 19: That’s quite a bit of financial optimism from Bruce Levine, eh? Asked about whether he sees the Cubs willing to spend even if Tatsuya Imai became something of a top-dollar free agent, Levine was unequivocal: “I think so. Yeah, I definitely think so. I don’t they’d back away, and I don’t think the Cubs would be afraid to make a huge investment in Imai.” He calls the idea that the Cubs won’t spend money a misconception. The Cubs, and Spending Big on Free Agents Like Tatsuya Imai I would say the concern there is that the price tag is gonna keep climbing on players like Imai, to a level well beyond anything the Cubs typically do, but Levine’s comment seems to contemplate that, with the mention of a “huge investment.” He pushes back against the idea that the Cubs flatly will not spend at this level, and instead indicates it’s just a matter of whether they believe in the player. In some ways, that’s always true for every organization, right? But the Cubs should at least have the theoretical ability to commit $150 million+ to a player like Tatsuya Imai, in a way that the Pirates or Reds or Brewers really would not. Would I call it likely? Well, as I’ve said all offseason, you have to go back 8 years to the last time the Cubs signed a pitcher to a nine-figure deal. There just isn’t a track record there, so your default expectation has to be that the Cubs won’t go quite to this level, instead preferring to try to find the next Matthew Boyd. But I did appreciate Levine’s pushback. A little more on the pitcher, if you’re unfamiliar, from our previous discussions: Tatsuya Imai, 27, has been about 25 to 30% better than league average in the NPB by ERA- over the last four years, with peripherals that have gotten better and better over the years. This past season, he paired a 27.8% K rate with a 7.0% BB rate, and posted a 1.92 ERA over 163.2 innings, and it’s not hard to see why now might be the time to capitalize on a move to Major League Baseball. Part of what will make Imai so intriguing to MLB teams, in addition to his age, is that he’s one of the hardest-throwing starters in Japan. He sits 95mph+, and apparently reaches 99mph. Couple that with a slider, changeup, splitter mix, and the pieces are there for a guy to succeed in the transition to MLB. For that reason, the expectation is that Imai’s contract will likely be in the nine figures – Jeff Passan heard guesses in the $140 to $150 million range, and that’s before the $20+ million posting fee – and that’s where the questions will come in about whether the Cubs will be sufficiently aggressive to sign him. The Cubs aren’t perpetually out on nine-figure pitchers, but the last one they signed was Yu Darvish some seven years ago. Maybe Tatsuya Imai’s age will spur the Cubs on a bit more than usual, together with the ability to keep building out the Japan pipeline. But you have to figure that Imai will be highly sought-after, and you’re not only going to have to recruit him well to your city, you’ll also probably have to win a bidding war. Of course, if you believe in the pitcher, then I would argue there is no team in baseball that benefits more from adding an impact, top-of-the-rotation arm. Yes, other clubs – most clubs? – could benefit as much as the Cubs. But more? No. The Cubs need a guy like Tatsuya Imai as much as any other team, and we saw it late in the year.

