PDA

View Full Version : Chapman to start? Maybe not



cinreds21
12-04-2012, 12:59 PM
Dusty, Dusty Dusty:


JIM BOWDEN ‏@JimBowdenESPNxm
After my conversation with D.Baker yesterday,became convinced there is a real possibility that Chapman ends up closing in 13 if its his call

Vottomatic
12-04-2012, 01:02 PM
Hmmmm.

Well, that's got 2 questionable people involved in that comment.

Jim "make stuff up" Bowden.
Dusty "only the mailman walks" Baker.

Not sure how much stock I put in that.

mdccclxix
12-04-2012, 01:03 PM
Walt didn't guarantee it himself. I want to say this is Bowden stirring the pot.

Benihana
12-04-2012, 01:03 PM
Dusty, Dusty Dusty:

If true, Broxton was a TERRIBLE signing.

WMR
12-04-2012, 01:04 PM
:facepalm:

Hap
12-04-2012, 01:12 PM
Jim Bowden would sign Deion Sanders to be the closer if given the chance.

Scrap Irony
12-04-2012, 01:15 PM
I'd imagine the discussion had a line or two wherein Baker mentioned that if Chapman struggles in Spring Training or the Reds can't find a taker for an extra starter or Leake finds major success, Chapman can always move back to the closer role if need be.

What Bowden came away with was that Chapman moved back to the closer role.

MrRedLegger
12-04-2012, 01:18 PM
He's a reporter. If he's not taking things out of context in order to stir the pot, he's not doing his job.

Brutus
12-04-2012, 01:20 PM
Dusty has said from day one *he* prefers Chapman in the rotation. This sounds more like Dusty's own preference rather than the standing preference of the organization.

Thing is, it's not Dusty's call which is why he probably phrased it as he did.

icehole3
12-04-2012, 01:20 PM
Dusty in the Enquirer this morning :)


“He could very well be my best starter and my best reliever,” Baker said. “So I’m sure that he’ll do whatever you ask him to do. He would probably prefer to start, but last year we were preparing him as a starter, and there was much debate about whether to send him to the minor leagues to start or not.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20121203/SPT04/312030127/Dusty-Baker-feeling-much-better?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Sports|s

mdccclxix
12-04-2012, 01:22 PM
Dusty in the Enquirer this morning :)


“He could very well be my best starter and my best reliever,” Baker said. “So I’m sure that he’ll do whatever you ask him to do. He would probably prefer to start, but last year we were preparing him as a starter, and there was much debate about whether to send him to the minor leagues to start or not.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20121203/SPT04/312030127/Dusty-Baker-feeling-much-better?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Sports|s

How much of that was the presence of 5 other qualified starters as well?

WMR
12-04-2012, 01:44 PM
Hopefully this is just Bowden stirring the pot... After the Broxton signing, Chapman anywhere other than the starting rotation is an unequivocal fail IMO.

dougdirt
12-04-2012, 01:52 PM
Dusty Baker, at every chance he has been given, has talked about Chapman in the bullpen. At every chance.

757690
12-04-2012, 02:02 PM
Dusty Baker, at every chance he has been given, has talked about Chapman in the bullpen. At every chance.

Exactly. Which is why I am confident that it is not his call. Walt and Price want Chapman in the rotation. They almost has their way last season until Madsen got hurt.

I assume that will always be a possibility, but an injury to Broxton, along with no other option to close, is the only way that I see Chapman being the closer again.

cumberlandreds
12-04-2012, 02:22 PM
Bowden is just stirring the pot. Jocketty is no dummy. He signed Broxton to close. Unless Broxton is injured, he will close and Chapman will start. If Dusty even brings up Chapman in the pen I'm sure he will get a call from Jocketty and remind him why Broxton was signed.

MikeS21
12-04-2012, 02:34 PM
Bowden is just stirring the pot. Jocketty is no dummy. He signed Broxton to close. Unless Broxton is injured, he will close and Chapman will start. If Dusty even brings up Chapman in the pen I'm sure he will get a call from Jocketty and remind him why Broxton was signed.
And also a reminder to Dusty why Chapman was signed - not as a a bullpen arm but as a starter.

traderumor
12-04-2012, 02:43 PM
Source: Jim Bowden

Response: Consider the source

RedsManRick
12-04-2012, 02:57 PM
After listening to Dusty yesterday, I was reminded why I have so little faith in the player usage part of his job. He talked about the role of the leadoff guy by mentioning speed in about 5 different ways; never hinted at getting on base. And then he went in to the Chapman part, citing that he could be both his best starter and best reliever, as if it wasn't obvious that if he's your best starter you'd be a moron to use him in relief.

traderumor
12-04-2012, 03:05 PM
After listening to Dusty yesterday, I was reminded why I have so little faith in the player usage part of his job. He talked about the role of the leadoff guy by mentioning speed in about 5 different ways; never hinted at getting on base. And then he went in to the Chapman part, citing that he could be both his best starter and best reliever, as if it wasn't obvious that if he's your best starter you'd be a moron to use him in relief.

“There are very few leadoff men around,” Baker said. “A leadoff man keeps the pitcher in the stretch. ... They set the table and also permit you to win games without hitting the ball out of the ballpark. We depend on the home run a lot. And the fact that we have low-scoring games and good pitching, that’s even more important for us to have the leadoff man to win even more one-run ball games than we do.”http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20121203/SPT04/312030127/Dusty-Baker-feeling-much-better

I didn't turn the timer on, but I'd have it in less than two minutes I located a recent quote refuting your claim. It appears you may have entered obscurantist territory with Dusty. Guys have to be on base to set the table and keep the pitcher in the stretch, or so it seems reasonable to assume that is what he meant.

RedsManRick
12-04-2012, 03:21 PM
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20121203/SPT04/312030127/Dusty-Baker-feeling-much-better

I didn't turn the timer on, but I'd have it in less than two minutes I located a recent quote refuting your claim. It appears you may have entered obscurantist territory with Dusty. Guys have to be on base to set the table and keep the pitcher in the stretch, or so it seems reasonable to assume that is what he meant.

I can see your point; perhaps I was listening through my anti-Dusty filter. Maybe the OBP point is obvious that he doesn't feel the need to make it. But when I hear Dusty talk about keeping the pitcher in the stretch and setting the table on the heels of the points specific to speed, I hear "speed keeps the other team honest" and "manufacture runs small-ball style". Perhaps that says more about me than Dusty...

RedlegJake
12-04-2012, 03:30 PM
I can see your point; perhaps I was listening through my anti-Dusty filter. Maybe the OBP point is obvious that he doesn't feel the need to make it. But when I hear Dusty talk about keeping the pitcher in the stretch and setting the table on the heels of the points specific to speed, I hear "speed keeps the other team honest" and "manufacture runs small-ball style". Perhaps that says more about me than Dusty...

I like Dusty but he is old school. I agree with you there. If you had 2 20/20 Hitters (hr/sb) one line. 260ba/.410 obp the second. 310ba/.328obp my bet is Dusty picks player 2. Because stinking obp ain't important.

PuffyPig
12-04-2012, 03:53 PM
And then he went in to the Chapman part, citing that he could be both his best starter and best reliever, as if it wasn't obvious that if he's your best starter you'd be a moron to use him in relief.

Generally absolutely.

But if you had 6 great/good starters, and a weak bullpen, and only one fo those starters could pitch in releif effectively, a case could be made that you'd have a better team even if your best starter became the closer. it would depend on how good your # 5 starter is, and how bad your bulllpen was.

dfs
12-04-2012, 04:02 PM
Source: Jim Bowden

Response: Consider the source

Very well put.

C'mon class ...How can you tell if Jim Bowden is not telling the truth?

Ans: His mouth is moving of course.

How quickly we forget.

westofyou
12-04-2012, 04:03 PM
Jim Bowden is a tool, but that doesn't mean he should be used as a hammer against Dusty.

WildcatFan
12-04-2012, 04:34 PM
Jim Bowden is a tool, but that doesn't mean he should be used as a hammer against Dusty.

Nailed it.

Vottomatic
12-04-2012, 04:45 PM
I like Dusty but he is old school. I agree with you there. If you had 2 20/20 Hitters (hr/sb) one line. 260ba/.410 obp the second. 310ba/.328obp my bet is Dusty picks player 2. Because stinking obp ain't important.

