Originally Posted by mth123
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.
I think you have to qualify this reasoning with "as the roster stands today." This is a piece of the puzzle being placed if the Reds are going to win in 2012.
Of course, every one wants certainty. Some teams get to buy into increased certainty, but still come up short more often than not. Other teams, like the Reds can only afford to have a few "sure things" and have to rely on question marks being gold rather than pyrite. A fan of the Reds type of org. is going to be a lot less frustrated if they accept that as a given rather than a choice the Reds ownership and management make for some unknown reason, or to simply line their pockets, or simply exhibiting incompetence.