Folks who know me well may know that I typically have about 30 to 50 tabs open on my computer at any given time (sadly, not an exaggeration (current count: 43)). There’s just always stuff I want to read, stuff I might want to include in a post, and stuff that might later trigger a new post idea. One tab I’ve had open for weeks is Angels outfielder Jo Adell’s FanGraphs page. At the end of the season, I was just kinda trolling around looking at season performances I hadn’t noticed as they were playing out, and Adell’s leapt off the page. That’s less because it was such an extraordinary performance – .236/.293/.485/112 wRC+, brutally bad defensive metrics in center and right, 1.2 WAR – and more because I’d been fascinated by his story for a long time. Jo Adell, now 26, was one of those uber prospects back in 2018/2019, when he was putting up hilarious numbers at High-A/Double-A as a 19/20-year-old. It depends on your list of preference, but he was generally considered a top-five prospect in baseball by most pundits for several years. Then, thanks to the pandemic shortened season in 2020, the Angels were left with a couple bad options: bring Adell to the big leagues so he could play, or have him miss a competitive season because he’d only barely played at Triple-A the year before. They opted for the former, he struggled badly, and so began a near five-year odyssey of Jo Adell bouncing back and forth between Triple-A (where he mostly seemed to have the hang of it) and MLB (where he continued to struggle badly). It’s not a wholly unfamiliar tale, obviously, but (1) it’s a little more rare for the caliber of prospect that Adell was, and (2) it lasted sooooo long. Fast-forward to 2025, where Jo Adell, as I said, had a solid season. It was still pretty heavy on the strikeouts (26.4%) and light on the walks (5.8%), the fruits of which you see in the slash line, but the power really showed up against big league pitching, at long last. Adell posted a .249 ISO, a 17.2%(!) barrel rate, and slugged 37 home runs. His zone contact rate had improved each of the past four seasons, and it seems he finally got it to a place where he could turn his natural power into some actual damage. Good for him. Jo Adell and the Chicago Cubs OK, so why did I go through this exhaustive preamble about a former top prospect with no connection whatsoever to the Cubs? Well, because Bruce Levine made a connection to the Cubs on Marquee: “There’s a lot of opportunities out there. There are a lot of teams that like the minor-league system of the Chicago Cubs. One of them is the Los Angeles Angels, who might be dangling Jo Adell, who is a right fielder. He was considered their top prospect for a long time. He came through last year with the power numbers. He’s still a really young guy. “The Angels are interested in young pitchers. Some of the Cubs’ younger pitchers — the guys like [Ben] Brown, the guys like [Jordan] Wicks — people like that would be of interest to the Los Angeles Angels.” It’s a bit odd, yes, but it’s so specific that it feels like it has to have come from somewhere. Even if Levine appears to have been careful not to say explicitly that the Cubs are pursuing a trade. Speaking generally, it does align with that weird rumor that the Cubs were looking at corner outfielders, and it’s not like they couldn’t accommodate Jo Adell, either as a DH or as the right fielder (where he’s typically been passable). Either way, you’d have Adell and Seiya Suzuki in the lineup, though you’d be squeezing out Moises Ballesteros and Owen Caissie, to the extent you deemed either of them ready. But more specifically, is Jo Adell actually a strong target for the Cubs? Despite the preamble, I’m not actually sure how well he projects into 2026, given the long track record of struggles prior to 2025. You’d have to believe that what he accomplished in 2025 is definitely repeatable, AND that whatever defensively limitations there are, it won’t hinder his overall value on your club. Of course, given that extreme barrel rate (and a .378 xwOBA), it’s possible some clubs are projecting Adell to get even better from here. Maybe a team like the Cubs want to get out in front of any additional steps forward? There’s also, sigh, the financial fit. I always hate when that’s a factor. But it is. Adell is projected by MLBTR to make just $5.5 million in arbitration this year, with another year of control thereafter in 2027. For a Cubs front office that loves flexibility and short-term commitments, and with questions on how much they have available to spend (with most of that probably going to pitching), you can see the obvious fit. I think this is something we’re going to have to keep an eye on. It’s a little interesting that one of the few comments Jed Hoyer made about the offense in his GM Meetings comments this week was that the Cubs struggled a bit against left-handed pitching. Jo Adell absolutely obliterated lefty pitching this year, to the tune of a .277/.346/.585/154 wRC+ slash line. And, for his career, he’s actually been above-average overall against lefties, despite the below average numbers overall. He’s not solely a lefty-crusher, which would have limited value, but it’s something he does quite well. And maybe it’s something the Cubs feel they need. From there, it’s a question of how well the Angels like players X, Y, or Z on the Cubs’ roster or in their farm system, and whether you can find an appropriate match. To me, Ben Brown or Jordan Wicks feels a bit steep given the substantial disparity in remaining team control compared to Jo Adell, but maybe there’s a conversation there.