Just because Dusty said something smart about leadoff hitters doesn't mean he actually believes what he said.

Brutus
12-04-2012, 07:59 PM
Jim Bowden is a tool, but that doesn't mean he should be used as a hammer against Dusty.


Nailed it.

Not sure if you purposely made this hammer meet nail reference, but regardless, kudos. Well played, Mauer. Well played.

Blitz Dorsey
12-05-2012, 01:28 PM
Bowden doesn't understand how the Reds are winning without having several "5-tool" outfielders on the roster.

Degenerate39
12-05-2012, 02:45 PM
The Broxton deal would make no sense at all then

dougdirt
12-05-2012, 03:33 PM
Bowden doesn't understand how the Reds are winning without having several "5-tool" outfielders on the roster.

He would refer to both Stubbs and Bruce as 5 tool guys.

Vottomatic
12-05-2012, 03:44 PM
The Broxton deal would make no sense at all then

The Reds made it clear to Broxton when they signed him that he could be a setup guy or closer, no guarantees.

I think this was stipulated in case Chapman bombs as a starter and has to return to closing.

WildcatFan
12-05-2012, 10:26 PM
He would refer to both Stubbs and Bruce as 5 tool guys.

I wish he were still a GM somewhere. We could fleece him twice a season.

RANDY IN INDY
12-06-2012, 02:12 PM
Bronson Arroyo: "Chapman starting will be very difficult."

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/sports/2012/12/05/bronson-arroyo-chapman-starting-will-be-very-difficult/

Totally agree with Bronson.

westofyou
12-06-2012, 02:15 PM
Bronson Arroyo: "Chapman starting will be very difficult."

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/sports/2012/12/05/bronson-arroyo-chapman-starting-will-be-very-difficult/

Totally agree with Bronson.


I just worry that people are going to expect him to go out there and have a 1.51 ERA and strike out 400 people and walk 12, you know what I mean. It’s just not that way. … I’m worried that the expectations are going to be too great. I think he’ll be successful. I don’t think he’s going to be as successful for another two or three years as people are going to expect him to be right out of the gate.

Sam LeCure

RANDY IN INDY
12-06-2012, 02:58 PM
For the Reds to get maximum value out of Chapman for the time they control him, my opinion is that they get that if he is the closer. At this time, I think they will be grooming him as a starter for someone else, that is, if he succeeds as a starter. I know a lot of you guys disagree. Just my opinion.

Wonderful Monds
12-06-2012, 03:54 PM
Bronson Arroyo: "Chapman starting will be very difficult."

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/sports/2012/12/05/bronson-arroyo-chapman-starting-will-be-very-difficult/

Totally agree with Bronson.

I like how Bronson conveniently doesn't even mention Chapman's slider and acts like the only pitch he's ever thrown is a fastball.

I like Bronson and I've agreed with a lot of the things he's said before. Not this one, though. It's basically a load of crap.

mdccclxix
12-06-2012, 03:58 PM
To me it seems like Bronson and Dusty are protecting Leake.

RANDY IN INDY
12-06-2012, 03:58 PM
Chapman has a great slider, but I'm not sure that he has the command of it, needed to be a starting pitcher. He definitely doesn't have a third pitch that he can go to. I guess we will see how it plays out.

westofyou
12-06-2012, 03:59 PM
To me it seems like Bronson and Dusty are protecting Leake.

LeCure too?


I tend to listen to pitchers when they talk about pitching myself, learn something everytime

Sea Ray
12-06-2012, 04:06 PM
Bronson Arroyo: "Chapman starting will be very difficult."

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/sports/2012/12/05/bronson-arroyo-chapman-starting-will-be-very-difficult/

Totally agree with Bronson.

Bronson's candor is refreshing. I tend to agree with him but I'd like to know what's in Chapman's head. Does he want to start or is he like Pappelbon and does he crave the excitement of the 9th inning? Just reading his body language I think he prefers being the savior of all Reds wins.

I tend to agree with Bronson and if Aroldis does start, he'll be a 5 or 6 inning guy. Is that really more valuable than a shut down closer? I don't know

mdccclxix
12-06-2012, 04:23 PM
LeCure too?


I tend to listen to pitchers when they talk about pitching myself, learn something everytime

I think Bronson makes some good points, I did listen. It's pure speculation on my part about protecting Leake.

Rojo
12-06-2012, 04:32 PM
Chapman will go all Verlander next season, guaranteed. :)

Vottomatic
12-06-2012, 04:39 PM
I actually expect there to be problems with Chapman starting.

I'm fine with giving it a chance, but I don't think it will work out as well as many are hoping.

mth123
12-06-2012, 11:46 PM
I like how Bronson conveniently doesn't even mention Chapman's slider and acts like the only pitch he's ever thrown is a fastball.

I like Bronson and I've agreed with a lot of the things he's said before. Not this one, though. It's basically a load of crap.

This is where I think people are under-estimating the difference between a starter and a reliever. As a reliever throwing 100 MPH+ and seeing 3 or 4 hitters every couple of days, he throws the hard stuff, they start swinging really early and then the knee buckling slider comes and the hitter looks foolish chasing it out of the zone.

As a starter, he's facing guys multiple times per game. He's not throwing as hard, guys get a better read on the timing and they won't be chasing that slider as much as it breaks out of the zone. For that to be a viable pitch, he's going to have to get it over the plate. I'm not convinced he's ready to do that consistently. He'll probably be ok the first time through the order. I'm a skeptic about the middle innings.

He can't just throw a pretty slider that has a nasty break. He's going to have to get it over the plate.

RANDY IN INDY
12-07-2012, 12:03 AM
This is where I think people are under-estimating the difference between a starter and a reliever. As a reliever throwing 100 MPH+ and seeing 3 or 4 hitters every couple of days, he throws the hard stuff, they start swinging really early and then the knee buckling slider comes and the hitter looks foolish chasing it out of the zone.

As a starter, he's facing guys multiple times per game. He's not throwing as hard, guys get a better read on the timing and they won't be chasing that slider as much as it breaks out of the zone. For that to be a viable pitch, he's going to have to get it over the plate. I'm not convinced he's ready to do that consistently. He'll probably be ok the first time through the order. I'm a skeptic about the middle innings.

He can't just throw a pretty slider that has a nasty break. He's going to have to get it over the plate.

Yep

Chip R
12-07-2012, 12:28 AM
Bronson Arroyo: "Chapman starting will be very difficult."

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/sports/2012/12/05/bronson-arroyo-chapman-starting-will-be-very-difficult/

Totally agree with Bronson.

Sure it will. If it was easy, anyone could do it. This isn't Chapman's first rodeo. He's started in Cuba and in the minors. He has to have some idea on how to pace himself and throw another pitch.

As for a 3rd pitch, there have been scores of pitchers who were able to be successful with a great fastball and a breaking pitch or changeup. It would be nice if he could master a 3rd pitch but as hard as he throws, it may not be necessary.

I wonder what would happen if he just decided to throw a BP fastball up to the plate once or twice a game.

RedsManRick
12-07-2012, 08:31 AM
Arroyo's statement is completely fair. And I don't think Reds brass disagree with his assessment. But you don't know if you don't try. Chapman certainly won't develop reliable 2nd and 3rd offerings pitching out of the pen. That he's so physically gifted is precisely why he should be given the chance to develop those skills.

traderumor
12-07-2012, 09:08 AM
LeCure too?


I tend to listen to pitchers when they talk about pitching myself, learn something everytime
I think all I hear from them is to speak to fans with unrealistic expectations. Geesh, those two fit in around here. I think it is a strawman to use the "unrealistic expectations" and "needs a third pitch" argument to keep him out of the rotation. He has a plus fastball and slider, showed a change last year. I think the talent is what makes an extended rotation audition the easy call, not the hand wringing decision that so many want to make it.

SidneySlicker
12-07-2012, 09:29 AM
I think trying to move Arolids Chapman is probably the right move, but I'm far from thinking that he's a lock to be an excellent or even a very good starter. If he can become a dominant starter he has more value to the team than in the pen.

