Originally Posted by cincrazy
I'm not nearly as optimistic about the "Chapman to the rotation" move as many on here are. I don't dislike the idea of having Broxton. But I dislike the idea of paying Broxton closer money and locking him into a closer's role. What if Chapman flops as a starter? I'd want him closing. And Broxton would be an especially pricey 8th inning guy. I would rather keep Chapman at closer and look for a starter via other means.
Yeah. I'm kinda of concerned about tinkering with the pitching. I mean, we had four starters with sub-4.00 e.r.a.'s. We had one of the top bullpens in all of baseball even with Madson, Masset, and Bray going down with injuries.
If the goal is to upgrade for Leake, why not find a team that is interested in obtaining young pitching under control and unloading a quality but pricey veteran, such as Shields? I know the Rays seriously coveted Mez last season and the Reds weren't willing to deal. Why not Leake, Mez, and a middling prospect for Shields? Then keep Chappy at Closer, sign Broxton, and try and get Madson back on an incentive deal. The bullpen remains stout, possibly better, and the rotation is improved after already being pretty studly to begin with.
The biggest problem is overall payroll. I get that.
I just worry that Chapman in the rotation isn't going to work out. And then the experiment will have seriously messed up everyone's roles, including some guys getting traded away.