In a just-for-fun exercise at ESPN today, Jeff Passan picked one perfect offseason move for each of the 12 playoff teams plus 9 other plausibly active clubs. No overlaps or duplicates, so each club gets just one more. The one Passan picked for the Cubs, incidentally, is the one I would pick, too (well, with a little caveat to follow). It’s Japanese ace Tatsuya Imai, who will be posted soon. From ESPN: “The perfect transaction: Even with Tucker expected to leave, the Cubs still have plenty of thump in their lineup. They will win or lose based on pitching, and their starting rotation needs help. The Cubs aren’t the sort of team inclined to pay pitchers for past-their-prime years, and while that tends to be the sort of thing that’s incompatible with free agency, there happens to be a 27-year-old available this winter who won’t even cost a draft pick to sign. It’s just money, and seeing as the Cubs don’t spend a whole lot of that — their current projected payroll is around $150 million — now seems the right time to splurge a little. Sign free agent right-hander Tatsuya Imai.” The logic is simple and sound, with two open questions: (1) how highly do the Cubs evaluate Imai in his transition to MLB? and (2) are the Cubs willing to spend what it would take to sign Imai? We don’t yet have a great sense of how the Cubs project Tatsuya Imai – and we probably won’t – but we can at least speculate on number two. Historically, the Cubs don’t hand out too many $100+ million contracts, and the last one that went to a pitcher was nearly eight years ago (Yu Darvish). So betting that Imai will be the pitcher to cause the Cubs to leap is not a great bet. That said, he’s only 27. He is not attached to a Qualifying Offer. He is part of a growing pipeline of talent coming over from Japan that the Cubs seem keen to tap into. And Imai has the kind of premium velocity potential that the Cubs have generally lacked from their rotation. Oh, and he’s potentially a front-two arm, available to a club that desperately needs that kind of addition. Yes, this feels like a “perfect” move for the Cubs (and, admittedly, many other clubs). The caveat I mentioned above is a pretty thin one: if the Cubs found the right trade partner for an impactful starting pitcher, I could just as easily call that “perfect.” I like that same Joe Ryan, MacKenzie Gore, Edward Cabrera, Sandy Alcantara group of trade candidates just about as much now as I did at the Trade Deadline. Tatsuya Imai isn’t literally the only starter addition that could wind up perfect move for the Cubs.

A couple months ago, we were reminded just how bad things have been for Kris Bryant with the Colorado Rockies, where he signed four years ago. Since then, he’s played in just 170 games total, hitting .244/.324/.370/82 wRC+, and posting a -1.8 WAR. It could scarcely have gone worse from a playing perspective. But even worse, it has been terrible from a physical perspective, with multiple injuries popping up over the years. On the latest, despite being out since mid-April with a degenerative disc condition, it sounds like Kris Bryant is still battling his back. From the Denver Post: ‘Every morning, Kris Bryant wakes up and tests his lower back, hoping the pain and stiffness have lessened. Every morning, he’s disappointed. “I wish I had better things to tell you,” Bryant said from his home in Las Vegas. “It’s not in the best shape, and that’s pretty disheartening for me. It’s exhausting for me waking up and hoping to feel (better). I can’t tell you the last time I woke up feeling I’m in a good spot.”’ It does not get any better from there, and you can read the piece here. Retirement isn’t yet on the table, but mostly because it sounds like Bryant can’t yet think of himself as anything other than a baseball player. Hopefully some of the work he’s doing this offseason to recover will be productive, and he can find a way to stay on the field in 2026. The money is inarguably great, but it can’t fix your body or your mindset when you’re only 34 and the game is being taken away from you. I just feel terrible for the guy. He was a Cubs hero, and always will be, but even just at a human level, it’s impossible not to root for a rebound with the Rockies.