RedlegJake
12-07-2012, 10:03 AM
As a starter Chapman will throw a change. He was throwing one that was probably adequate before he went to the pen. He only needs it a few times a game anyway. Throwing that slider for strikes is far more important imo. I expect AC will succeed albeit with some bumps. I expect a rather uneven season this year and I hope his arm stays healthy - a bigger worry for me.

Raisor
12-07-2012, 09:28 PM
But you don't know if you don't try. .

Bingo

757690
02-16-2013, 01:51 PM
And Dusty is at it again...

http://www.foxsportsohio.com/02/16/13/Dusty-says-Chapman-not-guaranteed-to-sta/landing_reds.html?blockID=865115&feedID=8891


Baker made a sharp point of interest: “We’re in the same boat as last year when he possible, when he POSSIBLY could be one of your top starters. There is a lot you don’t know yet.

“I’m the one speaking, but this is an organizational decision. This makes me feel a little uneasy. I’m not the whole organization. When asked to speak about it, I’ll have a vote.”

membengal
02-16-2013, 02:04 PM
I think we can all just presume that Dusty has reservations, others don't, and it will be play out over the next month or two. Not really worth parsing over Dusty's every word on the subject when his stance is known. He would rather go with the known (Chapman closing) than the unknown (can he sucessfully convert). Given that he is responsible for this team winning, I understand his worry. Walt is likely bigger picture on this.

jojo
02-16-2013, 02:25 PM
Guys just relax. We have spring training so that potentially season/career altering decisions can be made based upon very small samples in unreliable contexts.

NeilHamburger
02-16-2013, 02:32 PM
If Chapman doesn't start then signing Broxton for 21 million over 3 years will be one of the dumbest, short-sighted, and borderline fireable signings ever.

There is NO EXCUSE for a team with the Reds budget to have 18 million per year tied up between Marshall, Broxton and Chapman.

Hell, the Reds could put some of that toward actually keeping Choo. I cannot fathom Jocketty lets this happen without trading Broxton or Chapman.

jojo
02-16-2013, 02:36 PM
Signing Broxton for 3 years really wasn't one of the smartest things ever done to begin with....

edabbs44
02-16-2013, 02:57 PM
If Chapman doesn't start then signing Broxton for 21 million over 3 years will be one of the dumbest, short-sighted, and borderline fireable signings ever.

There is NO EXCUSE for a team with the Reds budget to have 18 million per year tied up between Marshall, Broxton and Chapman.

Hell, the Reds could put some of that toward actually keeping Choo. I cannot fathom Jocketty lets this happen without trading Broxton or Chapman.

The Reds do not have $18MM "per year" locked up with those guys. That is kind of misleading.

Also, at this stage Walt can do whatever he wants as far as I am concerned. He has my trust.

malcontent
02-16-2013, 02:59 PM
Signing Broxton for 3 years really wasn't one of the smartest things ever done to begin with....
Agreed, and I like Broxton.

It surprises me sometimes the extent to which Jocketty goes to extend the guys he has in-house...as opposed to dealing for or signing new blood.

Kc61
02-16-2013, 03:48 PM
This topic is so overblown.

Sometimes fans have an idea that the ballclub flatly rejects. That's a reason for frustration. Here, the Reds are obviously strongly considering Chappy as a starter. So what's the complaint?

And the team won 97 games last year, if he winds up in the bullpen it isn't a tragedy. It's a formula that worked and if after a trial period the Reds conclude he belongs in the pen, so be it, he'll still help the ballclub.

I'm not yet a strong believer in Broxton, so I'm cautious in my view of his deal. But it's worth money to have a strong late inning bullpen. The idea around here that your key relievers somehow should spring from the earth - and be paid minimally - is not something I accept.

Most ballclubs would be thrilled to have Chapman on their teams, as a starter OR a closer. I feel that way, and if the Reds decide he should reliever, at least he's on the team playing an important role. That's all I ask.

RadfordVA
02-16-2013, 04:16 PM
I think a lot of times people forget that these decisions are not made as impersonal as a video game would be. I have a feeling a lot of this is probably Chapmans decision as anyone. If he is dead set on having his chance to start then the team does not have much choice in letting him. You cant simply tell him you are a closer whether you like it or not, then you run the risk of losing him mentally for either role. While I think it is the best decision to have him attempt to start. I feel Chapman and his agents input on this topic is seriously underrated. You know they see the difference in starters contracts and closers. Could be difference of 10 million a year.

MrRedLegger
02-16-2013, 05:04 PM
This topic is so overblown.

Sometimes fans have an idea that the ballclub flatly rejects. That's a reason for frustration. Here, the Reds are obviously strongly considering Chappy as a starter. So what's the complaint?

And the team won 97 games last year, if he winds up in the bullpen it isn't a tragedy. It's a formula that worked and if after a trial period the Reds conclude he belongs in the pen, so be it, he'll still help the ballclub.

I'm not yet a strong believer in Broxton, so I'm cautious in my view of his deal. But it's worth money to have a strong late inning bullpen. The idea around here that your key relievers somehow should spring from the earth - and be paid minimally - is not something I accept.

Most ballclubs would be thrilled to have Chapman on their teams, as a starter OR a closer. I feel that way, and if the Reds decide he should reliever, at least he's on the team playing an important role. That's all I ask.

We were 6 wins above our pythagorean expectation. I believe this to be because of the strong bullpen the team didn't let up runs when it really counted. Pythag is based solely on runs allowed and runs scored. B-R calls those six games "luck" but I call it a return from our investment...in a bullpen. We signed Broxton for quite a bit, but the Broxton that pitched for the Reds in '12 is worth that in todays game.

Like any big contract, and in this case, Chapman to the rotation, the proper evaluation of these moves can only be done in hindsight.

NeilHamburger
02-16-2013, 05:07 PM
The Reds do not have $18MM "per year" locked up with those guys. That is kind of misleading.

Also, at this stage Walt can do whatever he wants as far as I am concerned. He has my trust.

I suppose it depends how you account for all the deferred money in Chapman's contract of 30 million over six years.

But, either way, if Chapman is the closer they are paying Broxton 7 million a year, and Marshall 5.5 million a year for middle relief. 12.5 million a year for 2 middle relief pitchers is not something I agree with at all unless the Reds are considering a 125 million dollar payroll.

mace
02-16-2013, 05:15 PM
Sorry if this has already been posted, but at quick glance I didn't see it anywhere. It's a pretty extensive and informative story on the whole package of Chapman.

http://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/features/story.aspx?ID=1885174

Brutus
02-16-2013, 05:26 PM
There were people that said trading for Broxton was a dumb move. All he proceeded to do was put up a 3.5-1 K:BB ratio, nearly 2-1 grounders to flyballs and a 2.82 ERA.

Maybe the 3-year deal isn't such a bad move after all. I trust this isn't Jocketty's first rodeo.

edabbs44
02-16-2013, 05:37 PM
I suppose it depends how you account for all the deferred money in Chapman's contract of 30 million over six years.

But, either way, if Chapman is the closer they are paying Broxton 7 million a year, and Marshall 5.5 million a year for middle relief. 12.5 million a year for 2 middle relief pitchers is not something I agree with at all unless the Reds are considering a 125 million dollar payroll.

For the record, Brox + Marshall = 8.5MM in 2013.

NeilHamburger
02-16-2013, 06:00 PM
For the record, Brox + Marshall = 8.5MM in 2013.

Ok,
8.5 this year
12.5 next year
16.5 in 2015 assuming the Reds don't excercise an option on Broxton

If anything that just makes Broxton harder to trade if Chapman is in the bullpen.

Raisor
02-16-2013, 06:01 PM
If Chapman doesn't end up in the rotation, he should be traded. I think he's worth more as a trading chip than in the bullpen. He could beinf in a huge haul.

NeilHamburger
02-16-2013, 06:06 PM
Yes, take advantage of some GM who still overvalues a closer. The Giants lost their's last year, I think they did alright.

Then again I would've made JJ Hoover the closer and used the Broxton money elsewhere, so I probably don't value a "true closer" as much as most.

