PDA

View Full Version : Please tell me the Reds aren't keeping Aroldis at closer...



WMR
11-01-2012, 11:49 AM
If so, SMH...

mdccclxix
11-01-2012, 11:58 AM
The horse may be midstream, I don't know. I'd like to see them pull it off so that he starts next year, though.

Steve4192
11-01-2012, 12:13 PM
I wouldn't have a major problem with it if the Reds left him in the bullpen.

I would love to get 200+ IP out of his arm annually rather than the 60+ he will deliver in the closer role, but I have my doubts about whether he will be able to hold up to the workload. I also worry about how effective he will be in a different role. Just because a guy is an excellent closer does not mean he will automatically succeed as a starter. I would hate to see a repeat of the 2003 Danny Graves experiment.

westofyou
11-01-2012, 12:21 PM
Goose Gossage

jhu1321
11-01-2012, 12:35 PM
I kind of like having the most dominating closer in the game.:thumbup:

_Sir_Charles_
11-01-2012, 12:37 PM
I kind of like having the most dominating closer in the game.:thumbup:

Kimbrel waves hi.

Caveat Emperor
11-01-2012, 12:37 PM
I kind of like having the most dominating closer in the game.:thumbup:

The most dominating closer in baseball still needs someone to get the ball to him with a lead. I'd rather have him starting a playoff game than waiting to see if he's needed later.

Vottomatic
11-01-2012, 12:45 PM
I'm fine either way. But if he starts, we better bolster the bullpen and find an equal closer.

Reds/Flyers Fan
11-01-2012, 12:46 PM
The most dominating closer in baseball still needs someone to get the ball to him with a lead. I'd rather have him starting a playoff game than waiting to see if he's needed later.

The problem is, if the Reds go the Strasburg route with starter Chapman and shut him down early next year when he reaches his innings limit, he won't be starting any playoff games in 2013.

And then, four years into the Chapman era in Cincinnati, we'd still not be fooling around with this guy. If they wanted him to be a starter he should have started this past year. They could have probably made the deal with KC for Broxton in spring training. The Royals knew they weren't going anywhere.

IslandRed
11-01-2012, 12:51 PM
The problem is, if the Reds go the Strasburg route with starter Chapman and shut him down early next year when he reaches his innings limit, he won't be starting any playoff games in 2013.

And then, four years into the Chapman era in Cincinnati, we'd still not be fooling around with this guy. If they wanted him to be a starter he should have started this past year. They could have probably made the deal with KC for Broxton in spring training. The Royals knew they weren't going anywhere.

They can convert him to starter without handling him exactly like Strasburg.

However, I'm of the opinion that a team needs strong starting pitching AND a lights-out bullpen to win in October. Truthfully, I don't have a strong opinion on which one of those two roles Chapman should fill, just that they get filled.

RANDY IN INDY
11-01-2012, 12:54 PM
I hope they keep him as the closer, period. He is at the top of the food chain in that role, and I think he will only get better.

edabbs44
11-01-2012, 01:02 PM
The most dominating closer in baseball still needs someone to get the ball to him with a lead. I'd rather have him starting a playoff game than waiting to see if he's needed later.

They got him some leads last year, no? This isn't Aroldis on the 2004 Reds.

Unassisted
11-01-2012, 01:04 PM
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Does anyone have fond memories of the Danny Graves-to-SP experiment?

Caveat Emperor
11-01-2012, 01:09 PM
They got him some leads last year, no? This isn't Aroldis on the 2004 Reds.

No, but if you have the opportunity to add a TOR arm to the staff, you take it. Every time.

What's the worst case scenario? He bombs out and goes back to the pen. It's not like starting is going to make him forget how to throw a fastball really hard, which is basically all he did as a closer.

dougdirt
11-01-2012, 01:12 PM
I don't get the mindset of those who want to keep him as a closer. I really don't. Would you have have Justin Verlander or Craig Kimbrel? That is a no brainer. The Reds potentially have a Verlander but they are using him like Kimbrel. Both are quite valuable, but one is a whole lot more valuable than the other.

Superdude
11-01-2012, 01:25 PM
Is there news that I missed?

M2
11-01-2012, 01:31 PM
Theoretically I'd like him to start. Yet I'm not sure what the best way to stretch him out is. Is it starting him in the pen and working him in increasingly longer stints? Is it putting him straight in the rotation and then shutting him down when he hits his innings target? Could they skip every other start for him (e.g. have him start every 10th game) and use him out o the pen in between?

I suspect there is no universal correct answer in these situations. The art is figuring out what works for Chapman.

And I won't be wounded if the decision is to keep him as the closer. Maybe that's the team being overly cautious/conservative, but maybe it's the right call. I'd hate to see him lose a season like Netali Feliz did.

Unassisted
11-01-2012, 01:32 PM
Is there news that I missed?Madson declining his option makes it more likely that Chapman stays at closer.

Caveat Emperor
11-01-2012, 01:35 PM
Madson declining his option makes it more likely that Chapman stays at closer.

I don't think there was any way, even if Madsen and the Reds worked something out, that they'd go into spring training counting on a guy to be their closer who hadn't thrown a competitive pitch in over 16 months.

puca
11-01-2012, 01:46 PM
They got him some leads last year, no? This isn't Aroldis on the 2004 Reds.

Not so much in the postseason. He was pretty much a non-factor.

MikeS21
11-01-2012, 01:48 PM
Not to repeat what was on another thread, but I am surprised Madson would decline the option for this year when he ought to take the season to simply prove he is healthy. I find it hard to imagine any team will snag him as a closer until he has pitched three or four months worth of games to prove he can do it. Besides, with TJ surgery, velocity may take a couple years to return.

I think Aroldis needs to start. It may mean the end of the 100 mph pitch circus atmosphere, but if Chapman can throw 96-98 mph fastballs and can improve his slider and add an average change, he could be a legitimate TOR ace for the next few years.

edabbs44
11-01-2012, 01:50 PM
I don't get the mindset of those who want to keep him as a closer. I really don't. Would you have have Justin Verlander or Craig Kimbrel? That is a no brainer. The Reds potentially have a Verlander but they are using him like Kimbrel. Both are quite valuable, but one is a whole lot more valuable than the other.

One is also a whole lot more likely to happen. The other is a guess.

edabbs44
11-01-2012, 01:54 PM
Not so much in the postseason. He was pretty much a non-factor.

5 game samples are difficult to project.

edabbs44
11-01-2012, 01:56 PM
No, but if you have the opportunity to add a TOR arm to the staff, you take it. Every time.

What's the worst case scenario? He bombs out and goes back to the pen. It's not like starting is going to make him forget how to throw a fastball really hard, which is basically all he did as a closer.

Daniel Bard couldn't remember.

Let's not act like a failure as a starter would have zero effect on his ability to return as a closer. The guy seems to have a somewhat fragile psyche and all bets are off as closer once he gets moved out of that role.

Rojo
11-01-2012, 01:57 PM
I think Aroldis needs to start. It may mean the end of the 100 mph pitch circus atmosphere, but if Chapman can throw 96-98 mph fastballs and can improve his slider and add an average change, he could be a legitimate TOR ace for the next few years.

If, if, if....

If you're trying to persuade me, try again.

Kc61
11-01-2012, 01:57 PM
I don't get the mindset of those who want to keep him as a closer. I really don't. Would you have have Justin Verlander or Craig Kimbrel? That is a no brainer. The Reds potentially have a Verlander but they are using him like Kimbrel. Both are quite valuable, but one is a whole lot more valuable than the other.

I'm agnostic on how they use Chapman. To me, it depends on the overall picture of the pitching staff. Where the need is. Where the strength is. How the Reds' internal people view Aroldis and his abilities.

But the mindset of keeping him as closer is simple. His success is mostly with one outstanding pitch. He is now proven as a closer. Despite his velocity, his ability to be effective over seven or eight innings is unclear.

So the Reds may not want to risk a switch in Aroldis' role. They may prefer to use him to fill the important closer's spot, where he is proven. This is not a building team, it is a contender, they may want to leave well enough alone.

This isn't only about individual potential. Sometimes it's about the team, it's current situation, other available personnel, avoiding risks that might set the team back.

Again, I could go either way. But it's not frivolous for someone to want Aroldis to remain as closer.

cincyinco
11-01-2012, 02:01 PM
Anything to give Leake less starts.. He's a good back end pitcher, but I wonder where we would have been this year in the playoffs when Cueto went down, had we had another potential hammer in Chapman starting games.

Chapman, Cueto, Latos is a top 3 I would salivate over. Homer and Arroyo in the back. Leake as insurance or trade bait with Cingrini being "close".

Brutus
11-01-2012, 02:03 PM
Madson declining his option makes it more likely that Chapman stays at closer.

I don't see how the Madson news changes anything. Everyone assumed that if the Reds re-signed Madson, it wasn't going to be by picking up the option anyhow. Even now that he's going to hit the market, the Reds could still wind up signing him again.

dougdirt
11-01-2012, 02:06 PM
One is also a whole lot more likely to happen. The other is a guess.

Sure, but we already know for a fact that he can be Kimbrel. Why settle for that when you could get more and if you can't, the odds are pretty strong he can go back to being a guy like Kimbrel? The only real downside is the injury thing and that is going to be there whether he starts or relieves.

Brutus
11-01-2012, 02:06 PM
Anything to give Leake less starts.. He's a good back end pitcher, but I wonder where we would have been this year in the playoffs when Cueto went down, had we had another potential hammer in Chapman starting games.

Chapman, Cueto, Latos is a top 3 I would salivate over. Homer and Arroyo in the back. Leake as insurance or trade bait with Cingrini being "close".

If you're going to use one as trade bait, then it should be Bailey. But Leake, as you said, IS a very good back end pitcher. In fact, his ERA+ was better than 25 of the 29 other 5th starters in the majors last season. Secondly, Leake's option clock expires the first week of the season, so if he's only going to be "insurance" the Reds can only insure themselves once this season. Once he's called up, he can't be sent back down again without clearing waivers.

CySeymour
11-01-2012, 02:11 PM
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Does anyone have fond memories of the Danny Graves-to-SP experiment?

I don't think you can compare Graves talent to Aroldis.

edabbs44
11-01-2012, 02:20 PM
Anything to give Leake less starts.. He's a good back end pitcher, but I wonder where we would have been this year in the playoffs when Cueto went down, had we had another potential hammer in Chapman starting games.

Chapman, Cueto, Latos is a top 3 I would salivate over. Homer and Arroyo in the back. Leake as insurance or trade bait with Cingrini being "close".