MLB insider Jon Heyman recently spoke about the Chicago Cubs’ spending proclivities, or lack thereof, and what they might do this offseason. Heyman did NOT hold back: .@JonHeyman on the Cubs spending habits: (Via @BleacherReport) pic.twitter.com/R4kbt50UvA— The Wrigley Wire (@TheWrigleyWire) November 5, 2025 “The Cubs have the greatest disparity between revenue and payroll. They are number one. So crown Tom Ricketts the champion for pocketing the most amount of money.” Not shy! I’m not 100% sure where Heyman is getting those numbers, what’s included, what years he’s talking about, etc. (it might be based on this chart that’s been circulating in various forms over the past 10 months), but it’s a continuation of the national drumbeat we were seeing last offseason about the Cubs’ relative austerity. I’m sure the Cubs would dispute that characterization, since they always say they put every dollar that comes in the door right back into organizational expenses and baseball operations. Heyman went on to say that the Cubs are on the cusp of something very good – by which I think he meant competitively speaking – so they have to do something big right now in free agency. They are a “really good team,” but not yet quite good enough, according to Heyman. Heyman, himself, later shared the clip with the caption, “Time for the Cubs to sign a really big free agent. They’re due.” So it’s not like he was just talking off the cuff, live, and saying something he wishes he hadn’t. This kind of push – be it from the media, from agents, or from the fans – is not necessarily going to move the needle on the baseball operations budget. But it does highlight a certain pervasive perspective out there; a perspective the Cubs have done very little over the last few years to disarm. The good news for them is that they should have plenty of money available to spend this offseason, and there are plenty of interesting free agent targets available.

With the Chicago Cubs making Shōta Imanaga a one-year, $22 million Qualifying Offer, I am somewhat comforted by the thought that Shane Bieber’s decision to take one year and $12 million, and Jack Flaherty’s decision to take one year and $20 million, were not necessarily harbingers that the market is going to be profoundly disrupted this offseason. More importantly, it heartened me that the Cubs are not going to be so precious about their spending that they couldn’t possibly justify $22 million on Imanaga. That said, the fact of Bieber’s and Flaherty’s decisions, personal and idiosyncratic as they might be, do suggest that pitchers in this tier cannot necessarily assuming they’ll find a monster multi-year deal out there right now. And for Imanaga, a guy coming off a down second half, who is 32, and whose velocity and stuff took a step back this year, it’s fair to wonder how much he could realistically expect in free agency. That goes double now that, if he actually heads into free agency, he’ll cost his signing team draft pick(s) and IFA bonus pool space. So, then, it seems awfully plausible that Shōta Imanaga will simply accept the Cubs’ offer and return to the team on a one-year deal, right? Well, I was interested to see the national perspective on a question like that, since we haven’t yet dug into contract projections for Imanaga. There were options decisions to sort out, after all. At The Athletic, Tim Britton, who hadn’t initially projected a contract for Imanaga, was asked about where things go from here: ‘With the Cubs turning down Imanaga’s three-year option, what could he expect to get on the market? I am guessing a qualifying offer would dampen interest. Could the Cubs get him back for two years and $35 million? —Tom C. I eventually projected Shota Imanaga at just the one-year, $22 million mark for the qualifying offer because accepting that makes some sense for him. He’s going to be 32, which means a team is unlikely to hand him more than a three-year deal, and I don’t see a team giving him a contract that long with a healthy AAV while also sacrificing a draft pick. The two-year, $35 million number you suggest is in the right ballpark, and at that point, Imanaga should probably just take the qualifying offer.’ To me, that all rings accurately. I have a hard time seeing anything more than a three-year deal for Shōta Imanaga right now, and I also have a very hard time seeing the AAV on such a deal being enough to justify him passing up on 1/$22M. Keep in mind, Imanaga already turned down his player option, which would’ve been two years and $30.5 million, with an opt out in the middle. He did that either thinking that he could do better in free agency, OR that he preferred the Qualifying Offer. In other words, the angle all along might’ve just been to get 1/$22M from the Cubs. Elsewhere, we do have a series of contract projections on Imanaga, all of which fall into roughly the same range. FanGraphs has him at two years and $40 million. MLBTR has him at three years and $45 million. ESPN has him at three years and $43.5 million. In other words, two or three years, an AAV between $14.5 million and $20 million, and a guarantee between $40 and $45 million. The question here is: how many suitors out there are paying that price while also losing the draft pick cost? Enough to justify Imanaga walking away from one year and $22 million? That’s what Shōta Imanaga and his reps will have to quickly suss out over the next 11 days. The Qualifying Offer decision is due by November 18. Which, by the way, is not to say Imanaga has to depart the Cubs if he rejects the offer. It could be that, after being out there in the market for a little while, he finds that the QO is a sufficient drag on his market that working out a new deal with the Cubs is the best approach. The sides might even come together on a new multi-year deal that splits the baby between the option he turned down (2/$30.5M) and the option the Cubs turned down (3/$57.5M). For now, though, simply accepting the Qualifying Offer seems like a plausible outcome, and one that the national projections would generally support.