Spitball
02-16-2013, 06:11 PM
Sorry if this has already been posted, but at quick glance I didn't see it anywhere. It's a pretty extensive and informative story on the whole package of Chapman.

http://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/features/story.aspx?ID=1885174

Very interesting story. Thanks for the post.

edabbs44
02-16-2013, 06:21 PM
Yes, take advantage of some GM who still overvalues a closer. The Giants lost their's last year, I think they did alright.

Then again I would've made JJ Hoover the closer and used the Broxton money elsewhere, so I probably don't value a "true closer" as much as most.

The Giants also have 4 relievers making avg salary of $4MM or more. They obviously value a good, proven bullpen as well.

757690
02-16-2013, 06:27 PM
I think we can all just presume that Dusty has reservations, others don't, and it will be play out over the next month or two. Not really worth parsing over Dusty's every word on the subject when his stance is known. He would rather go with the known (Chapman closing) than the unknown (can he sucessfully convert). Given that he is responsible for this team winning, I understand his worry. Walt is likely bigger picture on this.

This seems very accurate. The key quote is that Dusty says its not his call, which is encouraging. Still it's frustrating to know your team's manager is so shortsided.

NeilHamburger
02-16-2013, 06:34 PM
The Giants also have 4 relievers making avg salary of $4MM or more. They obviously value a good, proven bullpen as well.

I'm about equally as confident in Hoover as I am in Broxton. It's not like Broxton is lockdown, he was ran out of LA, and got the old "gas can" nickname that is never a good thing for a reliever.

edabbs44
02-16-2013, 06:45 PM
I'm about equally as confident in Hoover as I am in Broxton. It's not like Broxton is lockdown, he was ran out of LA, and got the old "gas can" nickname that is never a good thing for a reliever.

Even though it is off topic, I think people might be a little too confident in Hoover at this stage. I hope he is as good as advertised, but 30 innings isn't really a large body of work at the ML level.

NeilHamburger
02-16-2013, 06:49 PM
I don't want it to seem like this a major issue for the team this year. I think this is the best team I've seen the Reds have (on paper) going into a season.

And I don't dislike the Marshall contract, and if Chapman can't cut it as a starter I still see value in him as a dominate force out of the bullpen.

I guess my main beef is the potential for all 3 to be in the bullpen and the fact that it could limit funds for other needs going forward, and really beyond that the Broxton deal in general is not high up on my greatest moves list.

cincrazy
02-16-2013, 06:53 PM
Why is Dusty shortsighted for wanting Chapman in the bullpen? Chapman has two pitches. He's not consistent with the slider, and do we really trust him to locate his fastball for seven innings, and to maintain his velocity? We've seen what happens when his velocity falls. He gets smoked. As a starter, his velocity WILL fall. Dusty knows this. I know this. We all know this. We know what we have in Chapman the closer. Which is a lock down, forget about it, game is over closer. What is he as a starter? Is he Randy Johnson? Maybe. Or maybe he's Daniel Bard or Joba Chamberlain, is a total disaster, has his confidence ruined, gets hurt, and then where do we sit?

NeilHamburger
02-16-2013, 06:56 PM
I think you have to at least take the chance that he could one day be Randy Johnson. You could've said the same thing about Johnson early in his career. You just have to if you that resource.

The value to the franchise (and the player) if it clicks and he is somewhat close to Randy Johnson is just astronomical.

I'm not a big believer in a failed experiment ruining a player, I think injuries have done that to Joba.

wlf WV
02-16-2013, 07:00 PM
Sorry if this has already been posted, but at quick glance I didn't see it anywhere. It's a pretty extensive and informative story on the whole package of Chapman.

http://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/features/story.aspx?ID=1885174Thanks Mace.
I haven't read this before.Baker could be right,leave well enough alone.

It may not be so simple as to plug him in or unplug him. I get frustrated with Baker,but he does know people.I've come to the point in my life I don't have to remind myself how little I know.

Spring training ,as someone said, will probably sort things out.

NeilHamburger
02-16-2013, 07:09 PM
Thanks Mace.
I haven't read this before.Baker could be right,leave well enough alone.

It may not be so simple as to plug him in or unplug him. I get frustrated with Baker,but he does know people.I've come to the point in my life I don't have to remind myself how little I know.

Spring training ,as someone said, will probably sort things out.

It's a great read. But, honestly when I was done reading it I felt more scared then anything. Honestly, I'm scared to try and find out too much about Aroldis because there's a feeling in the pit of my stomach that it will make it hard for me to root for him.

I'm not saying anything about guilt or innocence, because I have no idea. I'm just kinda scared that more facts are going to come out, and some of the one's that already have already have me worried. I really don't want this to turn into a situation where I have to squint and pretend to root for someone. When I read things about him I try and justify things in my mind, but in my heart sometimes I wonder what kind of person he is, and it makes me question myself, and whether I justify things because he can throw a baseball real hard. I'm scared for the answers sometimes.

jojo
02-16-2013, 07:22 PM
Even though it is off topic, I think people might be a little too confident in Hoover at this stage. I hope he is as good as advertised, but 30 innings isn't really a large body of work at the ML level.

Broxton only pitched 22 innings as a Red last season and some seem to think his 6.7 K/BB ratio and an erroneous perception of increasing fastball velocity as the season aged is a sign of the future.

RFS62
02-16-2013, 07:48 PM
Would anyone have predicted last offseason that Chapman would have such an incredible year as a closer? I think not.

The kid is a fire breathing mutant. He's different. I'm not about to predict that he won't be able to adapt as a starter after the progress I've seen him make in everything he's tried to do in the bigs.

It's worth a shot. Yes, as a closer he's uber valuable. But what if he's that good as a starter too?

It's time to find out, one way or another, and stay with whatever shakes out.

OnBaseMachine
02-16-2013, 08:08 PM
Keith Law thinks Chapman can handle being a starter:


“I’d almost emphasize the looseness more than the velocity,” Law says of Chapman’s arm. In other words, it’s not just that Chapman throws 100 MPH—it’s that he throws 100 MPH and looks like he’s playing catch. That easy delivery comes from Chapman’s rare athleticism; one gets the sense that, had he stuck with boxing, Chapman would have made a terrific light heavyweight (or a terrific wide receiver, or a terrific shooting guard). Law calls Chapman’s fastball “electric” and praises his “wipeout slider.” “And I’ve always thought his changeup is better than he gets credit for,” he says.


This year at spring training the Reds are planning to move Chapman back to the rotation—a role with more pressure, more ups and downs, more structure-free days. The physical switch should be easy. “The guy’s a horse,” says ESPN’s Law. “He can be a 35-start, 220-inning guy.”

http://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/features/story.aspx?ID=1885174

cincrazy
02-16-2013, 08:11 PM
Keith Law thinks Chapman can handle being a starter:





http://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/features/story.aspx?ID=1885174

The fact that Keith Law endorses him as a starter makes me want him to be a reliever even more ;)

Wonderful Monds
02-16-2013, 08:38 PM
Broxton only pitched 22 innings as a Red last season and some seem to think his 6.7 K/BB ratio and an erroneous perception of increasing fastball velocity as the season aged is a sign of the future.

Not to mention adding a cut fastball that completely changed him as a player.

Wonderful Monds
02-16-2013, 08:41 PM
There were people that said trading for Broxton was a dumb move. All he proceeded to do was put up a 3.5-1 K:BB ratio, nearly 2-1 grounders to flyballs and a 2.82 ERA.

Maybe the 3-year deal isn't such a bad move after all. I trust this isn't Jocketty's first rodeo.

No, the team should just cobble together a bullpen of retreads and rookies and assign a pitcher with 30 MLB innings to be the closer. That should work out so well.

Unassisted
02-16-2013, 09:08 PM
Sorry if this has already been posted, but at quick glance I didn't see it anywhere. It's a pretty extensive and informative story on the whole package of Chapman.

http://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/features/story.aspx?ID=1885174I read that earlier today. It makes me think he should be nowhere near the rotation and that the experiment to put him there will fail so badly that he'll be back in the pen by June.

I don't know how someone could read that and think positively about the guy. Issues-wise, he's the pitching equivalent of Josh Hamilton and we've been none the wiser about the kid gloves the Reds are using to handle him.

jojo
02-16-2013, 09:32 PM
Not to mention adding a cut fastball that completely changed him as a player.

