Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman
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.
Sounds like classic polarization of an argument to me. PB, I've read most everything you've written in this thread and you, along with Kc61 and a few others, have espoused a generally nuanced argument about why Chapman might be better off in the pen. I appreciate that. I disagree, but I appreciate it.
Also, I just want to bring back this point that traderumor and Kc61 made much earlier on, before Doc's (false) report got us all charged up earlier today:
without Aroldis, is the Reds' rotation really that good? Is it a playoff winning rotation? I think it's a fair question and probably the key issue as the Reds think this through.
I think the answer is "not so much" or "maybe." The Reds have two starters (Cueto, Latos) who could
be top-shelf playoff starters and a third (Bailey) who has flashed the ability in patches. But I say aces like this are the number one asset to have heading to the post-season, and that a team should stop at nothing to find out whether they have one or not.
Is there a guarantee that Chapman is this kind of starter? No way. But he shows all the signs you look for.