With Spring Training just around the corner, we’re going to see more movement in free agency very soon. There’s another wave yet to sign, and there is some starting pitching at the front of it.
Jon Heyman was on MLB Network discussing, among other things, the state of Zac Gallen’s free agency, which he suggested could reach a conclusion relatively soon:
.@JonHeyman reports that the D-backs, Cubs and Orioles are teams that continue to express interest in free agent starter Zac Gallen. pic.twitter.com/bndDqCNPFy
— MLB Network (@MLBNetwork) January 27, 2026Heyman says the Cubs have been linked to Gallen for months (which is technically true, as the rumors first popped up back in December), and that these three teams – the Cubs, the Diamondbacks, and the Orioles – are the most likely for Gallen.
It’s a thin mention overall as far as the Cubs are concerned, but given those rumors back in December of interest, combined with the report earlier this month that the Cubs were still interested even after acquiring Edward Cabrera in trade, I thought it worth spotlighting. That’s especially the case if a decision is coming soon, and we do think it’ll probably be a quick cascade of pitcher signings either contemporaneous with, or shortly after, Framber Valdez making his decision.
After Bruce Levine reported that the Cubs were still talking to Scott Boras about Zac Gallen about nine days ago, here is a collection of my thoughts on why it does still make sense for the Cubs despite their overload of starting depth:
[W]ith the Cubs having traded for Edward Cabrera and checked the “we need a front-three type guy” box, I wouldn’t say there was an expectation that the Cubs would be signing another starting pitcher of Gallen’s caliber/price tag. The front is there (Cabrera, Cade Horton), a very strong middle is there (Shota Imanaga, Matthew Boyd, Jameson Taillon), and the quality depth is there (Colin Rea, Javier Assad, Ben Brown, Jordan Wicks). Plus, that sets aside Justin Steele’s hoped-for return around June, and Jaxon Wiggins’ hoped-for emergence in the second half.
You can “always use more starting pitching,” but would I call it an area of “need” at this point? I would not. The Cabrera trade finished the “need” up for me.
Do I think the Cubs front office would be opportunistic, though? Always.
… In other words, if you take Levine at his word, the Cubs would sincerely entertain signing Zac Gallen right now to a short-term deal.
Which, incidentally, is the kind of deal Gallen, 30, may have to take coming off a down 2025 season and saddled with a Qualifying Offer. He’s exactly the kind of guy who, if he can’t get a high-priced five-year deal, would probably want a two or three-year deal with a decent guarantee (but low-ish AAV), and an opt-out after the first year. But would the Cubs actually do that?
The Cubs have definitely not wanted to go that route if they can avoid it – you take on all the risk without much of the upside – and they reportedly didn’t want to go that route with Tatsuya Imai, either. Hence, he signed with the Astros. Throw in the fact that Zac Gallen would cost the Cubs their second highest selection in the draft, and the associated bonus slot, and $500,000 in IFA bonus pool space next year, and it’s potentially a very expensive deal to get a single year of Gallen when he feels like a bit of a luxury.
Speaking of luxury, though, consider that the Cubs are going over the luxury tax at this point regardless (all of Jed Hoyer, Carter Hawkins, and Crane Kenney this weekend indicated the Cubs aren’t done this offseason, and none hinted whatsoever that the luxury tax cost was going to be an impediment this time around). So if ever there was a time to spend a little more to solidify your season chances, this is it. Moreover, the Cubs do have the extra draft pick from Kyle Tucker’s departure, so that helps with the cost, and maybe Zac Gallen wouldn’t absolutely require an opt-out after the first year. You don’t know until you negotiate.
As for the volume of pitching, yes, the Cubs have enough now that it’s not a “need.” But the flip side to that, as we’ve discussed, is that there is not much impact prospect depth immediately on the horizon behind Jaxon Wiggins. And every single starting pitcher I mentioned up there except Colin Rea has dealt with relatively significant injury issues at some point in the last couple seasons. Is it fair to assume 130+ innings from all of them? With great results?