It's an "awesome" narrative isn't it?

jojo
02-16-2013, 09:33 PM
No, the team should just cobble together a bullpen of retreads and rookies and assign a pitcher with 30 MLB innings to be the closer. That should work out so well.

Yep, those are the only two options.

Wonderful Monds
02-16-2013, 09:51 PM
It's an "awesome" narrative isn't it?

Not only is it an awesome narrative, it also happened, so, you know.

Wonderful Monds
02-16-2013, 09:55 PM
So we have a pitcher who's getting stronger after recovering from surgery who has added a dominant pitch to his repertoire (definition of dominant: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/pitch-to-watch-jonathan-broxtons-cutter-2/) who has results that match.

And yet that apparently means nothing? That doesn't sound like the logical conclusion to me.

RedEye
02-16-2013, 10:08 PM
So we have a pitcher who's getting stronger after recovering from surgery who has added a dominant pitch to his repertoire (definition of dominant: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/pitch-to-watch-jonathan-broxtons-cutter-2/) who has results that match.

And yet that apparently means nothing? That doesn't sound like the logical conclusion to me.

It's not that it means nothing. It's just that many believe that sort of money was too much to pay for it. I think there's a good chance that LeCure or Hoover or both are better pitchers than Broxton in 2013.

jojo
02-16-2013, 10:21 PM
Not only is it an awesome narrative, it also happened, so, you know.

No way he mastered a new pitch and transformed into a different pitcher in a few weeks.

But it's an awesome narrative.

Wonderful Monds
02-16-2013, 10:27 PM
No way he mastered a new pitch and transformed into a different pitcher in a few weeks.

But it's an awesome narrative.

Except for when he did and the stats prove it.

It's not so much about him turning into a different pitcher as it is him turning back into the pitcher he used to be.

jojo
02-16-2013, 10:48 PM
Except for when he did and the stats prove it.

It's not so much about him turning into a different pitcher as it is him turning back into the pitcher he used to be.

The stats don't prove anything- its 22 innings. And BTW, statistically his 22 IP as a Red really dont look much like his career numbers.

traderumor
02-16-2013, 11:00 PM
I read that earlier today. It makes me think he should be nowhere near the rotation and that the experiment to put him there will fail so badly that he'll be back in the pen by June.

I don't know how someone could read that and think positively about the guy. Issues-wise, he's the pitching equivalent of Josh Hamilton and we've been none the wiser about the kid gloves the Reds are using to handle him.I think comparing to Josh Hamilton is a bit overboard. A single guy in his 20s struggling with staying away from loose women and fast cars is a far cry from a drug addict trying to stay sober.

Superdude
02-16-2013, 11:26 PM
No way he mastered a new pitch and transformed into a different pitcher in a few weeks.

But it's an awesome narrative.

I don't know what narrative you're talking about, but Broxton definitely added a cutter. That's not even debatable. Whether or not that's transformed him is still up in the air, but it's certainly worth noting the fact that after adding a statistically effective pitch, he put up by far his best month of the season.

jojo
02-16-2013, 11:36 PM
I don't know what narrative you're talking about, but Broxton definitely added a cutter. That's not even debatable. Whether or not that's transformed him is still up in the air, but it's certainly worth noting the fact that after adding a statistically effective pitch, he put up by far his best month of the season.

I'm talking about the narrative where he added a pitch and transformed into a different pitcher..... The narrative even you admit begrudgingly is up in the air probably because you've just drilled it down to a 13 inning sample.

757690
02-17-2013, 12:24 AM
I'm talking about the narrative where he added a pitch and transformed into a different pitcher..... The narrative even you admit begrudgingly is up in the air probably because you've just drilled it down to a 13 inning sample.

The 13 innings don't tell us that he's a different pitcher. However, knowing that he mastered a new pitch, and was effective with it against major league hitters, however briefly, does tell us something important. It shouldn't be ignored, nor taken lightly.

RiverRat13
02-17-2013, 12:26 AM
Does the fact that Bryan Price is from all indications on board with Chapman in the rotation give pause to the "if it ain't broke" crowd on here? Sure, Dusty's been given a bad rap when it comes to misuse of young starters, but I still trust Price much more than Baker when it comes to decisions about the pitching staff.

One of the many interesting parts of this whole saga is the difference between the comments of the manager and pitching coach on the matter have been in media.

Superdude
02-17-2013, 12:35 AM
I'm talking about the narrative where he added a pitch and transformed into a different pitcher..... The narrative even you admit begrudgingly is up in the air probably because you've just drilled it down to a 13 inning sample.

Nothing begrudging about it. It is up in the air, but just because we can't definitively conclude he's a different pitcher doesn't mean we can't draw anything from that information. Especially when the improvement lines up perfectly with the timeline of the cutter he added.

AtomicDumpling
02-17-2013, 05:28 AM
Fact: In the 2010 season the top 20 closers in baseball all got 25 saves or more and 7 dominant closers had 40 or more saves.

Fact: Of those top 20 closers from 2010, 16 of them have already lost their job as closer in the two seasons since then. Of the 7 dominant ones who had 40+ saves that year only 1 is still a closer after only two more seasons.

Fact: Of the top 30 closers in 2011 only 9 are still a closer after only one season!

Lesson: The job of closer is a dangerous and volatile position. Very few pitchers are able to perform that role for multiple seasons. Even the most spectacular closers are highly likely to lose the job in short order, whether due to injury or poor performance. It is foolhardy to expect a pitcher, no matter how good he is, to remain a dominant closer for an extended period. Aroldis Chapman was awesome last year, but there is absolutely no guarantee he would repeat that feat again this year. History says it is unlikely that he would.

Being a closer is risky business. Closers get hurt all the time due to the rigors of the job. Frequently pitching on back-to-back days, and often pitching three or four days in a row is a killer combination. Closers rarely have time for their arms to recuperate between outings. They have to warm up quickly and come out firing max effort immediately. Sometimes they warm up and don't even get in the game. A starting pitcher has 4 or 5 days between outings to recuperate. He only has to warm up once or twice a week instead of 3-5 times per week, which saves wear and tear on the arm. A starter has time to fully prepare physically for a game instead of being forced to rapidly warm up on a moment's notice. All these factors combine to make being the closer the most dangerous role a pitcher can have. A pitcher can get hurt in any role, but a closer is much more likely to get hurt than a starting pitcher despite throwing fewer innings. Chapman could get hurt just as easily by staying in the bullpen rather than moving to the rotation.

Many of the best starting pitchers in baseball began their careers as relievers. Johan Santana, CJ Wilson and Adam Wainwright all did it. Just last year Chris Sale, Jeff Samardzija and Lance Lynn all made the transition successfully. Moving Aroldis Chapman is not a radical decision. Moving stud relievers into the rotation has been a very common occurrence throughout the history of baseball. There is no guarantee it will work, but a good starting pitcher is much more valuable than a good closer, so it just makes sense to try it.

gilpdawg
02-17-2013, 05:48 AM
The fact that Keith Law endorses him as a starter makes me want him to be a reliever even more ;)

Law is a cocky dude, but I really respect the man's baseball knowledge. I used to listen to his podcast he used to do on ESPN with Karabell almost every day.

gilpdawg
02-17-2013, 05:53 AM
I think comparing to Josh Hamilton is a bit overboard. A single guy in his 20s struggling with staying away from loose women and fast cars is a far cry from a drug addict trying to stay sober.
Yeah, don't we all like loose women and fast cars?I know I do.
:laugh:

jojo
02-17-2013, 08:37 AM
The 13 innings don't tell us that he's a different pitcher. However, knowing that he mastered a new pitch, and was effective with it against major league hitters, however briefly, does tell us something important. It shouldn't be ignored, nor taken lightly.

It should be treated pretty skeptically based upon what we know about pitching.

elfmanvt07
02-17-2013, 09:07 AM
It should be treated pretty skeptically based upon what we know about pitching.

Namely?

Coming into this conversation late, you make it sound as if a pitcher never changes, always yielding to the stats on the back of his baseball card.

Those stats are certainly made up of good spells and bad, but it's not everyday a pitcher adds a new pitch. If Broxton added a cutter that in his mind allows him to attack the plate more than he could previously, there will be a change. It may not be a good change long term, but it's a change.

