Originally Posted by Kc61
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?