Hindsight is nice, however is it a lock that we get to the playoffs with Aroldis in the rotation?

edabbs44
11-01-2012, 02:23 PM
Sure, but we already know for a fact that he can be Kimbrel. Why settle for that when you could get more and if you can't, the odds are pretty strong he can go back to being a guy like Kimbrel? The only real downside is the injury thing and that is going to be there whether he starts or relieves.

Do you think the injury risk is the same whether he remains at closer or transitions to the rotation? And why do you think the odds are pretty strong that he goes back and being a guy like Kimbrel? It is easy to speak in the hypothetical.

PuffyPig
11-01-2012, 02:29 PM
I don't get the mindset of those who want to keep him as a closer. I really don't. Would you have have Justin Verlander or Craig Kimbrel? That is a no brainer. The Reds potentially have a Verlander but they are using him like Kimbrel. Both are quite valuable, but one is a whole lot more valuable than the other.

I think the big question is whether Chapamn would be like Verlander. The odds are likely against it.


There are lots of pitchers who throw very hard who likely couldn't cut is as a starter.

The Braves must think that Krimel couldn't.

Now none of this means he can't be a starter, but you stated you don't get the mindset of those who would prefer a Krimel over a Verlander. No one would. It's just that many don't know if you would get a Verlander.

dougdirt
11-01-2012, 02:33 PM
I think the big question is whether Chapamn would be like Verlander. The odds are likely against it.


There are lots of pitchers who throw very hard who likely couldn't cut is as a starter.

The Braves must think that Krimel couldn't.

Now none of this means he can't be a starter, but you stated you don't get the mindset of those who would prefer a Krimel over a Verlander. No one would. It's just that many don't know if you would get a Verlander.

You probably won't get a Verlander. But what if you get a Cueto? Or a Latos? Each of those guys are also quite a bit more valuable than a Kimbrel. I don't know, I see it as not taking a risk to be great simply because you are content with being good. That isn't really on the player, but on management.

Tom Servo
11-01-2012, 02:47 PM
Maximize Chapman's talent, let him start.

RANDY IN INDY
11-01-2012, 03:08 PM
Chapman could be successful as a starter, but the clock is ticking on his time in Cincinnati and it will take some time for him to transition, if he actually can. He definitely will have to come up with a third pitch that he can consistently throw for strikes. I also agree with the comment that a failed attempt at starting could weigh very heavy on a seemingly fragile psyche, returning to the closer role. I honestly wonder what the kid really wants to do.

Plus Plus
11-01-2012, 03:22 PM
You probably won't get a Verlander. But what if you get a Cueto? Or a Latos? Each of those guys are also quite a bit more valuable than a Kimbrel. I don't know, I see it as not taking a risk to be great simply because you are content with being good. That isn't really on the player, but on management.

Latos 2012 fWAR- 3.1
Latos 2011 fWAR- 3.3

Kimbrel 2012 fWAR- 3.6
Kimbrel 2011 fWAR- 3.2

Chapman 2012 fWAR- 3.3
Chapman 2011 fWAR- let's not talk about it.

Fangraphs also has written articles that I had sourced in previous Chapman-to-the-bullpen discussions that say that fWAR for SP and RP aren't interchangeable, and that WPA is a better predictor of wins added by a RP than WAR is.

My view is that right now, we have a sure-fire top 3 closer in MLB. If he is converted to SP, then a new closer needs to be identified and implemented, the back end of the bullpen should be reworked, and a new home needs to be found for one (or both) of Bailey and Leake. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that he either thrives as a starter and becomes Latos, Bumgarner, or Samardzjia (let alone Verlander), and there is no guarantee that if he fails as a starter that he can just put his Kimbrel mask back on and return to being a dominant closer.

I truly feel that the Chapman to starter ship has sailed in the eyes of the management (like it or not)in terms of his role with the Reds for now; the team is competitive and it doesn't make sense, no matter how much Lance McAllister or Mo Egger want you to believe, to fundamentally change the current squad. I would rather use time and energy getting more of a sure thing, such as a Garza or Haren, and keep Chapman as insurance that games only last eight innings.

dougdirt
11-01-2012, 03:25 PM
Latos 2012 fWAR- 3.1
Latos 2011 fWAR- 3.3

Kimbrel 2012 fWAR- 3.6
Kimbrel 2011 fWAR- 3.2

Chapman 2012 fWAR- 3.3
Chapman 2011 fWAR- let's not talk about it.

Fangraphs also has written articles that I had sourced in previous Chapman-to-the-bullpen discussions that say that fWAR for SP and RP aren't interchangeable, and that WPA is a better predictor of wins added by a RP than WAR is.

My view is that right now, we have a sure-fire top 3 closer in MLB. If he is converted to SP, then a new closer needs to be identified and implemented, the back end of the bullpen should be reworked, and a new home needs to be found for one (or both) of Bailey and Leake. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that he either thrives as a starter and becomes Latos, Bumgarner, or Samardzjia (let alone Verlander), and there is no guarantee that if he fails as a starter that he can just put his Kimbrel mask back on and return to being a dominant closer.

I truly feel that the Chapman to starter ship has sailed in the eyes of the management (like it or not)in terms of his role with the Reds for now; the team is competitive and it doesn't make sense, no matter how much Lance McAllister or Mo Egger want you to believe, to fundamentally change the current squad. I would rather use time and energy getting more of a sure thing, such as a Garza or Haren, and keep Chapman as insurance that games only last eight innings.
I am not much a fan of pitching WAR. Too many variables unaccounted for. Nothing hammers that home for me more than Chapman's sub 80 innings being more valuable than the 200 that Latos produced.

Plus Plus
11-01-2012, 03:27 PM
I am not much a fan of pitching WAR. Too many variables unaccounted for. Nothing hammers that home for me more than Chapman's sub 80 innings being more valuable than the 200 that Latos produced.

Just out of curiosity (because I think WAR is a little bit of a misleading stat, anyway... it just made sense in this situation :))... do you think pitching WAR is skewed more towards RP or SP? Do you think it is just too volatile given the roles and profiles of the players? I think both of these are good answers, but just want to pick your brain about it :thumbup:

kaldaniels
11-01-2012, 03:35 PM
"Would you rather have a Verlander or a Kimbrel?" is not the correct question to ask.

A more accurate and fair question would be "You have a Craig Kimbrel-like closer on your team. Would you risk removing him from that role in the hopes that he becomes a successful starter?"

Honestly, I am fine with whatever the Reds do at this junction. If I were in charge 3 years ago, I would have strictly brought him up as a starter unless he showed me that it just wasn't in the cards. If I was in the GM chair today, I'd be inclined to let him carry on as a closer, though I could be convinced otherwise, depending on my available options to upgrade the staff/bullpen/closer via trades/FA.

Kc61
11-01-2012, 03:53 PM
I respect the view that the Reds should concentrate on finding a very strong closer this off-season and start Chapman next year. I think that might be an ideal solution.

I don't think much of the view to let Chappy start and "the bullpen will take care of itself."

This isn't a Baseball America top prospects list. Team balance and needs are important too.

If the Reds had Madson of 2011, I'd easily want Chapman to start.
Broxton as closer? Not for me, let Chapman close.
Somebody else as closer? Depends on who.

Superdude
11-01-2012, 04:01 PM
Honestly, I am fine with whatever the Reds do at this junction. If I were in charge 3 years ago, I would have strictly brought him up as a starter unless he showed me that it just wasn't in the cards. If I was in the GM chair today, I'd be inclined to let him carry on as a closer, though I could be convinced otherwise, depending on my available options to upgrade the staff/bullpen/closer via trades/FA.

Yep. It's like getting straight A's in high school and then not going to college. A horrible, shortsighted, reprehensible decision in the beginning, but going back 30 years later is just impractical.

dougdirt
11-01-2012, 04:14 PM
Just out of curiosity (because I think WAR is a little bit of a misleading stat, anyway... it just made sense in this situation :))... do you think pitching WAR is skewed more towards RP or SP? Do you think it is just too volatile given the roles and profiles of the players? I think both of these are good answers, but just want to pick your brain about it :thumbup:

Well, first it brings up the question, which WAR are we talking about? Both versions have their own problems. When I look at pitching WAR it doesn't always jive with reality for me. I guess that position player WAR doesn't either, but that is always entirely due to defensive calculations causing either too much or to little value in the overall number. That can generally speaking, be accounted for by thumb in the air "how good is this guy defensively" calculation and you are probably good to go. With pitchers, it isn't really that easy. In both pitching WAR calculations there are assumptions made that I don't particularly agree with. I don't have a lot of time to get into it all right now, I have to pick up my dog from the vet shortly, so I will just leave it at: I don't agree with the assumptions made in either pitching WAR number and generally just avoid it at most times.

Blitz Dorsey
11-01-2012, 10:27 PM
Why don't the Braves make Kimbrel a starter?

traderumor
11-01-2012, 11:11 PM
Why don't the Braves make Kimbrel a starter?He's never started a game as a professional, for starters. I'm guessing he has never exhibited stamina or the variety of pitches needed to be a starter. Chapman is uniquely qualified to get an opportunity to start and has done so in his young career. Kimbrel is Billy Wagner, Chapman is potentially John Smoltz.

puca
11-01-2012, 11:17 PM
Why don't the Braves make Kimbrel a starter?

And why didn't the Cardinals make Adam Wainwright a starter?...oh wait....

If the Reds are convinced Chapman would not be a TOR starter then I agree with keeping him as a closer. However the only reason they are keeping him as closer is because he had a good season then I strongly disagree (see Adam Wainwright)

All through spring training and the first few months of the season all we heard was that Chapman's future was as a starter. So if they have changed their mind now, then why?

15fan
11-01-2012, 11:29 PM
Leave the hammer at the back of the bullpen where his electric arm can impact a lot more than 30 games per season.

And potentially every game in a playoff series.

JaxRed
11-01-2012, 11:40 PM
Put me in the "starter" category.

corkedbat
11-01-2012, 11:44 PM
If they want to try Chapman inthe rotation, but I'm not so sure you should be penciling him in as the next Justin Verlander just yet.

1) Will he be as dominant with his fastball as a starter at 94-95MPH as opposed to 99+ as a closer?

2) Will he be able to work his offspeed stuff in effectively enough as a starter?

3) Will the command issues he saw as a starter in the minors be ironed out as easily when his innings lengthen out as many here seem to think?

4) Are the Reds gonna want to "Strassberg" him in August when he reaches 150-160 ip in the middle of a pennant drive? Or will they keep pitching him, knowing he had fatigue issues this year pitching reliever's innings?