Would Billy Hamilton learning a great third base side bunt not mean anything toward the type of player we could expect him to be? When a player adds a tool, there's a chance that it could prove quite beneficial.

jojo
02-17-2013, 10:09 AM
Namely?

Coming into this conversation late, you make it sound as if a pitcher never changes, always yielding to the stats on the back of his baseball card.

Those stats are certainly made up of good spells and bad, but it's not everyday a pitcher adds a new pitch. If Broxton added a cutter that in his mind allows him to attack the plate more than he could previously, there will be a change. It may not be a good change long term, but it's a change.

Would Billy Hamilton learning a great third base side bunt not mean anything toward the type of player we could expect him to be? When a player adds a tool, there's a chance that it could prove quite beneficial.

I make it sound as if it's pretty rare and extraordinary thing for a pitcher to add a pitch in a span of days that not only is major league quality, he possesses exceptional command of it and it dramatically changes his true talent. The evidence for this rare event is 13 innings in which he had a 14 k/BB rate and a BB rate roughly 3 walks/9 lower than his career line.

I'm not sure how the default isn't healthy skepticism.

Has anyone argued he'll suck eggs? No. If David Weathers and Ryan Franklin can be classified as closers, Broxton can probably manage. But factually disproved arguments that his velocity increased as the season progressed and the notion that he pulled a plus pitch out of his back pocket after being traded tend to muddy expectations of Broxton's ability to be a true high leverage arm for the next three years IMHO.

So I make it sound as if he still has a lot to still prove concerning his cutter in general and his new-found plus/plus command. I make it sound like given enough innings, regression to the mean is the safest bet.

It's just not that hard to put together a solid bullpen and three year contracts to relievers are rolls of the dice-very few have been enlightened over the the years. That said, a 3 yr/$21M commitment is alot better than a 4 yr/$46M commitment.

lollipopcurve
02-17-2013, 10:17 AM
It's likely that Broxton would be elsewhere had not the Reds been willing to give him the contract they did. Some might call it an overpay, but you have to weigh that against the team's approach as a whole. Have other needs gone lacking? Is the team only making a half-hearted attempt to win, or is it going all out (in which case, if successful, overpays get erased at the bottom line)?

There is a wide gulf between what Krivsky et al gave Cordero, given the team the Reds were, and what this FO is giving Broxton to be the closer (and/or closer insurance) for this team.

elfmanvt07
02-17-2013, 10:27 AM
I make it sound as if it's pretty rare and extraordinary thing for a pitcher to add a pitch in a span of days that not only is major league quality, he possesses exceptional command of it and it dramatically changes his true talent. The evidence for this rare event is 13 innings in which he had a 14 k/BB rate and a BB rate roughly 3 walks/9 lower than his career line.

I'm not sure how the default isn't healthy skepticism.

Has anyone argued he'll suck eggs? No. If David Weathers and Ryan Franklin can be classified as closers, Broxton can probably manage. But factually disproved arguments that his velocity increased as the season progressed and the notion that he pulled a plus pitch out of his back pocket after being traded tend to muddy expectations of Broxton's ability to be a true high leverage arm for the next three years IMHO.

So I make it sound as if he still has a lot to still prove concerning his cutter in general and his new-found plus/plus command. I make it sound like given enough innings, regression to the mean is the safest bet.

It's just not that hard to put together a solid bullpen and three year contracts to relievers are rolls of the dice-very few have been enlightened over the the years. That said, a 3 yr/$21M commitment is alot better than a 4 yr/$46M commitment.

At no point was I assuming that his cutter is a finished or a plus pitch. But, I also am willing to entertain other ideas than regressing to the mean. Forgive me for taking your previous posts as "the facts can't possibly lead anywhere other than my opinion." I'm willing to attribute some of his success to Hanigan, potentially some to perhaps a different approach on the mound, or confidence in his defense. I'm not saying we'll see 6.67 K/BB again, but I'm not willing to write off him having a few of his better seasons ahead of him.

lollipopcurve
02-17-2013, 10:32 AM
I'm not willing to write off him having a few of his better seasons ahead of him.

Agreed, especially given that he had surgery not long ago.

Blitz Dorsey
02-17-2013, 11:47 AM
Sorry if this has already been posted, but at quick glance I didn't see it anywhere. It's a pretty extensive and informative story on the whole package of Chapman.

http://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/features/story.aspx?ID=1885174

One of the best, most-insightful stories I've read in a long time.

There are definitely a lot of concerns with Chapman's mental makeup. However, that $24 million lawsuit is complete bunk -- Chapman has no chance at losing that case. They would have to prove that he intended for those guys to be tortured in Cuba? And the case is being heard in a U.S. court. Good luck with all that. I guarantee you the U.S. court will pin this on the corrupt/backwards Cuban government. Like it's Chapman's fault these guys got tortured.

Anyway, still thrilled we have him, but this story was definitely an insightful look into the "real" Aroldis Chapman.

Superdude
02-17-2013, 01:30 PM
I make it sound as if it's pretty rare and extraordinary thing for a pitcher to add a pitch in a span of days that not only is major league quality, he possesses exceptional command of it and it dramatically changes his true talent. The evidence for this rare event is 13 innings in which he had a 14 k/BB rate and a BB rate roughly 3 walks/9 lower than his career line.

I'm not sure how the default isn't healthy skepticism.

It might be rare, but I'd hardly consider what Broxton did extraordinary. He didn't learn some plus-plus changeup in a matter of a few days. He learned a pitch that's essentially just a harder version of the slider he's been throwing his whole career.

And you're portraying this 13 inning sample as the linchpin of the pro-Broxton argument when it really isn't an integral part of what we're saying at all. Throw it out if you want. All anyone is saying is that we watched him add a good cutter last year with our own two eyes and the early signs were encouraging. No more, no less.

Blitz Dorsey
02-17-2013, 02:05 PM
Pretty sure Jocketty has earned the benefit of the doubt on the Broxton signing.

Also, $7 mil per year is not all that much cash for a closer. Hell, we paid Coco $12 mil per year.

RedsManRick
02-17-2013, 03:22 PM
Good post AD, but also let's be careful not confuse cause and effect. Why go guys become closers? It's because they're generally very good pitchers who simply don't have what it takes to be a starter. And while sometimes that's because they only have 1 really good pitch, it's often because they simply aren't physically capable of holding up for a long time.

So that's to say, it's not just that closers break down because of the rigors of closing are so tough. It's that part of the reason many closers ended up as closers is because they didn't have the physical makeup to be a starter.

Chapman did not wind up in the bullpen because of an inability to go 6+ innings for 30+ times a year. It was done out of expediency, to make use of a the guy's arm as quickly as possible while he was under contract at a time when there wasn't a spot in the rotation for the Reds to hold for him.

That's not to say you're wrong of course; closing may be more physically demanding than starting for some guys. But when we think about relievers as a group, we should remember that most of them are there because they proved unable to be effective starters.

Kc61
02-17-2013, 03:47 PM
Chapman was quoted yesterday saying (this is a paraphrase) that he's never been a starter in the majors, he's been successful in the pen, if he had to choose he would stick with what he's been successful at. But it's up to the team.

This morning, on XM radio's baseball channel, I heard the host say that the Reds are one of the top few World Series contenders this year and he wonders whether they should risk trouble in the ninth inning. He wasn't overly comfortable with Brox, suggested that the Reds should have gone for Rafael Soriano if they needed a new closer.

This question is getting a lot of play in the media and it's a tough one. It would be easy if the Reds weren't contenders this year. It would be too bad if this becomes a "learning" year for Chapman as a starter, and the Reds suffer short term and potentially lose the chance at a championship right now.

I view this as very much a long-term v. short-term question.

joshua
02-17-2013, 04:45 PM
Chapman giving us 130-160 innings of #3 or #4 production from the five spot and his arm not going under the knifw is what it would take for me to consider this experiment a success for 2013. I think that's more than possible...in fact I'd put money on him doing it.

If Broxton falls flat on his face as a closer, it's not like we don't have options. We have enough pitching to have three guys who we can plug into the fifth spot in the rotation and a few guys we can have close in a pinch...

