The invasion and subjugation of soviet Russia was driven by so many factors that the chances of Barbarossa being cancelled are effectively zero. Quite apart from Nazi bollocks like Lebensraum, Destiny, Willpower and Inherent Superiority and Hiltler's personal obsessions, there were legitimate strategic threats to Romanian oil, political threats from a communist neghbour, and a potential military opponent with a direct land border and proven territorial ambitions. A successful Winter War adds strategic threats to Swedish steel, but does nothing to counter nazi views of slavic inferiority - not only because these were based on fantasy rather than fact (so a changed situation makes no difference), but also because that mindset can simply decide that Finns aren't Aryan enough and anyway were massively outnumbered, thus denigrating the soviet achievement.
As for timing, it couldn't really be delayed because the soviet armies were only going to get stronger faster than the Germans could, and because the strategic threats to steel and oil couldn't be left unattended.
And as for caution, the only possible way for Germany to win was to win big and win quickly. They needed to make big encirclements early on, and keep doing so until the numerical superiority was eroded.
It would influence the planning and progress of Barbarossa, especially in the North, but that would change the balance of forces and targets in the centre and south. This should change the progress of the war in some potentially very interesting ways: what does Sweden do? what does this mean for intervention in Libya, or in the Balkans? If the Balkan flank can't be secured, does the southern arm of OTL Barbarossa have to be held back, or do they gamble on succeeding before any real threat emerges?