From the Wire … Cubs Re-Sign Shawn Camp

According to multiple reports, the Cubs have re-signed Shawn Camp to a one-year contract. The deal will pay Camp $1.35 million in 2013 and the one-year contract includes a performance-based incentive package worth an additional $200,000.

With the addition of Shawn Camp, the Cubs 40-man roster stands at 39 players.

Shawn Camp was solid in his first season with the Cubs. Camp posted a 3-6 record in a career-high 80 appearances (77 2/3 innings) with a 3.59 ERA and a 1.29 WHIP. Camp picked up a couple of saves and was the primary right-handed setup man to Carlos Marmol. The Cubs stated early on in the off-season that they wanted Camp back in the fold for the 2013 season.

Shawn Camp’s Page on Baseball-Reference

Rumors have suggested that if the Cubs are able to move Carlos Marmol this winter then Camp could be used in the ninth inning to close out games.

Stay Tuned …

Follow ChicagoCubsOnline on Twitter: @TheCCO

Quote of the Day

"Every day is a new opportunity. You can build on yesterday’s success or put its failures behind and start over again." – Bob Feller

Share on Fancred
  • Raymond Robert Koenig

    What time is the deadline tomorrow for having rosters set?

    • Neil

      It used to be 5:00pm ET. I have not seen a time change for this year.

      • Raymond Robert Koenig

        Thank you. It wouldn’t surprise me to see the Cubs clear some roster spots via trade before then.

        • Neil

          There has been a time change. Deadline is Midnight Eastern.

          • Dorasaga

            Neil, you know I’ve said something similar before. But this time I’ll ask for your secret: How in the world you kept being informed at real-time, took care of your family, and responded to all our fan requests without haste and with cool, PLUS much love? There must be like five Neilians who are sharing the same office, right?

  • Neil

    From Bruce Levine: Chicago Cubs are not presently in discussions to move any of their young players .

  • Wes Renne

    Not sure if any of you noticed but we lacked depth at the “Pitching” position. Camp resigning on a 1 yr low risk plan is a great way to let the younger pitchers develop instead of being thrusted into the bullpen.

  • Richard Hood

    This is not a surprise but the timing could have been better. If they held off for a week or so and got the rosters set for the rule 5 it would have worked out better.

  • Aaron

    I agree with Richard…not a surprise, but timing could have been better.

    Camp was decent, but not a great reliever by any stretch. Giving up 79 hits in 77 IP is hardly a good pitcher…plus, he’s going to be a 37 year old junk baller, coming off a year in which he led the league in appearances…which is not exactly a recipe for success the following year. My guess is he pitches to a 6-7 ERA, and is out of baseball by June….just my opinion, and I have been wrong before, but his historicals do NOT seem to indicate he’ll do well.

    How many times this past year did we all brace ourselves when we heard a “loud out” from Camp? I can’t tell you how many times I watched a high fly ball just die right at the warning track. He was INCREDIBLY lucky.

    Right now, the Cubs have a pen of:

    *plus, one of Dolis/Cabrera (if he’s not starting)

    I know they’re trying to deal Marmol, and they’re probably not sold on Dolis, but they could’ve at least filled Camp’s spot with a semi-decent reliever like Capps, Adams, Myers (who also could start), Frasor, Cruz, Lindstrom, Lyon, etc. They still can go that route and sign guys like that, but having Camp around doesn’t exactly help the whole rebuilding effort, does it? If he does well, it’s not like a Maholm, where you could get anything for him, or he would’ve been dealt this past season. Teams do NOT line up to sign/trade for guys that are righty relievers and throw a max of 88 mph, and generally sit in the 82-86 mph range and throw hanging sliders….and for that reason, it’s very perplexing they’d sign him this early.

    All the other guys I mentioned at least have strikeout abilities. Camp pitches to contact, and when you have relievers like that, who are generally coming into the game with runners on base, you’re playing with fire, and you’re right in the middle of an oil refinery….get the picture?

    Some teams learn the hard way that you can’t build a pen around soft-tossers. Hendry found out the hard way…I would’ve thought Team Theo knew better….but then again, these are the same guys that signed the likes of Berken, Germano, Lopez, Socolovich, etc….guys that could hardly break a pane of glass.

    Like I’ve always said ad nauseam on here….if you get in trouble, and you can’t throw your fastball by anyone, or change speeds effectively, you’re going to get hammered at the MLB level. It’s why guys like Lopez, Camp, Germano, Socolovich, Volstad, etc., will forever bounce around….because they have ZERO plus-plus (or even slightly above average) pitches.

    It’s why I kept harping on the Marmol debacle a year ago, where we kept seeing him around 92-93 mph with his fastball, instead of 95-97 mph like he was throwing the year before. Interesting that once he got his velocity up to 95-97 mph again, his ERA plummeted from 2011, huh? If he got in trouble with his slider, he was able to blow his fastball right by guys again.

    Those soft tossers can’t do that. They have to keep junk-balling, trying to get guys to chase pitches out of the zone if they get in trouble.

    6-7 ERA by June, and out of baseball….I’m calling it. Hope I’m wrong though

  • paulcatanese

    Strongly agree Aaron. I think his slider got by hitters because they couldn’t believe their eyes. Don’t understand the re-signing at all.