My bigger concern is how unlistenable 700 will be and how unreadable Reds forum will be the first time Broxton blows a save or Chapman has a bad outing. Not looking forward to that at all.

Superdude
02-17-2013, 05:15 PM
My bigger concern is how unlistenable 700 will be and how unreadable Reds forum will be the first time Broxton blows a save or Chapman has a bad outing. Not looking forward to that at all.

The hindsight visionaries will be out in droves for sure. As much as I disagree with KC, he's at least not hedging his opinion on the issue. Him and jojo have a free ticket to laugh at all the little people when Chapman can't get out of the 5th inning and Broxton's shiny new cutter's getting smacked all over the yard. :laugh:

Brutus
02-17-2013, 05:36 PM
It might be rare, but I'd hardly consider what Broxton did extraordinary. He didn't learn some plus-plus changeup in a matter of a few days. He learned a pitch that's essentially just a harder version of the slider he's been throwing his whole career.

And you're portraying this 13 inning sample as the linchpin of the pro-Broxton argument when it really isn't an integral part of what we're saying at all. Throw it out if you want. All anyone is saying is that we watched him add a good cutter last year with our own two eyes and the early signs were encouraging. No more, no less.

What's most ironic about continually bringing up a 13-inning sample is that all people have to go on with Broxton not being the "Broxton of old" so to speak is a 35-inning sample coming off surgery while in Kansas City. If you ignore the 35 innings in K.C., Broxton's track record is one where it's foolish not to expect his numbers to get better.

I'd say it's not more of a narrative to think his repertoire may have re-invented his career than it is to think his career could not get back closer to where it was before surgery anyhow.

jojo
02-17-2013, 05:59 PM
The hindsight visionaries will be out in droves for sure. As much as I disagree with KC, he's at least not hedging his opinion on the issue. Him and jojo have a free ticket to laugh at all the little people when Chapman can't get out of the 5th inning and Broxton's shiny new cutter's getting smacked all over the yard. :laugh:

I've neither argued Chapman can't successfully transition to the rotation nor that Broxton can't save games.

If it were I, Chapman would be groomed for a starting role and it would've happened a couple of seasons ago. In some ways the Reds were kind of victims of their success when it comes to Chapman's development. He's simply too good to not be used and they were too good not to use him.

BTW, I don't really do the gotcha thing (unless someone is painfully begging for it). If either Chapman or Broxton fail, it's neither a happy nor a good thing.

OnBaseMachine
02-17-2013, 06:16 PM
For those wondering what Chapman's changeup/splitter looks like, watch this video below of him striking Jose Reyes out on Opening Day last year.

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=20393885&c_id=mlb

mth123
02-17-2013, 06:32 PM
The hindsight visionaries will be out in droves for sure. As much as I disagree with KC, he's at least not hedging his opinion on the issue. Him and jojo have a free ticket to laugh at all the little people when Chapman can't get out of the 5th inning and Broxton's shiny new cutter's getting smacked all over the yard. :laugh:

I split the dfference. I'm pretty cool with Broxton closing (my bigger concern is who pitches the late innings on days when either Broxton or Marshall can't go). Chapman, OTOH, is going to have to get that slider over the plate. I just don't see him getting guys to chase it when they see him 3 times per game. Now when they see him once or twice a year, they chase. That slider isa good pitch when guys chase it, but as a starter, its going to have to be a good pitch when guys take it as well. I'm not convinced.

Kc61
02-17-2013, 10:15 PM
The hindsight visionaries will be out in droves for sure. As much as I disagree with KC, he's at least not hedging his opinion on the issue. Him and jojo have a free ticket to laugh at all the little people when Chapman can't get out of the 5th inning and Broxton's shiny new cutter's getting smacked all over the yard. :laugh:

Since you refer to my view, let me clarify that I'm not against making Chapman a starter, and in a vacuum the move would have my full support.

But I do admit to real concern about this move for this ballclub this season.

I look at this lineup and see, finally, the lefty righty balance the team has lacked. Better OBP. The removal of all the Stubbs Ks. Other than CF defense, I see a ballclub that really seems top notch.

So now, we take a key element out of the late inning bullpen. We leave Brox and Marshall as the two main late inning guys. There's even a chance Hoover won't be in the pen, which IMO compounds the problem - he has late inning stuff.

I said last year that I thought the Reds bullpen was overrated in the sense that, remove Chappy's numbers, suddenly the group doesn't appear so special. Now the Reds are actually going to do that, and I think it could have a negative impact.

The other concern is how much we can expect from Aroldis as a starter in the year of this switch. Yes, for the long term it may bear fruit, but I hate potentially to have the pitching fall back for this season which is so very promising.

Part of my view is that I thought Broxton was good but not great last year. He didn't seem to be comfortable pitching multiple games in a row and at time seemed hittable (which Chapman was not). Jonathan can help solve my concern with a lights out season. Hoover can help solve my concern if he pitches in the late innings and does well.

I see this as a very tough call for the Reds. I'm not really against it, I'm just holding my breath.

AtomicDumpling
02-17-2013, 10:30 PM
I'm not against making Chapman a starter, and in a vacuum the move would have my full support.

But I do admit to real concern about this move for this ballclub this season.

I look at this lineup and see, finally, the lefty righty balance the team has lacked. Better OBP. The removal of all the Stubbs Ks. Other than CF defense, I see a ballclub that really seems top notch.

So now, we take a key element out of the late inning bullpen. We leave Brox and Marshall as the two main late inning guys. There's even a chance Hoover won't be in the pen, which IMO compounds the problem - he has late inning stuff.

I said last year that I thought the Reds bullpen was overrated in the sense that, remove Chappy's numbers, suddenly the group doesn't appear so special. Now the Reds are actually going to do that, and I think it could have a huge impact.

The other concern is how much we can expect from Aroldis as a starter in the year of this switch. Yes, for the long term it may bear fruit, but I hate potentially to have the pitching fall back for this season which is so very promising.

Part of my view is that I really wasn't dazzled by Brox last year. He didn't seem to be comfortable pitching multiple games in a row and at time seemed hittable (which Chapman was not). Jonathan can help solve my concern with a lights out season. Hoover can help solve my concern as well if he pitches in the late innings and does well.

I see this as a very tough call for the Reds. I'm not really against it, I'm just holding my breath.

Those are all valid concerns, but they are also removing 179 innings of Mike Leake's 4.58 ERA from the starting rotation, which should help to improve the rotation's overall stats and increase the average size of the lead the rotation hands off to the bullpen to preserve.

The Reds have decided to have one of their best pitchers pitch more innings and have their weakest pitcher throw fewer innings.

Upgrading the rotation means the bullpen will have more leads to protect and those leads are going to be bigger and easier to protect. So removing the Missile from the bullpen and putting him into the rotation actually makes the bullpen's job easier in some ways.

Kc61
02-17-2013, 10:53 PM
Those are all valid concerns, but they are also removing 179 innings of Mike Leake's 4.58 ERA from the starting rotation, which should help to improve the rotation's overall stats and increase the average size of the lead the rotation hands off to the bullpen to preserve.

The Reds have decided to have one of their best pitchers pitch more innings and have their weakest pitcher throw fewer innings.

Upgrading the rotation means the bullpen will have more leads to protect and those leads are going to be bigger and easier to protect. So removing the Missile from the bullpen and putting him into the rotation actually makes the bullpen's job easier in some ways.

I understand the benefits. To me, there are three reasons to make Chapman a starter.

1. If he becomes a true TOR starter, Chapman's value to the team is maximized.

2. Some relievers have short careers, particularly hard throwers who are heavily used. Don't want that to happen to Chappy.

3. Leake had an off year in 2012 and Chapman might upgrade Leake's spot or possibly a different starter's spot and very soon.

I also understand that you can't wait forever to make the move.

Having said all that, I disagree with those who think it is an obvious decision. I think it's a tough call for the reasons I gave previously.

REDREAD
02-18-2013, 02:20 AM
Signing Broxton for 3 years really wasn't one of the smartest things ever done to begin with....

Disagree.
Sure, Broxton got a nice payday, but really the only alternative would've been to trade prospects for another closer if you wanted the option of Chapman to start.