RedsManRick
11-02-2012, 03:10 AM
If they want to try Chapman inthe rotation, but I'm not so sure you should be penciling him in as the next Justin Verlander just yet.

1) Will he be as dominant with his fastball as a starter at 94-95MPH as opposed to 99+ as a closer?

2) Will he be able to work his offspeed stuff in effectively enough as a starter?

3) Will the command issues he saw as a starter in the minors be ironed out as easily when his innings lengthen out as many here seem to think?

4) Are the Reds gonna want to "Strassberg" him in August when he reaches 150-160 ip in the middle of a pennant drive? Or will they keep pitching him, knowing he had fatigue issues this year pitching reliever's innings?

Is anybody penciling him in as the next Verlander? It's a long ways from the "give it an honest go" to the "sure thing #1" camp. I think most people who want him to start share your same concerns. But I do know that the chance of him becoming the next Verlander if he's in the pen are a solid 0.0%

Blitz Dorsey
11-02-2012, 01:31 PM
And why didn't the Cardinals make Adam Wainwright a starter?...oh wait....

If the Reds are convinced Chapman would not be a TOR starter then I agree with keeping him as a closer. However the only reason they are keeping him as closer is because he had a good season then I strongly disagree (see Adam Wainwright)

All through spring training and the first few months of the season all we heard was that Chapman's future was as a starter. So if they have changed their mind now, then why?

Wainwright is nothing like Kimbrel and Chapman who are both fireballers. My question was why are Reds fans up in arms about Chapman not being a starter, while there is no discussion from Braves fans (all six of them) about making Kimbrel a starter?

People act like Aroldis Chapman has been a starting pitcher his entire life. Heck, he didn't even become a pitcher until he was 16. He played first base before that. I know we all thought he was going to be a starter, but it just so happens he's established himself as one of the elite closers in all of MLB. And we're complaining about that? Maybe the Reds believe he would fizzle out as a starter? I don't know. It's just strange there is all this hand-wringing over Chapman not being a starter (because we're wasting his innings) but no one seems to be concerned about all the innings the Braves are wasting by not making Kimbrel a starter. Maybe some guys are just better in the closer's role.

traderumor
11-02-2012, 01:41 PM
Wainwright is nothing like Kimbrel and Chapman who are both fireballers. My question was why are Reds fans up in arms about Chapman not being a starter, while there is no discussion from Braves fans (all six of them) about making Kimbrel a starter?

People act like Aroldis Chapman has been a starting pitcher his entire life. Heck, he didn't even become a pitcher until he was 16. He played first base before that. I know we all thought he was going to be a starter, but it just so happens he's established himself as one of the elite closers in all of MLB. And we're complaining about that? Maybe the Reds believe he would fizzle out as a starter? I don't know. It's just strange there is all this hand-wringing over Chapman not being a starter (because we're wasting his innings) but no one seems to be concerned about all the innings the Braves are wasting by not making Kimbrel a starter. Maybe some guys are just better in the closer's role.You are making a category mistake from the outset. Kimbrel has NEVER started a professional game. I imagine there is a good reason for that, so no one says, "hmmm, wonder if he should be considered for a starting role?" It would be a "let's try Kearns at 3b" situation.

With Chapman, there is a history as a starter from which to build. It is "I wonder if BP can still play SS?" situation.

Two different scenarios, so why argue as if its apples to apples?

Rojo
11-02-2012, 01:50 PM
Leave the hammer at the back of the bullpen where his electric arm can impact a lot more than 30 games per season.

And potentially every game in a playoff series.

http://www.everseradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/nutshell.jpg

Patrick Bateman
11-02-2012, 02:22 PM
I would put him wherever I thought it was more likely he could stay healthy (based on the type of guy he is). I'm not sure what the answer is, but I honestly feel like if the Reds thought he could be a consistent 200+ innings guy without being a huge injury risk, then he'd already be starting.

WildcatFan
11-02-2012, 03:34 PM
Maybe some guys are just better in the closer's role.

Prove to us that Chapman is better in the closer's role than in the starter's role.

It's impossible to prove that because we don't know. He was signed as a starter. He started a few times in the minors and had success. He moved to the bullpen out of necessity and was VERY good there. But that doesn't mean he fizzled out as a starter.

If you're scared to find out who he is as a starter because of what could happen to his head if he's not successful, that's absolutely fine. But we can't say he's better as a closer than a starter because we just don't know.

RANDY IN INDY
11-02-2012, 05:20 PM
We do know he is an "elite" closer. Top of the chart.

Slyder
11-02-2012, 05:49 PM
I'm late to the thread but theres a reason why Mariano Rivera is the highest priced closer in baseball was paid ~$15 mil and thats only a hair higher than what Ervin Santana will make this year ($13 mil).

Starters>Closers.

Chapman will be a much better value starting every fifth day if the Reds can get him to it. It doesn't matter who you have in the pen if you don't have the starters to get the game to them with a lead.

kpresidente
11-02-2012, 05:50 PM
How good is Chapman's slider? Is it a real pitch or just something other than a fastball to throw every once in a while? You can't throw 90% fastballs as a starter, and especially since he won't be 98-99 mph every pitch. If he doesn't really have command of the slider leave him in the pen.

Blitz Dorsey
11-02-2012, 05:53 PM
You are making a category mistake from the outset. Kimbrel has NEVER started a professional game. I imagine there is a good reason for that, so no one says, "hmmm, wonder if he should be considered for a starting role?" It would be a "let's try Kearns at 3b" situation.

With Chapman, there is a history as a starter from which to build. It is "I wonder if BP can still play SS?" situation.

Two different scenarios, so why argue as if its apples to apples?

I disagree. By reading your post, one would think Chapman has extensive history as a starting pitcher in Major League Baseball. However, he doesn't. He's barely been a starting pitcher at this level. He did have a season as a starter in the minors. Not exactly a lot of experience as a professional baseball player.

Also, he didn't even start pitching until he was 16. He was a first baseman before that. There is this misconception that Aroldis Chapman was made to be a starter. Why is that? Why does the same not apply to Craig Kimbrel? Just because the Braves immediately moved him to the closer's role after drafting him? I'm sure Kimbrel was a starter in high school.

Blitz Dorsey
11-02-2012, 05:57 PM
Prove to us that Chapman is better in the closer's role than in the starter's role.

It's impossible to prove that because we don't know. He was signed as a starter. He started a few times in the minors and had success. He moved to the bullpen out of necessity and was VERY good there. But that doesn't mean he fizzled out as a starter.

If you're scared to find out who he is as a starter because of what could happen to his head if he's not successful, that's absolutely fine. But we can't say he's better as a closer than a starter because we just don't know.

The easy response is: Prove to us that Chapman is better in the starter's role than in the closer's role.

It's something that can't be "proven" one way or the other because some guys are just different/better/worse as starters compared to relievers. I fully wanted Chapman to be a starter for the Reds. But now that he's established himself as one of the game's elite closers, I'm sitting back and enjoying the ride. He just had one of the best seasons in MLB history and that's not even stretching it. Maybe the Reds' brass feels that his body wouldn't hold up as a starter with how hard he throws? I don't know. I just don't want to argue with what's clearly working.

RedsManRick
11-02-2012, 07:58 PM
The easy response is: Prove to us that Chapman is better in the starter's role than in the closer's role.

To which the response is, there's no way of knowing if he never starts.

Raisor
11-03-2012, 08:20 AM
He has to start.

However, if they keep him as a closer, they need to work on his walk from the bullpen. They need a lazer show and better music.

SidneySlicker
11-03-2012, 12:28 PM
Chapman has had a hard time developing consistency with a SECOND pitch let alone a third pitch that he'd need as a starter. Yeah the slider is nasty and it is a good out pitch, but he struggles mightily at times with his location of it. As a starter you can only blow gas for so long before you have to have be able to pitch. I'm not saying it wouldn't ever happen, but do you really want to spend a year or maybe two developing with risk of it being a failed attempt or will you settle have one of the elite closers in the game for that span of time and into the future?

RANDY IN INDY
11-03-2012, 12:41 PM
His fastball is straight as an arrow, and as a starter, it's not going to be 98-105. Very hittable for Major League hitters in my opinion. Command of the slider and an off-spead pitch would be of the utmost importance. Get knocked around hard a couple of times and lose the confidence and you have a real problem with this kid.

Caveat Emperor
11-03-2012, 01:16 PM
We do know he is an "elite" closer. Top of the chart.

The average win-expectancy of ALL major-league teams taking a lead into the 9th inning (regardless of "closer elite-ness") is roughly 95%.

The two best closers in baseball watched the World Series on TV this year.

Brutus
11-03-2012, 02:13 PM
His fastball is straight as an arrow, and as a starter, it's not going to be 98-105. Very hittable for Major League hitters in my opinion. Command of the slider and an off-spead pitch would be of the utmost importance. Get knocked around hard a couple of times and lose the confidence and you have a real problem with this kid.

Eh, it's not really that straight when you consider he throws downward across a couple vertical planes. And secondly, because of his stride, release point and how difficult hitters have picking up the ball out of his hand, he's not really that hittable. There's probably a reason he had nearly a 20% swinging strike rate this year.

WMR
11-03-2012, 02:53 PM
The average win-expectancy of ALL major-league teams taking a lead into the 9th inning (regardless of "closer elite-ness") is roughly 95%.

The two best closers in baseball watched the World Series on TV this year.

That is a GREAT stat. :clap:

traderumor
11-03-2012, 03:03 PM
His fastball is straight as an arrow, and as a starter, it's not going to be 98-105. Very hittable for Major League hitters in my opinion. Command of the slider and an off-spead pitch would be of the utmost importance. Get knocked around hard a couple of times and lose the confidence and you have a real problem with this kid.So the guy goes from dominating to "very hittable" instantly by starting the game? While I can see him needing to back off his fastball somewhat in a starting role, I don't think it will be as dramatic as some suppose. It isn't like he's a max effort upper 90s thrower. The biggest concern to me would be development of the offspeed pitches, but such a fragile psyche as you describe wouldn't seem to be someone you want to leave at closer either, would you? Sometimes, you challenge guys and they respond, no matter what role you put them in because they have talent. All I have seen out of Chapman is a guy with a boatload of talent and is a very good candidate to develop and excel in whatever role he is asked to fill. He has proven that much.

M2
11-03-2012, 03:05 PM
His fastball is straight as an arrow, and as a starter, it's not going to be 98-105. Very hittable for Major League hitters in my opinion. Command of the slider and an off-spead pitch would be of the utmost importance. Get knocked around hard a couple of times and lose the confidence and you have a real problem with this kid.

