Originally Posted by mth123
I mean because he could truly suck as the 5th starter.
I'm not a big Mike Leake guy, but I think the downside of him as the 5th starter is a lot less bad than a failed Chapman. I could really see Chapman proving to be a guy who just can't successfully make it through a line-up more than once with any regularity and frequently needing to be pulled before the 5th inning. A guy like that tires the pen and starts to impact the rest of the rotation as they are left in too long to compensate. By August, the entire staff could be feeling the effects.
OTOH, I could also see Chapman becoming a true Cy Young caliber number 1 and taking the team to another level which is why I'd make the move, but I'm not naive enough to believe that there is no risk. To me, the stance that there is no risk and the bashing of Dusty and others who are given pause by this risky decision just proves a lack of understanding. There is plenty of risk here and I'd be more concerned with a Manager who doesn't recognize it than I am with one who is showing concern about how this decision may impact his team.
You do realize for him to fail so bad vs. what Leake did last year it would have to be one of the worst starting performances in MLB history, right? If he is a 5 ERA pitcher that would not be much different than Leake was last year. That is one extra run every 3 starts. For it to be a complete disaster to where it destroys the Reds whole season he would need to have an ERA around 8 or 9. Even then, let's say he starts 10 games where the Reds don't win a single one (which is very hard to do, and might require an ERA over 10). That would be about 5 games worse than Leake last year. The Reds still would have won the division by 4 games last year.