Originally Posted by RedEye
I don't know how many times I've read the phrase "There's no guarantee that Chapman will be a dominant starter" in the reasoning of posters (not you). To me, that sounds like, word-for-word, a demand for a guarantee.
It's actually been the other way around. Many proponents for starter have failed to recognize that the successful transition is not a guarantee. That's what that is in reference too. I actually have not seen one proponent of chapman for relief in this thread. The other side I would characterize as being open to that idea if there was information that suggested to the reds front office that te transition was likely not to succeed. That viewpoint has been consistently misrepresented throughout the thread.