Originally Posted by 757690
If Chapman is a gigantic question mark as a starter, then is also is a gigantic question mark as a closer. He hasn't done either in his MLB career, and his results as a reliever were surely mixed at best.
If he's going to be a question mark, then why not have him be a question mark at a much more valuable position, in case he succeeds? And if he fails as a starter, it will be easy to move him back to the pen. Stretching him out to start is about as easy a no brainer as possible.
I don't get that thinking. I want more certainty pitching the larger number of innings. He likely pushes Bailey or Leake out of the rotation or causes the Reds to pass on help from the outside. Each of those options is likely to be a better starter than Chapman in 2012.
Why would I want to replace those guys with a question mark. I'd be all for upgrading to a more proven guy, but I'd prefer the Reds be less dependent on question marks. He's been decent as a reliever. I don't really think he's a question mark in the bullpen. He may not prove to be a closer, but flip flop him with another reliever and move on. If he flops in the rotation, who replaces him? Traviis Wood? Matt Maloney? I don't see the Reds keeping Bailey around as a long reliever.