Originally Posted by Kc61
Still, I'm willing to try Chapman as a starter, I've never opposed it, and I don't deny his potential. But the propensity of some posters to assume that a good bullpen will materialize out of the blue is deeply flawed thinking.
The problem is that your point is fundamentally flawed.
When you say "We've seen what happens with weak bullpens.", you're essentially asserting that, without Chapman or without adding a proven closer, our bullpen would be weak. If you didn't believe this to be the case, there'd be no reason for you to say it. It's the core of your argument. And yet, when you actually look at it, this was a very good bullpen even without Chapman.
Every single reliever with more than 20 IP had an ERA under 3.50. That's 7 guys. A whole bullpen's worth of guys who were above average. Sure, they're likely to regress some. I've certainly argued that Ondrusek will. But as a group, they're likely to regress from great to good. Not from great to "weak".
And that ignores that we have Bray and Masset who should be healthy. And it ignores that we have Todd Redmond and Tony Cigrani who could both be positive contributors. This team does not want for quality bullpen arms.
Yes, taking Chapman out of the bullpen makes it weaker, no doubt. But we don't need anything to "materialize" to have a good bullpen without him. Even without Chapman, the players we already have on the 40 man roster comprise a good bullpen.
We shouldn't let fear of the horrible bullpens of years past that we simply assume anything less than having the best bullpen in baseball is a "losing proposition". Heck, just ask the Giants (3.54 ERA, 8th in NL) and the Tigers (3.79 ERA 10th in the AL) if you have to have a lights out pen to win. Or just ask your fellow Reds fans if they would have traded Chapman the closer for Chapman the starter when Johnny Cueto walked off the mound in Game 1 of the NLDS.