As others have already mentioned, it's not particularly straight and it's crazy hard to pick up and hit. Chapman's one of the hardest to hit pitchers ever. Let's not lump him in with Billy Koch.

kaldaniels
11-03-2012, 03:07 PM
That is a GREAT stat. :clap:

It would be better if it told the odds of winning going into the ninth leading in a save situation for this discussion's sake.

I'm sure it is still pretty high, but it would be nice to see that stat cleaned up a bit.

Wonderful Monds
11-03-2012, 04:20 PM
I don't mind Chapman remaining the closer anymore, but I have to ask

Why is everyone acting like Chapman would have to dial down his fastball anymore as a starter? Everyone should remember, he hasn't thrown at max effort since early this year or maybe even the end of last. He's ALREADY dialed it down. There's a good chance the pitch speeds you'd see from Chapman the starter would not be too far off from what we saw from Chapman the closer this year.

Rojo
11-03-2012, 05:07 PM
If I owned stock in Aroldis Chapman I might want to gamble on him being Justin Verlander instead of Goose Gossage.

As a Reds fan I'm less enthusiastic. Such a move would mean breaking a great bullpen to improve an already great rotation. And that rotation improvement is far from a sure thing.

It would give you a surplus (Bailey or Leake I suppose) to deal for a hitter. But I'm not sure Bailey or Leake would land a better hitter than free agency or a passle of prospects.

And you'd have to hit the market for bullpenners.

757690
11-03-2012, 05:43 PM
I agree that a strong bullpen is a necessity for a contending team. However, it's just not that hard to put one together, nor is it that difficult to find a closer. Many contending teams don't find their closer till midseason.

The Nats and Giants lost their closers at the beginning of the season and found their replacement internally. Oakland stated with Balfour, dropped him, then went back to him with great success.

I have no problem with the Reds going into the season with their current bullpen, sans Chapman, seeing how it plays out, then adapting if necessary. Picking up a closer or solid bullpen arm mid season has been pretty easy for the last few decades.

RANDY IN INDY
11-03-2012, 06:13 PM
As others have already mentioned, it's not particularly straight and it's crazy hard to pick up and hit. Chapman's one of the hardest to hit pitchers ever. Let's not lump him in with Billy Koch.

It's straight. Not flat. Straight. Hard to lay off of, high in the strike zone, at 98-100+, late, but much for hittable when he's down in the zone. I like him as a closer. Matter of fact, I like him a lot as a closer. My opinion that he fits best there with the Reds. Had a great season and should be even nastier with a years experience.

Rojo
11-03-2012, 07:16 PM
I agree that a strong bullpen is a necessity for a contending team. However, it's just not that hard to put one together, nor is it that difficult to find a closer.

In theory it's not that hard to find a slugging corner or a slick fielding SS who can hit his weight. In reality they can be elusive.

Again, I think it's important to remember what we're trying to do here. If visions of Cy Youngs and HOF inductions are important to you then making Chapman a starter is probably the way to go. But if you want a ring in the next couple of years, I'd tread lightly.

Plus Plus
11-03-2012, 07:38 PM
The average win-expectancy of ALL major-league teams taking a lead into the 9th inning (regardless of "closer elite-ness") is roughly 95%.

The two best closers in baseball watched the World Series on TV this year.

So does that mean that Mariano Rivera and Francisco Cordero are equals? Because I would fundamentally disagree with that.

Using only the stat of average win expectancy in the 9th inning misses the point, which is that bad pitchers (such as Ondrusek) could quickly tilt that percentage into the bad place.

Better players yield better results. Chapman leaving the bullpen weakens it, regardless of win expectancy in the 9th inning with a lead across MLB.

The Operator
11-03-2012, 09:18 PM
Chapman has had a hard time developing consistency with a SECOND pitch let alone a third pitch that he'd need as a starter. He hasn't developed his arsenal because The Reds decided to yank him out of starting his first season and he's been a reliever since. You can't exactly work much on your pitches coming in for one inning a game.

And why does he even need a third pitch? Randy Johnson had a pretty decent career throwing nothing but fastballs and sliders. Mario Soto threw a fastball / change-up combo.

Most guys do need a third pitch, but Chapman is not most guys.

Kc61
11-03-2012, 09:46 PM
That is a GREAT stat. :clap:


It would be better if it told the odds of winning going into the ninth leading in a save situation for this discussion's sake.

I'm sure it is still pretty high, but it would be nice to see that stat cleaned up a bit.

Kal, even your proposed stat is too forgiving. A three run lead is a save situation. Everyone would agree that even very average closers usually save a three run game.

What is the win expectancy when a team leads in the ninth by one run? By two runs?

What is the win expectancy when a team leads in the ninth by one or two runs and faces the top of the opponents' order? The middle of the opponents' order?

These are the difficult situations when you need a top notch closer.

And win expectancy isn't entirely dispositive. A closer can blow a save and his team can still win the game.

The Giants did not blow a save in the playoffs in four attempts.

Nobody will ever convince me that a reliever who can regularly shut down the opposition in the ninth inning is unimportant.

RedsManRick
11-03-2012, 10:57 PM
Nobody will ever convince me that a reliever who can regularly shut down the opposition in the ninth inning is unimportant.

Nobody is trying to. They're just trying to convince you that regularly shutting down the opposition in the 9th isn't as hard as you want it to be. While surely there are some pitchers who wilt under the pressure, broadly speaking, closers aren't born, they're made -- namely by giving them an extending opportunity to simply pitch.

Kc61
11-03-2012, 11:19 PM
Nobody is trying to. They're just trying to convince you that regularly shutting down the opposition in the 9th isn't as hard as you want it to be. While surely there are some pitchers who wilt under the pressure, broadly speaking, closers aren't born, they're made -- namely by giving them an extending opportunity to simply pitch.

I think you have to distinguish between a building team and a contender.

Right now, I want the Reds to have good, proven late inning relievers.

If they want to use Hoover as part of the late innings mix, that's fine. With Marshall. But who else?

With a contending team, I want a solid closer, not just a bunch of maybes. I do not want an experiment in the ninth inning.

It doesn't have to be Chapman. But any strong believer in Chapman as a starter better have an answer for the late innings. Because an opinion that Chapman should start - without an answer for the closer spot - isn't helping the ballclub very much, if at all.

Brutus
11-03-2012, 11:38 PM
I think you have to distinguish between a building team and a contender.

Right now, I want the Reds to have good, proven late inning relievers.

If they want to use Hoover as part of the late innings mix, that's fine. With Marshall. But who else?

With a contending team, I want a solid closer, not just a bunch of maybes. I do not want an experiment in the ninth inning.

It doesn't have to be Chapman. But any strong believer in Chapman as a starter better have an answer for the late innings. Because an opinion that Chapman should start - without an answer for the closer spot - isn't helping the ballclub very much, if at all.

The Giants just won the World Series without Brian Wilson and beat the Tigers who got there with Jose Valverde. Last year, the Cardinals won with Jason Motte, beating the Rangers with a good, though certainly not overwhelming, Neftali Feliz.

You can certainly be a contender without a dominant closer. You need a good, deep bullpen, but it doesn't have to be lights out at the end. Frankly, Chapman didn't close out games any rate better than guys giving up a run more per nine innings.

Kc61
11-03-2012, 11:45 PM
The Giants just won the World Series without Brian Wilson and beat the Tigers who got there with Jose Valverde. Last year, the Cardinals won with Jason Motte, beating the Rangers with a good, though certainly not overwhelming, Neftali Feliz.

You can certainly be a contender without a dominant closer. You need a good, deep bullpen, but it doesn't have to be lights out at the end. Frankly, Chapman didn't close out games any rate better than guys giving up a run more per nine innings.

I never said you need a dominant closer.

Brutus
11-03-2012, 11:48 PM
I never said you need a dominant closer.

I'm not sure what you're saying, then, because frankly no one disagrees with you about not wanting to leave the bullpen cupboard bare. But I think everyone arguing for Chapman as a starter feels the Reds will be able to find another guy out of Madson/Broxton/etc. to go with Marshall, Hoover, Masset and the others. Who knows... maybe the Reds sign both Madson and Broxton.

Kc61
11-03-2012, 11:54 PM
I'm not sure what you're saying, then, because frankly no one disagrees with you about not wanting to leave the bullpen cupboard bare. But I think everyone arguing for Chapman as a starter feels the Reds will be able to find another guy out of Madson/Broxton/etc. to go with Marshall, Hoover, Masset and the others. Who knows... maybe the Reds sign both Madson and Broxton.

Easy to say take every strong arm on the team and make him a starter.

Chapman should start. Bailey should start. Cingrani should start. Latos should start. Cueto should start. Arroyo should start. Corcino should start. Those who like Leake think Leake should start.

The mantra of this site is that relievers are a dime a dozen and every good arm should start.

I disagree.

I'd personally like to see the Reds acquire a very good closer and try Chapman as a starter. But I don't think it's meaningful simply to incant the statement that Chapman should start without considering the void in the pen.

I think my point is pretty clear, I've said it a number of times, if anyone wants to argue with it they are free to do so.

Brutus
11-03-2012, 11:59 PM
Easy to say take every strong arm on the team and make him a starter.

Chapman should start. Bailey should start. Cingrani should start. Latos should start. Cueto should start. Arroyo should start. Corcino should start. Those who like Leake think Leake should start.

The mantra of this site is that relievers are a dime a dozen and every good arm should start.

I disagree.

I'd personally like to see the Reds acquire a very good closer and try Chapman as a starter. But I don't think it's meaningful simply to incant the statement that Chapman should start without considering the void in the pen.

I think my point is pretty clear, I've said it a number of times, if anyone wants to argue with it they are free to do so.

None of those guys have Chapman's potential. None of those guys have the ability of being an influence like Justin Verlander. Chapman does have that kind of ability.

I don't see how you can take wanting to make Chapman a starter and draw the conclusion that therefore every middling starter/reliever in the organization should be converted. That's not remotely what anyone is saying. Chapman is in a league of his own as far as potential. That's why people are arguing for him.

Rojo
11-04-2012, 12:08 AM
But I think everyone arguing for Chapman as a starter feels the Reds will be able to find another guy out of Madson/Broxton/etc. to go with Marshall, Hoover, Masset and the others. Who knows... maybe the Reds sign both Madson and Broxton.

There hasn't been much discussion about the hole made. Easy to draw the conclusion that people just don't think it important.

Brutus
11-04-2012, 01:08 AM
There hasn't been much discussion about the hole made. Easy to draw the conclusion that people just don't think it important.

I can't speak for the others, but I know personally I don't see there as being a "hole." I feel pretty strongly that the Reds will wind up signing at least one of Broxton/Madson (if not both) and while I don't know what to expect of Masset, I think he'll be able to fill some of the depth void.