At the Convention, Jed Hoyer said he thinks as much about the 9th and 10th starters as anyone else, and they’re just as important as whichever guys folks might mentally pencil into the front five. The default expectation is not only that you’re going to get starts from 10 different pitchers in a given season, but that you’re going to get a meaningful number of starts from all of them.
Consider that even in 2025, a relatively healthy year, the Cubs got at least four starts from nine different pitchers! Sure, one of them was Drew Pomeranz as an opener, but I think the point stands. It’s not hard to imagine last year’s group needing even more starts from the depth guys, and none of this even gets into the part where you’re trying to optimize the volume of impact starters who are healthy and clicking come October.
Take all of that together, and again, it’s very easy to see why the Cubs would at least be opportunistic about Zac Gallen, especially if they otherwise really like the pitcher. If you added him, then your worst case scenario is that every single locked-in, un-optionable starting pitcher is healthy at the end of Spring Training (Gallen, Cabrera, Boyd, Imanaga, Taillon), and you’re talking about uncomfortable things like going with six starters, putting Rea in the bullpen, optioning Horton (seems nuts; or putting him in the bullpen), optioning Assad again, optioning Brown and Wicks, etc., etc.
For one thing, that’s not THAT bad of a worst-case scenario! It’s a little uncomfortable and it could make for some very challenging roster management in the bullpen (where there are a lot of unoptionable guys already). Maybe not preferable, and maybe even thornier if guys stay healthy and then Steele comes back and Wiggins is ready. But you figure it out. Problems, sure, but good problems to have.
For another thing, this is all fantasy. You simply do not ever have 15 super awesome pitchers or whatever all healthy and humming and clicking and totally ready to rock at the end of March. Never happens. There are always things you are forced to do anyway, and margins of health at which you can play around if you need to for the roster, and/or if you want to preserve some innings for later in the year.
Honestly, I started writing this thing on the thinking that, sure, the Cubs would sign Zac Gallen if it was an obscene bargain that no contender in its right mind could pass up. But now that I’ve gotten through the dialoguing with myself, I now kinda really hope it happens. I see the value.
Of course, I do have to check myself one last time and note that lots of other contenders arguably need a guy like Zac Gallen much more than the Cubs do, and that includes his long-time Diamondbacks (who wouldn’t have to lost any draft picks to re-sign him). I tend to think the Cubs actually landing Gallen is very unlikely from here, but I’m glad they’re open to it.
That all still tracks for me today, but I do want to underscore that the Cubs’ current rotation is (1) very good on paper, and (2) subject to a lot of health and performance risks. Right now, Gallen is available to sign, and provide additional cover, potential impact, and (hopefully) playoff innings. At midseason, if a need develops for a similar pitcher, you may not have the ability to actually go out and get that pitcher.
I do think it’s still a fundamental question on whether the Cubs believe Gallen will bounce back in a big way in 2026, which is a prerequisite to them actually sign him. Given the rumored interest, though, at the expense of draft pick compensation, I have to believe they do see upside for him. You don’t want a guy like Gallen, at his expected price tag (even on a shorter-term deal), solely as additional depth for a club with tons of depth.
Speaking of which: if the Cubs aren’t huge believers in Gallen in 2026, then this conversation looks a whole lot different. Namely, the Cubs can get themselves a little extra emergency depth and a little (lower-probability) upside by signing one of the starting pitchers in line behind Gallen and Valdez who ultimately does not garner a big league deal. If I’m Walker Buehler – just as an example of a high-risk, low-cost, high-upside type who might have to take a minor league deal – maybe I don’t love my path to big league innings given the Cubs’ depth, but maybe I like the possibility of working with that particular pitching department and then potentially pitching in front of that defense.
© Jeff Curry-Imagn ImagesHence then, the article about chicago cubs get another mention in connection with zac gallen was published today ( ) and is available on Bleacher Nation ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Chicago Cubs Get Another Mention in Connection with Zac Gallen )
Also on site :