There it is. Today, per Jeff Passan, the Chicago Cubs extended a one-year, $22 million Qualifying Offer not only to Kyle Tucker – we knew that was coming – but also to Shōta Imanaga. The latter was put deeply into question by recent developments in the market, but clearly the Cubs believe Imanaga is worth a one-year, $22 million deal, and/or he will reject it in favor of a better contract, either with a new team or negotiated with the Cubs. The option the Cubs declined on Imanaga was effectively three years and $66 million, when counting the posting fee, so now they might get him instead for just one year at the same AAV. Players have until November 18 to accept or reject the offer. If accepted, it’s a one-year, $22 million contract for 2026. Pretty straightforward. Tucker will not, Imanaga might. The latter feels at least like a 50/50 proposition, but if there’s any fear about his market, Imanaga might feel like this is the best deal he’s going to get. I think the Cubs can make a quality rotation one way or another, but it’s hard not to want Shōta, the person, back with the team next year. If rejected, the Qualifying Offer then entitles the player’s former team to draft pick compensation if and when the player signs with a new club. For the Cubs, that compensation would be an extra draft pick after the second round. (Not to be confused with the cost of signing a Qualified Free Agent, which is simply what you lose – it doesn’t go to the other team. The Cubs, for example, would lose their second highest draft pick and $500,000 in IFA pool money if they sign some other Qualified Free Agent.)

No Sammy Sosa. That’s the first thing that jumped out at me here, and probably will jump out at you, too. With only eight slots available for the Contemporary Baseball Player Era Committee to vote on for possible future Hall of Fame induction, I suppose I can understand why Sosa was not included. There are a lot of players whose contributions have come since 1980, and who didn’t make it into the Hall on the writers’ votes for one reason or another. I guess I’m just bummed that Sosa isn’t one of the eight. Here are the eight candidates this year, the voting results for whom will be released December 7: The Contemporary Baseball Era player ballot features eight candidates for consideration in the Hall of Fame Class of 2026. Results will be announced at 7:30 p.m. ET on Dec. 7: https://t.co/V5Xyf85u9i pic.twitter.com/jdkUy2sOWs— National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum ⚾ (@baseballhall) November 3, 2025 The Steroid Era looms large over that ballot, obviously, and the voting will be something of a referendum on how former players are viewing that time and place in the game. My guess is that they will be as harsh on guys like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens as the writers were, but I suppose we’ll see. For me, personally, it’s hard to ignore the extent to which MLB allowed PED usage to get so out of control in the late-90s and early-2000s, and I would have that in my mind as I voted. It doesn’t mean what users did wasn’t wrong, but it’s context. On the whole, when I look at the list of eight players, I see a handful that are – by their performance results – obvious Hall of Famers, with PED usage being the only question. And then I see guys who are rightly there on the cusp of enshrinement, but whose candidacy merits debate. More about the committee process from the National Baseball Hall of Fame: “The Era Committees consist of three different electorates: The Classic Baseball Era, consisting of the period prior to 1980 and including Negro Leagues and pre-Negro Leagues stars; and the Contemporary Baseball Era, consisting of the period from 1980 to present day. The Contemporary Baseball Era is split into two separate ballots – one ballot to consider only players who made their greatest impact on the game since 1980, and another composite ballot consisting of managers, executives and umpires whose greatest contributions to the game have come since 1980. Eras considered for yearly induction over the upcoming years are as follows: 2026 – Contemporary Baseball Player 2027 – Contemporary Baseball Managers/Executives/Umpires 2028 – Classic Baseball 2029 – Contemporary Baseball Player 2030 – Contemporary Baseball Managers/Executives/Umpires. 2031 – Classic Baseball Both the ballot and electorate are created anew with each cycle for consideration.” Enshrinement requires a vote on at least 12 of the 16 ballots, and if you are not named on at least 5 ballots, you are ineligible for a future ballot. The committees are generally comprised of Hall of Fame players, executives, and media members.