Advertisement:

Cubs non-tender Stewart, Putnam, and Chapman

Cubs non-tender Stewart, Putnam, and Chapman
Jaye Chapman (photo by dylanheuer.com)

Had to step away from my laptop and as usual when that happens, the Cubs make some news.  They finally came to their tender decisions.  As expected, Ian Stewart was non-tendered.  The two others were players we hadn't talked about: Jaye Chapman and Zach Putnam.

The reason I didn't talk about them was that they were  not on the arbitration list.  Those are usually the players that get non-tendered.  Oversight on my part not to consider this kind of roster management creativity.

Putnam is the less surprising of the two.  As I've said, a rule of thumb is "last in, first out".  That's Putnam.  He's a nice waiver wire pick, but he's just that.  There's  good chance the Cubs can re-sign him to a minor league deal with a spring training invite.

Chapman is a bit more surprising in light of his strong performance, but it's not a shocker.  That he did well was  a pleasant surprise, but I was told by one scout that Chapman is a middle reliever at best.  While the Cubs liked what Chapman did, they can't make that decision on such a small sample size of success.  If you have to lose a player, middle relievers the type that usually most replaceable.  The Cubs would certainly like to try and get him back, but this was obviously not for a salary dump.  Chapman makes the minimum.  This was about clearing a roster spot, so any deal has to be a minor league deal for this non-tender to have any meaning.

As for Stewart, the Cubs will likely try to bring him back on a smaller deal and perhaps a minor league deal if possible.  Stewart may have options, however, in a market weak on 3Bs, so if I were to bet that the Cubs lose any of these guys, I'd bet on Stewart.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I, too, thought the Chapman non-tender was a surprise. He did a decent job but he is a 6th inning, maybe 7th inning guy at best.

  • In reply to historyrat:

    They like him, but it's less of a risk to lose him than say, Valbuena, who could possibly play a bigger role.

  • Thanks, John. Just don't ever step away from your computer again during the entire offseason.
    Lots of non-tendered/ DFA guys out there. It will be interesting to see who's with what team when the dust has settled.
    At this point (one hour to go), who would be your candidates for pickup by the Cubs?

  • Lannan should be right in the headlights of the Cubs

  • In reply to historyrat:

    Should definitely take a look.

  • I hope they act quickly on the players they want. Room for 2

  • Based on the people who were left in Iowa after Jackson and Vitters were called up in August, there must be plenty of room left on Iowa's winter roster. Might as well fill those spots with some nontenders, and invite them all to Spring Training.

  • I like Chapman. I remember when we first got him saying he'd be better than expected and he was. But when I went back and looked at his numbers he gave up a crazy amount of walks both on the Cubs and at Iowa. Not a fluke either, he's averaged about 4.75 BB/9 through 117 IP at AAA overall. Great strikeout rate, but if there's one thing this FO understandably doesn't like, it's walks. In retrospect, with the crazy amount of work he got in his brief time with the Cubs, seems like they wanted to get a good look at him to decide what they wanted to do with him in the offseason. Guess now we know what that was. Still hope we can get him back on a minor league deal though and work on that control.

  • John, why do you think that the Cubs non-tendered 3 when it was not really necessary? I mean, 3 spots are opened and they could still include one of the 2 in a package... I mean, why not non-tender just 1 so you don't lose the others and still have room for the Rule 5 Draft pick?

    Do you think they're thinking of signing some of the guys that were non-tendered, maybe make a trade or any other moves during the next week?

    Also, who do you like from the non-tendered list?

  • In reply to Caps:

    Stewart, they weren't sold on. The two relievers are no better than a handful of non-tenders today.

    Theo will have a interesting batch of non-roster invitees come February.

  • In reply to tim815:

    Yeah, I understand Putnam and Chapman only have middle reliever upside, it's just not like them to let young guys go like that, but they might be interested in bringing them back... Maybe just a temporary situation, besides, their production could be easily replaced.

  • In reply to Caps:

    Hey Caps. Missed your question. Trying to catch up!

    It opens up spots to pick up free agents or guys who other teams non-tendered that they might like better. They may be have their cake and eat it too. Could re-sign Chapman, Putnam to minor league deals, then pick up a non-tender they like. Or save it for a free agent or trade.

    Few guys I like. I'm going to have to write a summary sometime tonight or early tomorrow.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Great, thank you, I'll look forward to it!

  • It will take more than a 1 year contract to sign some of them.
    Which ones are worth 2 or 3 year contracts

  • So - I guess that means we start the Season with Valbuena and maybe a low-end FA pickup as 3B.

    Can live with that.

    Could do worse than Valbuena while they figure out whether Vitters is worth a wait, or unless they pick up a Keppinger or attempt to resign Stewart to an Minor League deal.

    Am likeing the moves that Theo is making this offseason so far.

Leave a comment