I truly don't see the bullpen as taking much of a step down next season. I anticipate they'd have Broxton/Madson (or, again, both), Marshall, Hoover, Masset, Bray, LeCure, Simon, Arredondo et all.

Plus Plus
11-04-2012, 01:15 AM
The Giants just won the World Series without Brian Wilson and beat the Tigers who got there with Jose Valverde. Last year, the Cardinals won with Jason Motte, beating the Rangers with a good, though certainly not overwhelming, Neftali Feliz.

You can certainly be a contender without a dominant closer. You need a good, deep bullpen, but it doesn't have to be lights out at the end. Frankly, Chapman didn't close out games any rate better than guys giving up a run more per nine innings.

And Fielder and Soriano had the same number of RBIs, so they must be similar batters as well. Let's overlook the fact that one had a wRC+ of 153 and another had one of 116. After all, they produced the same number of runs, at the end of the day...

The problem is that weak relievers end up increasing the probability of a loss and strong relievers diminish that same probability. Saving games isn't about end results any more than RBI is about a batter's ability to contribute to offensive production.

And to echo Rojo's statement, the real problem isn't converting Chapman to a starter. In a vacuum, I think that every sane Reds fan would be for it. The problem is that the proposed answers to the hole in the bullpen, at least on RedsZone so far, have been Alfredo Simon, JJ Hoover, and "sign someone else... but wait the Reds don't have money to spend on a top tier relief pitcher."

Severely weakening the bullpen by moving everyone up a level and therefore relying even more on innings from Arredondo and Ondrusek and players of that ilk (not to even mention Simon or Hoover or other relatively unproven commodities) is a real consequence of moving Chapman to the rotation, and a key question to consider especially given that the Reds had one of the most reliable starting rotations in all of baseball, and that the starting rotation wasn't the single reason that the Reds didn't move on in the playoffs this year.

It's fun to think about how great it would be if Chapman started and pitched like vintage Randy Johnson and then joined Cueto and Latos and Bailey and the Reds won 128 games in 2013. But baseball is a very delicate game and messing up the balance just to satiate a feeling of "but wouldn't it be awesome if..." is a pretty poor proposition for a team that was 11/10 to win the World Series after game 2 of the NLDS.

Brutus
11-04-2012, 01:28 AM
And Fielder and Soriano had the same number of RBIs, so they must be similar batters as well. Let's overlook the fact that one had a wRC+ of 153 and another had one of 116. After all, they produced the same number of runs, at the end of the day...

The problem is that weak relievers end up increasing the probability of a loss and strong relievers diminish that same probability. Saving games isn't about end results any more than RBI is about a batter's ability to contribute to offensive production.

And to echo Rojo's statement, the real problem isn't converting Chapman to a starter. In a vacuum, I think that every sane Reds fan would be for it. The problem is that the proposed answers to the hole in the bullpen, at least on RedsZone so far, have been Alfredo Simon, JJ Hoover, and "sign someone else... but wait the Reds don't have money to spend on a top tier relief pitcher."

Severely weakening the bullpen by moving everyone up a level and therefore relying even more on innings from Arredondo and Ondrusek and players of that ilk (not to even mention Simon or Hoover or other relatively unproven commodities) is a real consequence of moving Chapman to the rotation, and a key question to consider especially given that the Reds had one of the most reliable starting rotations in all of baseball, and that the starting rotation wasn't the single reason that the Reds didn't move on in the playoffs this year.

It's fun to think about how great it would be if Chapman started and pitched like vintage Randy Johnson and then joined Cueto and Latos and Bailey and the Reds won 128 games in 2013. But baseball is a very delicate game and messing up the balance just to satiate a feeling of "but wouldn't it be awesome if..." is a pretty poor proposition for a team that was 11/10 to win the World Series after game 2 of the NLDS.

Runs created for closers is not remotely the same as hitters. Closers are in fixed situations. If you're giving up 20 more runs than another closer but closed out the same rate of games, did those extra runs really matter any? The job of a closer is to win games, not maximize run differential. If two closers save the same rate of games for their teams, any extra runs allowed are extraneous because they're mostly contained to within the context of simply keeping whatever the leads are at the time. Hitters are constantly trying to add runs throughout the course of a game and you don't know until the 9th inning how many runs you need.

Plus Plus
11-04-2012, 01:39 AM
Runs created for closers is not remotely the same as hitters. Closers are in fixed situations. If you're giving up 20 more runs than another closer but closed out the same rate of games, did those extra runs really matter any? The job of a closer is to win games, not maximize run differential. If two closers save the same rate of games for their teams, any extra runs allowed are extraneous because they're mostly contained to within the context of simply keeping whatever the leads are at the time. Hitters are constantly trying to add runs throughout the course of a game and you don't know until the 9th inning how many runs you need.

So are relief pitchers exempt from any sort of analysis, because they fall under the umbrella of "the ends justify the means?" Again, the argument that Mariano Rivera and Francisco Cordero's 2011 performance are equivalent is a bit too abstract for me to comprehend, and I have a pretty sound footing on statistical analysis.

Microanalysis and exemption of a single player (a closer) on a roster kind of misses the point. If the Reds had their roster from 2012 or their roster from 2012 sans Chapman plus Cordero (2011), which roster would win more games? The fact that Cordero only blew one more save than Chapman means that the Reds go 96-66 instead of 97-65 right?

Better players win more games. There isn't a need to move Chapman both because the Reds' rotation is very solid and because their bullpen without Chapman is not.

Brutus
11-04-2012, 01:49 AM
So are relief pitchers exempt from any sort of analysis, because they fall under the umbrella of "the ends justify the means?" Again, the argument that Mariano Rivera and Francisco Cordero's 2011 performance are equivalent is a bit too abstract for me to comprehend, and I have a pretty sound footing on statistical analysis.

Microanalysis and exemption of a single player (a closer) on a roster kind of misses the point. If the Reds had their roster from 2012 or their roster from 2012 sans Chapman plus Cordero (2011), which roster would win more games? The fact that Cordero only blew one more save than Chapman means that the Reds go 96-66 instead of 97-65 right?

Better players win more games. There isn't a need to move Chapman both because the Reds' rotation is very solid and because their bullpen without Chapman is not.

Not exempt, no, but also not subject to the same principles as other players because of the isolated nature in which they're used. Naturally you'd want to have the best possible pitchers in every spot in the bullpen you can, but if an "elite" closer is able to shut down 98% of the games in a season and an 'average' closer gets 95%, are those extra two blown saves and 10-20 runs given up really worth the resources dedicated to the position?

In both theory and practice, runs saved doesn't work for closers the same way it does starting pitchers. Between and average and elite closer, there might be a difference of 1-3 wins a year. But for comparison's sake, Justin Verlander was nearly five wins above an average starting pitcher.

Just as an example: Aroldis Chapman had 38 of 43 saves this year (88%). For the Pirates, Joel Hanrahan had 36 of 40 saves (90%). Chapman's dominance didn't really help the Reds too much in real wins and losses. Not saying I'd rather have Hanrahan than Chapman back there, but sometimes those extra runs saved aren't having an impact and I'd much rather see them be of bigger use in the first 7-8 innings of games.

This isn't really a question of whether better players win more games. We agree on that. But Chapman will be on the Reds regardless. This isn't about Chapman or Broxton or Chapman or Leake. This is about Broxton or Leake, etc. I'm as big a Leake fan as there is on this board, and I think the difference between Chapman and Leake would win the Reds several more games than keeping Chapman the closer over a Broxton or Madson. Especially in the playoffs and especially if perhaps this would allow them to trade Bailey to upgrade LF or CF instead of the fifth starting spot. Either way, I think the Reds get better.

Raisor
11-04-2012, 08:23 AM
I think Marshall is getting the shaft here a bit.

Dude had, what, a week as the "closer"?


I'll take Chapman over Leak in the rotation. Leak into long relief, sixth starter. Marshall and Hoover at the end of the bullpen.

RANDY IN INDY
11-04-2012, 11:15 AM
I was not against making Chapman a starter, but I think they let that window close. I just don't think it is something that will happen overnight. I think his usefulness to the Reds, from a "team winning" standpoint, at this point in their control of him, is as a closer. If they convert him to a starter, his best days as a starter may just well be with another organization. I'm not sure I'm willing to make that investment at this point.

Roy Tucker
11-04-2012, 11:48 AM
So, just trying to level set in my head.... Aroldis has 3 years left on his contract with the Reds (2013, 2014, 2015)? And he's 24?

It's really too bad Madson got hurt. This really was the year for Chapman to get his starter feet wet. Pitch the whatever level innings that is a wise increment from his previous innings. Build his arm and body up. Because whatever year he becomes a starter (if he does), it's going to be a transition year. At least the Reds have the Strasberg debacle to use and map out Chapman's first season as a starter.

I'm of the opinion that you always have to be moving forward and looking for any edge you can. Because that is what your opponents are doing and they will eat your lunch if you stand still. A high impact starter > high impact closer IMO.

But it's a roll of the dice. You weaken the bullpen quite a bit. The Reds lucked into being able to sign Madsen last year and that took care of the closer decision. Who knows if they can do something similar this year? I do have faith in Jocketty though. He is a very canny GM and I think he can rebuild the BP. I'd try Chapman as a starter. But the arguments are strong either way. Abover all, I don't want to ruin him. His next 3 years are much too valuable.

Kc61
11-04-2012, 12:02 PM
This isn't really a question of whether better players win more games. We agree on that. But Chapman will be on the Reds regardless. This isn't about Chapman or Broxton or Chapman or Leake. This is about Broxton or Leake, etc. I'm as big a Leake fan as there is on this board, and I think the difference between Chapman and Leake would win the Reds several more games than keeping Chapman the closer over a Broxton or Madson. Especially in the playoffs and especially if perhaps this would allow them to trade Bailey to upgrade LF or CF instead of the fifth starting spot. Either way, I think the Reds get better.

In your own way, you are shortchanging the bullpen again.

Madson is coming off TJ surgery and hasn't pitched in a year.

Broxton may be a closer for the KC Royals, but based on what I saw last year he can't work multiple games, he is still too hittable for a contending closer.

Hopefully Jocketty is more serious about the bullpen than that.

And promoting Chapman to the rotation and trading Bailey is IMO a very bad idea. Mike Leake is the obvious odd-man-out if Chapman starts.

IslandRed
11-04-2012, 12:05 PM
So, just trying to level set in my head.... Aroldis has 3 years left on his contract with the Reds (2013, 2014, 2015)? And he's 24?