  • Ripsnorter1

    Pretty optimistic projection there, Mr. Aaron. LOL

  • Tony_Hall

    You are right there is nothing in his numbers that suggest…anything close to a 6-7 ERA next year.

    2012 – 3.59 ERA
    2011 – 4.21 ERA
    2010 – 2.99 ERA
    2009 – 3.50 ERA
    2008 – 4.12 ERA

    That is the last 5 years with ERA’s under 4.21.


    2012 – 1.288
    2011 – 1.523
    2010 – 1.230
    2009 – 1.280
    2008 – 1.297

    And as it was mentioned below, if he can pitch in less than 80 games, he can be effective. He is not a dominant bullpen guy, nor is he the style I want or believe we will see in a few years. But right now this bullpen needs a veteran experience with ERA’s and WHIPS like he has put up for the last 5 years.

  • gary3411

    It’s a cheap guy that is a body back there and can get outs. Our bullpen is one of the worst in the league currently constructed. Without Camp, probably the worst with no young guys ready to make an impact besides maybe McNutt if he can harness himself this year. It’s purely a signing so we don’t lose every single close game in 2013 and to keep morale somewhat out of the gutter, even if just for the young guys going forward.

  • Aaron

    There are better options out there for the same, if not slightly more $$, and the risk/reward with them is far better than Camp, where you know with his age and league high 80 appearances is due for a down year. At best, you’re looking at a 3.60-ish ERA. At worst, you’re looking at him being out of baseball, which you could not honestly say about the other guys I listed. Get what I’m saying?

  • paulcatanese

    A cheap guy? what does that have to do with the direction Epstein has said he wants to go?
    Signing Camp is going in reverse. Older, very
    lucky with the times he has spent on the mound,
    and can only get worse.
    I just dont get it, all of these projected miracle signings that are going on, injured, older players as a stop gap for the future.
    No one in the front office has given the impression that losing close games has anything to do with their plans going ahead.
    In fact it has been said that 103 losses is no different that say 85-90 losses.
    Later in the season Camp was getting pounded just like every one else that fits the same category.
    Lets face the fact that these signings have been in the same class as the minor league system, they are all prospects until proven otherwise.
    The difference being the minor leagues and the Cub farm system is these kids still have the opportunity to become assests to the Cubs, while the people that are brought in are
    being put in the category that somehow they can restore what ever sucess they have had in the past, and hopefully can recover their lost glory, whatever that was.

  • Dorasaga

    I needa agree with Aaron on this one, by principle. Bullpen is something a Major League operatioin worry last. (You can always wait, unless you are going for the Grand Prize, a.k.a. World XX this year.)

    The Cubs need consistent pitching and good corner power. They have good outfielders who have tools, esp. at center. They have depth at short and third. They are locked with good first basemen, consider that Lahair can slip in as a replacement, and they have good, young arms down single and double A-s. I don’t know what Hoyer wants to do with his surplus, while seeing a dreadful need for the other parts?

  • RynoTiger

    If other pitchers in the bullpen can be effective this year, then Sveum doesn’t have to use Camp 80 times and thus can put him in a far better position to be successful. Let’s be honest, without Camp last year, the bullpen is DOA and doesn’t a chance to help in any way. Camp was the bullpen last year and thus was used so much.

    If is use can be maximized for successes, then he is movable at the trade deadline. However, other guys have to step up and something positive.

  • ChadAudio

    I get what you’re saying Aaron, but it’s all speculative at this point. Yes, I do think Camp is due for a down year this year.
    But, I would be surprised if any of the guys you listed sign for a one year deal and for close to the same amount of money (of course I could be wrong).
    Finally, it almost seems like splitting hairs. Our bullpen is so bad, we would need to sign all of the guys you listed plus Camp to be even respectable.

  • gary3411

    If any of those guys sign 1 year 1.3 million dollar deals, then yes they are all better options. I don’t think any of them will though.

    Camp is more about the innings and stability than anything else. None of those guys have the capability to appear in 80 games next year.

  • Ripsnorter1

    The Cubs–should they deal Marmol–are looking at Camp as their closer!

  • gary3411

    Cheap has nothing to do with direction. It has to do with value and stability. No, no one has come out and said the direction of this team moving forward is to sign old stable relievers, but a 25 man roster has to be put on the field. We literally have no proven bullpen pitcher outside of Russell and the younger guys really are nothing special. Marmol is ineffective half the time. The signing is about cheap stability and value that comes off the books in 10 months.

    The reason cheap is good is because in a down year it leaves more money left over for future seasons, period. (unless Ricketts ends up putting all this money back in his pocket, but I highly doubt it, they are just waiting for the all-important new TV contract and splashes in FA will be made). Right now we are behind almost every other major market team in revenue because of our crappy TV deals. Ticket sales can’t pay for a top-5 payroll by itself.

  • Aaron

    I don’t want to blast him anymore than he already has done to himself, but Levine……WOW!!!

    I blasted him in the past for being one of Hendry’s cronies for a long time. Both him and Miles seemed to be stretching for stories after Hendry’s exit.

    Now, he’s taken it a bit too far. At the end of last week, he stated the Cubs were working on a blockbuster deal involving their young players (for other young players). He was purposely vague regarding it, because he had absolutely nothing to go off of.

    Now, he came out today and basically said, “just kidding”

    Disappointing to say the least….Investigative journalism doesn’t exist in this country anymore…very sad