I know there's a school of thought that says "you can always find waiver wire fodder and turn it into a good closer" (not saying this is your stand jojo, I don't know).. but when you look at the history, for every Jeff Shaw, there's probably 10 mediocre closers.

A strong bullpen is extremely important towards advancing in the postseason. The Braves of the 90's never realized that. Walt does realize it.

The Reds had the money to give Broxton. I guess I don't see what the opportunity cost was or will be? Broxton is getting 7 million/year.. Maybe we could've traded some prospects and got a guy that would've saved maybe 10 million over the next 3 years, but that comes at a cost as well.

I think Dusty is hedging his bets on Chapman starting, so that if Chapman can't do it, the fanbase won't turn on Chapman. Dusty does a darn good job protecting his players. He can even fool most internet message boards. Dusty doesn't care if people call him an idiot when he protects his guys.

Raisor
02-18-2013, 09:54 AM
I think Dusty has made it clear he wants Chapman in the bullpen. That's where he is going to wind up.

I think it's a mistake, I think it hurts the team in both the long term and the short term. That being said, Chapman is going to be money in whatever roll they put him in.

It's like owning a high performance car, being in Germany, and NOT driving on the autobahn. Sure, it's still a high performance car. Sure it's still going to be fun to drive, but you're not getting everything you can out of it.

joshua
02-18-2013, 10:20 AM
Keeping him in the bullpen would make it easier to extend him though...so there's that. If the Reds have their own Mariano Rivera for the next few years, I wouldn't be too torn up about it. We have plenty of starting pitching coming up anyways. This is a situation where the Reds really can't lose. I like those types of situations.

They could have a press conference tomorrow saying Chapman will only be used for throwing t-shirts into the stands at 100 MPH during the 7th inning stretch for all I care. That's still better than going into spring training with Eric Milton holding down he #1 slot in the rotation.

dougdirt
02-18-2013, 11:46 AM
[QUOTE=joshua;2805538]Keeping him in the bullpen would make it easier to extend him though...so there's that./QUOTE]

Maybe not though. Chapman has long stated he wants to start. Why would he re-sign with a team who won't give him that chance if someone else would be willing to give him that chance?

_Sir_Charles_
02-18-2013, 11:54 AM
Maybe not though. Chapman has long stated he wants to start. Why would he re-sign with a team who won't give him that chance if someone else would be willing to give him that chance?

While this has been true in the past, that recent quote from Aroldis makes it sound like he prefers closing now to starting. (I'll try to find that quote)

~edit~ Found it.


If Chapman has any misgivings or second thoughts about the move, he’s in no mood to share them. But when asked which role he would prefer if given a choice -- closer or starter -- he provided some telling insight into his frame of mind.

“If you have to choose, you choose what you’ve been successful with," he said through his interpreter. “I haven’t started in the big leagues. As a closer, it was great. If you have to choose, you choose where you’ve been great."

Lest someone think that Chapman is quietly resistant to changing job descriptions, Vera quickly set the record straight.

“You have to understand Chapman," Vera said. “He’s going to do what they tell him to do. If they tell him tomorrow to go out and take fly balls in center field, he’s going to do it. He doesn’t question. He’s a soldier. He just works. He doesn’t create controversy, because he doesn’t think that’s going to take him anywhere."

Blitz Dorsey
02-18-2013, 12:28 PM
Chapman sounds like he loves money. Who doesn't, right? But Chapman sounds like a guy who REALLY loves money.

If he's on the fence about whether he wants to be a starter or not, someone needs to get in his ear (preferably someone who speaks Spanish) and inform him that he'll make a lot more $$ as a starter than a reliever in this biz. Not that closers are poor, but top-line starters are paid a hell of a lot more than top-line closers.

Just food for thought for when he looks into purchasing his next Lamborghini.

dougdirt
02-18-2013, 12:30 PM
Chapman sounds like he loves money. Who doesn't, right? But Chapman sounds like a guy who REALLY loves money.

If he's on the fence about whether he wants to be a starter or not, someone needs to get in his ear (preferably someone who speaks Spanish) and inform him that he'll make a lot more $$ as a starter than a reliever in this biz. Not that closers are poor, but top-line starters are paid a hell of a lot more than top-line closers.

Just food for thought for when he looks into purchasing his next Lamborghini.

Pretty much. I mean top shelf closers get what, 10-12 a year? Top shelf starters are getting 20-27 a year.

Blitz Dorsey
02-18-2013, 12:32 PM
Pretty much. I mean top shelf closers get what, 10-12 a year? Top shelf starters are getting 20-27 a year.

Even mediocre starters (I'm looking at you, Edwin Jackson) get $13 mil per year for four years. OK, Jackson is better than "mediocre" ... but not by much.

Unassisted
02-18-2013, 07:15 PM
Chapman sounds like he loves money. Who doesn't, right? But Chapman sounds like a guy who REALLY loves money.

If he's on the fence about whether he wants to be a starter or not, someone needs to get in his ear (preferably someone who speaks Spanish) and inform him that he'll make a lot more $$ as a starter than a reliever in this biz.The magazine article makes him sound like a guy who doesn't think much of long-term implications. Thus, what likely matters most to him is that in 2013, he'll get paid the same money no matter what pitching role he takes for the Reds. So from his perspective, he might as well take the role in which he already knows he can succeed.

Vottomatic
02-19-2013, 10:49 AM
The reason I know Chapman will succeed as a starter is because Dusty thinks it's a bad idea. :p

OnBaseMachine
02-19-2013, 05:53 PM
Sounds like Chapman's changeup was impressive today. From Mark Sheldon:


Later on another field was the latest reminder that Chapman can a force of nature. After a couple of warm-up pitches, Chapman fired a changeup to catcher Miguel Olivo, who could be heard muttering “damn” to himself. Yes, I said Chapman “fired” a changeup because even that had some heat. No one made any real hard contact against him during the session.

Needing to have more than a fastball to make a successful transition to the rotation, it appears Chapman has expanded his bag of tricks. Besides the fastball and changeup, he had a slider, a two-seam fastball and also showed a split-fingered fastball. If he gets that pitch honed, he could be very tough as a starter.


http://marksheldon.mlblogs.com/2013/02/19/cueto-chapman-in-live-bp/

wheels
02-19-2013, 06:14 PM
If Chapman can work a decent change and splitter into his mix, he's going to be insanely good.

I really hope he makes it as a starter. I wanna see what other cool stuff that guy can do on the mound.

Superdude
02-19-2013, 06:33 PM
If Chapman can work a decent change and splitter into his mix, he's going to be insanely good.

I really hope he makes it as a starter. I wanna see what other cool stuff that guy can do on the mound.

Not sure what to gather from Miguel Olivo muttering to himself, but interesting to hear change AND split. I figured he might just have a splitter-type changeup, but I guess it is two different pitches if this report is reliable.

Roy Tucker
02-20-2013, 02:23 PM
Listenning to Sportstalk a few nights back, Lance was talking to Bryan Price. Price said Chapman had actually regressed as a pitcher because he threw nothing but heat as a reliever. Price sounded like he thinks the sky is the limit for Chapman. Price is a very articulate and intelligent guy. The one thing he was closed mouth about was "the plan" for Chapman in 2013.

_Sir_Charles_
02-20-2013, 04:27 PM
Sounds like Chapman's changeup was impressive today. From Mark Sheldon:



http://marksheldon.mlblogs.com/2013/02/19/cueto-chapman-in-live-bp/

They also posted video of his session and while he types that nobody made solid contact...the last swing in the video is definitely solid contact. You can't tell where it goes...but it goes a long way.

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2013/02/19/this-just-in-chapmans-got-good-stuff/

Superdude
02-20-2013, 05:01 PM
Listenning to Sportstalk a few nights back, Lance was talking to Bryan Price. Price said Chapman had actually regressed as a pitcher because he threw nothing but heat as a reliever. Price sounded like he thinks the sky is the limit for Chapman. Price is a very articulate and intelligent guy. The one thing he was closed mouth about was "the plan" for Chapman in 2013.

That's why I'm kind of worried about the "bullpen to start the season" plan. You have to think he'll be going right back to bludgeoning hitters to death with fastballs in that role. I don't know how else they would do it, but I hate the fact that he'll be practically starting at square one again in May.