I think that's as far as the original contract runs, but since he was considered an amateur signing, the Reds get the same six service years out of him they do anyone else coming out of the minor-league system. Barring any more stays in Louisville or a trade, he's here through 2016.

westofyou
11-04-2012, 12:09 PM
I think Marshall is getting the shaft here a bit.

Dude had, what, a week as the "closer"?


I'll take Chapman over Leak in the rotation. Leak into long relief, sixth starter. Marshall and Hoover at the end of the bullpen.

True he had a week or two (and then spent the rest of the season praising the team for placing him in the role he succeeded in)

Now I don't believe he's make a great closer myself because his main pitch is curve, which is "touch" pitch and is therefore affected by many other things than a guys who uses his FB as his main pitch.

Can anyone recall a curve ball first reliever as a closer?

I'm struggling to recall even one

The Operator
11-04-2012, 12:15 PM
So, just trying to level set in my head.... Aroldis has 3 years left on his contract with the Reds (2013, 2014, 2015)? And he's 24?Only 3 years on his current contract, but he's under the Reds control in 2016 also because that would be his sixth full year of service. He's not yet signed for that year, but The Reds would still control him.

Superdude
11-04-2012, 12:33 PM
In your own way, you are shortchanging the bullpen again.

Madson is coming off TJ surgery and hasn't pitched in a year.

Broxton may be a closer for the KC Royals, but based on what I saw last year he can't work multiple games, he is still too hittable for a contending closer.

Hopefully Jocketty is more serious about the bullpen than that.

We could also improve the bullpen by starting Hoover and moving Cueto to the set up role, but that's not happening. It all just comes down to how good can Aroldis Chapman be as a starter. A question none of us are really capable of answering given the role he's assumed the last three years. I don't understand the blanket statement of "because the bullpen won't be as good, we can't afford to do it." By that logic, David Price would be closing games right now.

Kc61
11-04-2012, 01:15 PM
We could also improve the bullpen by starting Hoover and moving Cueto to the set up role, but that's not happening. It all just comes down to how good can Aroldis Chapman be as a starter. A question none of us are really capable of answering given the role he's assumed the last three years. I don't understand the blanket statement of "because the bullpen won't be as good, we can't afford to do it." By that logic, David Price would be closing games right now.

Nobody made that "blanket statement."

You are arguing against a fictional position that nobody is taking.

The simple point is that if Chapman starts the bullpen will require substantial focus and will need to be beefed up, particularly for the late innings.

If anyone doesn't agree, I hope they tend to shut off the games before the late innings.

Brutus
11-04-2012, 02:05 PM
In your own way, you are shortchanging the bullpen again.

Madson is coming off TJ surgery and hasn't pitched in a year.

Broxton may be a closer for the KC Royals, but based on what I saw last year he can't work multiple games, he is still too hittable for a contending closer.

Hopefully Jocketty is more serious about the bullpen than that.

And promoting Chapman to the rotation and trading Bailey is IMO a very bad idea. Mike Leake is the obvious odd-man-out if Chapman starts.

It's the "substantial focus" part that I and seemingly others seem to take issue with. I don't see this substantial focus being necessary.

You talk about Broxton being "too hittable" for a closer. Have you been acquainted with Jim Johnson? He struck out just 15% of his batters faced (Broxton 19%). Yet Johnson saved 51 of 54 opportunities for the Orioles last season. Even so, Broxton was coming off surgery and was starting to strike out a lot more batters toward the end of the season if that's truly your concern.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I just think Chapman's dominance has a point of diminishing returns when it comes to being a closer. Extraneous runs saved just seem to be gratuitous. His save percentage put him last year in a category with Rafael Betancourt, J.J. Putz, Tom Wilhelmson and Tyler Clippard. For as good as Chapman is, it wasn't really making him any more effective as others at closing out games.

Superdude
11-04-2012, 02:45 PM
Nobody made that "blanket statement."

You are arguing against a fictional position that nobody is taking.

The simple point is that if Chapman starts the bullpen will require substantial focus and will need to be beefed up, particularly for the late innings.

If anyone doesn't agree, I hope they tend to shut off the games before the late innings.

I guess I just don't get the doomsday scenario. We had the best bullpen in baseball last year and Chapman accounted for around 15% of those innings. They may not be the best sans Chapman, but I'd like to think that Jocketty's capable of filling that void without the the entire bullpen turning to mush.


At the risk of beating a dead horse, I just think Chapman's dominance has a point of diminishing returns when it comes to being a closer. Extraneous runs saved just seem to be gratuitous. His save percentage put him last year in a category with Rafael Betancourt, J.J. Putz, Tom Wilhelmson and Tyler Clippard. For as good as Chapman is, it wasn't really making him any more effective as others at closing out games.

This is a really interesting point. Two dead arm periods basically drug him down to being a solid above average closer despite overall statistics that were off the charts, video game great. Closer is kind of the one spot where "great" is often equal to "good enough".

Brutus
11-04-2012, 03:22 PM
I guess I just don't get the doomsday scenario. We had the best bullpen in baseball last year and Chapman accounted for around 15% of those innings. They may not be the best sans Chapman, but I'd like to think that Jocketty's capable of filling that void without the the entire bullpen turning to mush.



This is a really interesting point. Two dead arm periods basically drug him down to being a solid above average closer despite overall statistics that were off the charts, video game great. Closer is kind of the one spot where "great" is often equal to "good enough".

Yessir. If you enter a game with a 2-run lead in the bottom of the 9th inning, giving up one run is the same as giving up zero runs. The end result is the game ending with your team winning. Closers only need to be 1-run better than the lead they entered with. Dominance is certainly nice, but it's sometimes unnecessary if you have other guys that can perform a similar job getting games closed out.

I'd prefer to put the best possible pitcher back there, mind you. But if that best possible pitcher can be utilized as a potential game-changing starter while losing very little at closer in actual results, I do it.

mth123
11-04-2012, 03:54 PM
Something to consider with this pen,

Arredondo 61 IP with a 2.95 ERA, but his K/9 of 9.1, BB/9 of 5.0 and HR/9 of 1.0 don't add-up to a repeat. Something closer to 4.00 is more likely.

Simon - A career fringe guy in his 30s who put up a 2.66 ERA in 61 IP. Expecting a repeat is foolhardy IMO.

Ondrusek went 54.1 IP with an ERA of 3.46. His K/9 of 6.4 with a BB/9 of 5.1 and a HR/9 of 1.3 suggests something closer to 6.00.

Broxton 22.1P with an ERA of 2.82 is now a free agent.

I think counting on the emegence of Hoover and a bigger role for Lecure to fill-in for Chapman is a bit short sighted. If those guys work out, they'll likely replace the guys who had abnormally good seasons and are likely to blow-up. I'm coming around more and more to moving Chapman into the rotation with Leake as the needed depth in long relief, but doing so does require bringing in at least one pretty strong and proven reliever to shoulder some of the late inning load. I'd give Hoover a shot closing, but this looks like a pen that may have its soft underbelly exposed in 2013. Adding a starter to the rotation who is a question mark as far as going deep into games won't help. Get somebody decent (maybe 2 guys) and make the move, but if they simply move Chapman and try to fill the pen from within, I think it will be the team's undoing. Its not just because of Chapman, but a lot of this supposed depth that has everyone so convinced looks like a good bet to turn to dreck in 2013. Its not just Chapman's 70 or so innings that will need to be replaced, but there are nearly 200 other innings at risk as well. I think adding an arm is mandatory before making any move of Chapman to the rotation.

Along those lines, I think they should seriously consider Cingrani starting next season in the Reds pen. Somebody has to replace all those innings and taking more effective innings out of the pen by moving Chapman to the rotation simply exacerbates the problem IMO.

Brutus
11-04-2012, 04:01 PM
Something to consider with this pen,

Arredondo 61 IP with a 2.95 ERA, but his K/9 of 9.1, BB/9 of 5.0 and HR/9 of 1.0 don't add-up to a repeat. Something closer to 4.00 is more likely.

Simon - A career fringe guy in his 30s who put up a 2.66 ERA in 61 IP. Expecting a repeat is foolhardy IMO.

Ondrusek went 54.1 IP with an ERA of 3.46. His K/9 of 6.4 with a BB/9 of 5.1 and a HR/9 of 1.3 suggests something closer to 6.00.

Broxton 22.1P with an ERA of 2.82 is now a free agent.

I think counting on the emegence of Hoover and a bigger role for Lecure to fill-in for Chapman is a bit short sighted. If those guys work out, they'll likely replace the guys who had abnormally good seasons and are likely to blow-up. I'm coming around more and more to moving Chapman into the rotation with Leake as the needed depth in long relief, but doing so does require bringing in at least one pretty strong and proven reliever to shoulder some of the late inning load. I'd give Hovver a shot closing, but this looks like a pen that may have its soft underbelly exposed in 2013. Adding a starter to the rotation who is a question mark as far as going deep into games won't help. Get somebody decent (maybe 2 guys) and make the move, but if they simply move Chapman and try to fill the pen from within, I think it will be the team's undoing. Its not just because of Chapman, but a lot of this supposed depth that has everyone so convinced looks like a good bet to turn to dreck in 2013. Its not just Chapman's 70 or so innings that will need to be replaced, but there are nearly 200 other innings at risk as well. I think adding an arm is mandatory before making any move of Chapman to the rotation.

Along those lines, I think they should seriously consider Cingrani starting next season in the Reds pen. Somebody has to replace all those innings and taking more effective innings out of the pen by moving Chapman to the rotation simply exacerbates the problem IMO.

You could have said the same thing for Arredondo last year (8.15 K/9, 5.26 BB/9) when he put up a 3.26 ERA. Yet his ERA improved this year.

You could have said the same thing for Ondrusek each of the past two seasons, yet his ERA has gone from 3.68 to 3.23 to 3.46. All three seasons Ondrusek has out-performed his ERA estimators. One has to wonder if there's a possibility there are reasons for that.

I don't know what to expect out of Simon, but while his HR/FB ratio is part of the reason for the success, he added almost a full strikeout per inning this year and nearly doubled his GB/FB ratio. While I don't expect a complete repeat of this year's success, if he continues those rates, he'll have another very good year. Any reliever with a 7.5 K/9 and over 2-1 GB/FB rate is going to be pretty successful, typically.

mth123
11-04-2012, 04:19 PM
You could have said the same thing for Arredondo last year (8.15 K/9, 5.26 BB/9) when he put up a 3.26 ERA. Yet his ERA improved this year.

You could have said the same thing for Ondrusek each of the past two seasons, yet his ERA has gone from 3.68 to 3.23 to 3.46. All three seasons Ondrusek has out-performed his ERA estimators. One has to wonder if there's a possibility there are reasons for that.

I don't know what to expect out of Simon, but while his HR/FB ratio is part of the reason for the success, he added almost a full strikeout per inning this year and nearly doubled his GB/FB ratio. While I don't expect a complete repeat of this year's success, if he continues those rates, he'll have another very good year. Any reliever with a 7.5 K/9 and over 2-1 GB/FB rate is going to be pretty successful, typically.

Agreed, but now that we've seen 2 seasons of crummy components from Ondrusek and Arredondo I'd just as soon move on before it turns into a gaping hole. I hope Simon does become a good reliever, but last year was his age 31 season and it was the first time he's been anything nore thna a AAAA pitcher. I don't count on him for anything at all.

Somebody earlier said that they think you should blow-up and rebuild the pen every year. With Hoover and Lecure looking pretty decent, the Reds have an oppostunity to replace the question marks, but that means they aren't the replacements for Chapman. The team needs a couple of arms from the outside or one good one and they need to make the same move with Cingrani now that they did with Chapman a couple of years ago,

As far as depth goes, I think the team should non-tender Bray and Ondrusek, deal Arredondo, assume that Masset will spend the year on the DL and that Simon will revert to his Baltimore form. Marshall, Hoover, Lecure form a decent middle of the pen, but they need a couple more role players and a hammer IMO. With Chapman as the hammer, they could still be pretty good. I think Leake and Cingrani should be the role players and with Chapman in the rotation, a hammer still needs brought in. It may not be a Chapman elite level hammer, but a clear late inning presence needs to be added if Chapman s removed.

757690
11-04-2012, 04:38 PM
Agreed, but now that we've seen 2 seasons of crummy components from Ondrusek and Arredondo I'd just as soon move on before it turns into a gaping hole. I hope Simon does become a good reliever, but last year was his age 31 season and it was the first time he's been anything nore thna a AAAA pitcher. I don't count on him for anything at all.

Somebody earlier said that they think you should blow-up and rebuild the pen every year. With Hoover and Lecure looking pretty decent, the Reds have an oppostunity to replace the question marks, but that means they aren't the replacements for Chapman. The team needs a couple of arms from the outside or one good one and they need to make the same move with Cingrani now that they did with Chapman a couple of years ago,

As far as depth goes, I think the team should non-tender Bray and Ondrusek, deal Arredondo, assume that Masset will spend the year on the DL and that Simon will revert to his Baltimore form. Marshall, Hoover, Lecure form a decent middle of the pen, but they need a couple more role players and a hammer IMO. With Chapman as the hammer, they could still be pretty good. I think Leake and Cingrani should be the role players and with Chapman in the rotation, a hammer still needs brought in. It may not be a Chapman elite level hammer, but a clear late inning presence needs to be added if Chapman s removed.

I completely agree about those three, I wouldn't depend on them for next season. But they should be easy to replace. They will be plenty of decent enough guys coming out of spring training who can be picked off of waivers.

Plus, the Reds have a few young arms that could fill the middle releif innings. All it takes to be a decent middle reliever is a live fastball and the ability to throw strikes. I'm also pretty confident that one of Broxton and Madsen will be back.

mth123
11-04-2012, 04:49 PM
I completely agree about those three, I wouldn't depend on them for next season. But they should be easy to replace. They will be plenty of decent enough guys coming out of spring training who can be picked off of waivers.

Plus, the Reds have a few young arms that could fill the middle releif innings. All it takes to be a decent middle reliever is a live fastball and the ability to throw strikes. I'm also pretty confident that one of Broxton and Madsen will be back.

If Broxton comes back, that's probably enough. I don't expect Madson to be much until August or so. I'd just as soon let somebody else pay him to rehab into May and suffer through "just back from TJ" subpar performance for a couple of months. He may be pretty good by August or September, but that will be too late for the Reds IMO. He'd be a good choice to pick-up at the deadline. I'd expect Madson's 2013 to look a lot like Joe Nathan's 2011 and that isn't good enough IMO

Hoover, Marshall, Broxton, Lecure, Cingrani, Leake and whoever mops up.

Rojo
11-04-2012, 06:25 PM
But they should be easy to replace. They will be plenty of decent enough guys coming out of spring training who can be picked off of waivers.

Famous last words.

Can I ask: what are people expecting from Chapman as a starter next year?

Kc61
11-04-2012, 06:29 PM
I know watching players and pitchers don't mean anything around here, it's a debate about stats.

But I don't have confidence in the 2012 Broxton as a closer. Just seemed too hittable. Now, Brox was still coming off injury - by next year he may be all the way back - but with your bullpen I'd rather have Hoover close.

Mth's bullpen needs another good late inning reliever IMO.

Brox, Hoover, Marshall, and X for the late innings.

Lecure, Leake, and Cingrani for long and middle innings.

If X is somebody solid who can close, I'm ok with it.

Of course, Masset is signed for next year so he may be in the mix if healthy enough.

In any event, my guess is Simon will be back, whether he is on our lists or not.

757690
11-04-2012, 06:47 PM
I know watching players and pitchers don't mean anything around here, it's a debate about stats.

But I don't have confidence in the 2012 Broxton as a closer. Just seemed too hittable. Now, Brox was still coming off injury - by next year he may be all the way back - but with your bullpen I'd rather have Hoover close.

Mth's bullpen needs another good late inning reliever IMO.

Brox, Hoover, Marshall, and X for the late innings.

Lecure, Leake, and Cingrani for long and middle innings.

If X is somebody solid who can close, I'm ok with it.

Of course, Masset is signed for next year so he may be in the mix if healthy enough.

In any event, my guess is Simon will be back, whether he is on our lists or not.

That's as good a bullpen as there is in baseball, definitely good enough to contend. There's a good chance someone will raise up to be the closer. If not, the Reds have the resources to get one mid season. As Brutus pointed out, many contending teams have entered the season without a defined closer, and found one at some point in the season.

mth123
11-04-2012, 06:50 PM
Famous last words.

Can I ask: what are people expecting from Chapman as a starter next year?

Good question. I'm not expecting Randy Johnson. Hopeing for better than Leake but wouldn't be surprised with Volquez 2011. It deserves a shot though. If I had better expectations for Leake and wasn't as concenred with adding rotation depth, I'd probably be against the move.

Raisor
11-04-2012, 06:53 PM
If Walt can't build a good to great bullpen without Chapman then the Reds are in trouble.

Rojo
11-04-2012, 06:54 PM
Somebody earlier said that they think you should blow-up and rebuild the pen every year.

Not sure if it was this thread, but I've said it before. Assuming no Chapman move, you go into 2013 with Chapman, Marshall, Hoover and LeCure written in pen, everyone else -- pencil.

Move Chapman and you're left with three hard names for the pen (pen-pen?) and at the risk of sounding metaphysical, removing the closer throws those three into questionable territory.

Sounds like Walt would like to make this move. But it also sounds like he'd like to get the closer first (Huston Street?). That's smart.

But I suspect that if Walt actually pays for said closer -- in players or cash -- we'll get a hue and cry from those on this thread who claim they don't give short-shrift to the pen.

mth123
11-04-2012, 06:58 PM
If Walt can't build a good to great bullpen without Chapman then the Reds are in trouble.

The issue may be money. If the Reds simply bring back the guys they still control, let the free agents walk and non-tender Bray, Ondrusek and Valdez, they are still over $90 Million. If they spend what little is left to replace Chapman in the pen, I don't see much left to spend on the OF. Leaving Chapman to close may be necessary to addess LF and CF.

mth123
11-04-2012, 06:59 PM
Not sure if it was this thread, but I've said it before. Assuming no Chapman move, you go into 2013 with Chapman, Marshall, Hoover and LeCure written in pen, everyone else -- pencil.

Move Chapman and you're left with three hard names for the pen (pen-pen?) and at the risk of sounding metaphysical, removing the closer throws those three into questionable territory.

Sounds like Walt would like to make this move. But it also sounds like he'd like to get the closer first (Huston Street?). That's smart.

But I suspect that if Walt actually pays for said closer -- in players or cash -- we'll get a hue and cry from those on this thread who claim they don't give short-shrift to the pen.

I agree. I just hope paying for a closer doesn't prevent them from addressing the OF.

edabbs44
11-04-2012, 07:16 PM
Famous last words.

Can I ask: what are people expecting from Chapman as a starter next year?

I'm hearing a ton of Verlander talk so the expectations are fairly high. Especially since Verlander didn't become Verlander until he was 28.

REDREAD
11-06-2012, 09:59 PM
. I would rather use time and energy getting more of a sure thing, such as a Garza or Haren, and keep Chapman as insurance that games only last eight innings.

That's my preference too.
Instead of adding an ace closer, why not just add a very good starter and keep Chapman where he is?

If Broxton is not resigned and Chapman goes to the rotation, the bullpen is suddenly very shallow.. I think at bare minumum, the Reds need to resign/add two relievers to consider moving Chapman to the rotation. Maybe a healthy Masset is one of those guys, but I wouldn't count on it.

traderumor
11-07-2012, 01:23 PM
Sure, just go get an above starter because they grow on trees and are readily available. Why not get two?

If only the Reds FO had the same simple task--to just figure out the best course of action with no interference from 29 other clubs trying to do the same thing.

Kc61
11-07-2012, 02:03 PM
There's an underlying premise that the rotation on the Reds needs fixing.

The team may not feel that way. They have Cueto, Latos, Arroyo, Bailey, and Leake. Cingrani and Corcino will be knocking on the door very soon. They can add an emergency back up guy.

The team may feel with with the loss of Madson and Broxton, with Masset hurt, with Bray gone, that the safest course is to keep Chapman in the bullpen. It's certainly the easiest course.

My guess is Walt will play it both ways, look for starters and relievers, and make his judgment on Chapman depending on who else he can pick up.

Blitz Dorsey
11-07-2012, 02:15 PM
There's an underlying premise that the rotation on the Reds needs fixing.

The team may not feel that way. They have Cueto, Latos, Arroyo, Bailey, and Leake. Cingrani and Corcino will be knocking on the door very soon. They can add an emergency back up guy.

The team may feel with with the loss of Madson and Broxton, with Masset hurt, with Bray gone, that the safest course is to keep Chapman in the bullpen. It's certainly the easiest course.

My guess is Walt will play it both ways, look for starters and relievers, and make his judgment on Chapman depending on who else he can pick up.

I was just about to post that the one thing not being discussed in this thread is the fact that the Reds have a very good starting rotation. The team clearly sees more of a need for Chapman in the 'pen than in the rotation right now. Everyone is down on Mike Leake, but he's not shabby for a No. 5 starter in the NL. And then 1-4 the Reds are almost as good as anyone with Cueto, Latos, Bailey and Arroyo. The emergence of Bailey as a reliable starter has made the decision to leave Chapman as the closer "easier" for the Reds IMO. If the Reds had holes in their rotation, I have no doubt Chapman would be a starter. As it stands, the team appears more than content to allow him to be one of the game's best closers. Funny how we all talk about the Nasty Boys in 1990 and how that helped the Reds win the World Series. Were you guys upset that Myers, Dibble and Charlton were wasting so many innings because they weren't starters? (Actually, Charlton did start a game or three that year, but you get the point.) Can't have it both ways. Just how important is the bullpen? Do you buy into the theory that it's much tougher to pitch the 9th inning with the game on the line than it is the 2nd inning?

Superdude
11-07-2012, 04:30 PM
http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121107&content_id=40191688&vkey=news_cin&c_id=cin


But much has changed over the course of the past year. And so, too, has my personal stance on the matter. I'm swinging to the thinking that Chapman should be staying right where he is.

A few reasons why relief remains the best route:

What is this article? :laugh: If people are getting paid for unqualified opinions now, RedsZone should be a fortune 500 company.

WildcatFan
11-07-2012, 05:37 PM
http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121107&content_id=40191688&vkey=news_cin&c_id=cin



What is this article? :laugh: If people are getting paid for unqualified opinions now, RedsZone should be a fortune 500 company.

He's one of the best writers that site has. Used to cover the Reds before Sheldon.

Superdude
11-07-2012, 05:47 PM
He's one of the best writers that site has. Used to cover the Reds before Sheldon.

I'm sure he's decent. Just the whole tone of that article made me laugh. It sounds the transcript of a sports bar argument.

gilpdawg
11-07-2012, 06:37 PM
True he had a week or two (and then spent the rest of the season praising the team for placing him in the role he succeeded in)



Can anyone recall a curve ball first reliever as a closer?

I'm struggling to recall even one

Joe Boever? Granted it was only a year or two on a bad team...

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

IslandRed
11-07-2012, 07:20 PM
Gregg Olson was mostly a curveball guy, wasn't he?

AtomicDumpling
11-07-2012, 09:05 PM
That's my preference too.
Instead of adding an ace closer, why not just add a very good starter and keep Chapman where he is?

If Broxton is not resigned and Chapman goes to the rotation, the bullpen is suddenly very shallow.. I think at bare minumum, the Reds need to resign/add two relievers to consider moving Chapman to the rotation. Maybe a healthy Masset is one of those guys, but I wouldn't count on it.

Because adding a very good starter is likely to cost 5-10 times as much as adding an ace closer.

AtomicDumpling
11-07-2012, 09:07 PM
Just saw a report on MLB Network from John Heyman. He said he talked to Reds' brass recently and they indicated they are trying to sign a closer like Joakim Soria, Broxton or Madsen so they can put Aroldis into the rotation. He said the Reds really want Chapman to be a starting pitcher.

It was on MLB Network so it has to be true right? :D

Big Klu
11-12-2012, 11:06 PM
He has to start.

However, if they keep him as a closer, they need to work on his walk from the bullpen. They need a lazer show and better music.

"Voodoo Child", by Jimi Hendrix.

M2
11-12-2012, 11:36 PM
"Voodoo Child", by Jimi Hendrix.

Excellent choice.

marcshoe
11-13-2012, 12:02 AM
Because adding a very good starter is likely to cost 5-10 times as much as adding an ace closer.

This.

Competent closets aren't hard to come by. Decent starters remain rare.

traderumor
11-13-2012, 10:26 AM
This.

Competent closets aren't hard to come by. Decent starters remain rare.
I just cleaned mine out, so it is more competent than it was. But I wouldn't say its easy to find. ;)

marcshoe
11-13-2012, 11:17 AM
My closet is completely incompetent. It just seems to pile junk in the floor randomly, and the hangers try to escape from my sweaters.

I have to remember to check posts from my hand-held to see what autocorrect hath wrought.

REDREAD
11-19-2012, 03:29 PM
Can anyone recall a curve ball first reliever as a closer?

I'm struggling to recall even one

Mark Davis.
But I agree, it's not common.

REDREAD
11-19-2012, 03:43 PM
As far as depth goes, I think the team should non-tender Bray and Ondrusek, deal Arredondo, assume that Masset will spend the year on the DL and that Simon will revert to his Baltimore form. Marshall, Hoover, Lecure form a decent middle of the pen, but they need a couple more role players and a hammer IMO. With Chapman as the hammer, they could still be pretty good. I think Leake and Cingrani should be the role players and with Chapman in the rotation, a hammer still needs brought in. It may not be a Chapman elite level hammer, but a clear late inning presence needs to be added if Chapman s removed.

While I agree with most of your thoughts on this thread, I think I would keep Arrendondo and Logan (at least until clear upgrades are found).

IMO, you have a group of Simon/Logan/Arrendondo.. None of these guys are particularly expensive..You hope 1 or 2 of these guys pitches well enough to eat the innings when the Reds are behind, but close.. Honestly, I don't think we're going to find better guys off the waiver wire. Cingrani might be an upgrade to the least effective of the three, but there's no rush to make that decision.. let the season play out and see if a Cingrani callup will be beneficial or not.

I do agree with the DFA of Bray.. That guy has serious health problems and is not reliable.

We already have a shortage of bodies in the bullpen from Broxton's FA and Masset's health problems.. I'm not in a hurry to DFA or trade bullpen arms until we get a little more depth. IMO, we got very lucky last year with Hoover and Simon.. When I say luck, I mean the Reds did an outstanding job.. It's rare to be able to pick up two relievers like that in spring training and have them be effective IMO. I wouldn't count on being able to do that every year.. I've seen too many disasters from waiver wire pickup types..

Vottomatic
11-19-2012, 10:32 PM
I don't really care one way or the other if Chapman starts or closes.

It just seems like the rotation is set (top 3 of mlb) and bullpen was set (top 3 of mlb). Now they want to tinker with it. I'm fine with tinkering with it if there is a fallback plan. I hate for Chapman, his 2 pitch arsenal, and his occasional wildness, and lack of velocity, to not work out and they have to go with Corcino or Cingrani as the 5th starter and they turn out worse than whoever they trade off (guessing they trade Leake or Bailey if they want to start Chapman).

M2
11-20-2012, 12:51 AM
Mark Davis.
But I agree, it's not common.

Gregg Olson is the guy who leapt to mind for me, but it's definitely out of style. I think K-Rod's wipeout slider made that the breaking pitch of preference among would-be closers. Even though they weren't curve-first pitchers, John Wetteland, Tom Gordon, Jeff Russell and Jeff Montgomery all threw pretty nasty hooks. I want to say Joe Table featured a curve, but it could have been a slider with a lot of downward bite.

Superdude
11-20-2012, 01:19 AM
I don't really care one way or the other if Chapman starts or closes.

It just seems like the rotation is set (top 3 of mlb) and bullpen was set (top 3 of mlb). Now they want to tinker with it. I'm fine with tinkering with it if there is a fallback plan. I hate for Chapman, his 2 pitch arsenal, and his occasional wildness, and lack of velocity, to not work out and they have to go with Corcino or Cingrani as the 5th starter and they turn out worse than whoever they trade off (guessing they trade Leake or Bailey if they want to start Chapman).

I think they'll hang onto Leake regardless of how the Chapman situation plays out. It's one thing to presume the need for six starters, but Chapman to the rotation makes it a physical impossibility that we'll make it through the year with five starters.

REDREAD
11-20-2012, 01:24 AM
Gregg Olson is the guy who leapt to mind for me, but it's definitely out of style. I think K-Rod's wipeout slider made that the breaking pitch of preference among would-be closers. Even though they weren't curve-first pitchers, John Wetteland, Tom Gordon, Jeff Russell and Jeff Montgomery all threw pretty nasty hooks. I want to say Joe Table featured a curve, but it could have been a slider with a lot of downward bite.

Man, that's an impressive memory.. Good examples.

IIRC, Davis began his career as a mediocre starter in SF, despite his great curve because his other pitches weren't that great. He moved to the pen, and threw the curve almost exclusively and actually won a Cy Young from it.

mth123
11-20-2012, 07:29 AM
While I agree with most of your thoughts on this thread, I think I would keep Arrendondo and Logan (at least until clear upgrades are found).

IMO, you have a group of Simon/Logan/Arrendondo.. None of these guys are particularly expensive..You hope 1 or 2 of these guys pitches well enough to eat the innings when the Reds are behind, but close.. Honestly, I don't think we're going to find better guys off the waiver wire. Cingrani might be an upgrade to the least effective of the three, but there's no rush to make that decision.. let the season play out and see if a Cingrani callup will be beneficial or not.

I do agree with the DFA of Bray.. That guy has serious health problems and is not reliable.

We already have a shortage of bodies in the bullpen from Broxton's FA and Masset's health problems.. I'm not in a hurry to DFA or trade bullpen arms until we get a little more depth. IMO, we got very lucky last year with Hoover and Simon.. When I say luck, I mean the Reds did an outstanding job.. It's rare to be able to pick up two relievers like that in spring training and have them be effective IMO. I wouldn't count on being able to do that every year.. I've seen too many disasters from waiver wire pickup types..

Well, I'm of the opinion that Ondrusek and Simon will experience a huge drop-off and I'd just as soon move them before 5+ ERA shows itself during Red's games. Those two are interchangebale parts IMO. They had really good years in 2012, but Simon is already 32 with a poor perfromance history and Ondrusek just doesn't do much. If these guys have any value, I'd cash it in. They are totally replaceable. Arredondo is better IMO and I like that he can be used as a psuedo-loogy, but I want a real lefty for that role and a late inning type as well. If Chapman starts, they'll need a long relief spot for Leake. I suppose keeping Arredondo in a mop-up role with potential for more would be OK, but if some team sees him as more than that and would give up something for him, I'd move him. I only see one spot for Arredondo/Ondrusek/Masset/Simon and even if they are all gone, its the most easily filled spot on the roster. Banking on all those guys filling spots in 2013 is a quick way to have a crummy bullpen IMO. I'd rather not have two of them to be honest. Time to look for next year's version of lightning in a bottle.

My bullpen?

New Guy (Closer)
Marshall (LHSU)
Hoover (RHSU)
Lecure (RHMR)
New Guy (LHMR - maybe Cingrani)
Masset/Arredondo/Ondrusek/Simon (Mop-up)
Leake (Swingman)