Chapman

[Patrick Bateman]

Duh, sure, the more a pitcher pitches the more likely he'll have an injury. I think that's called common sense. Does that mean that you're afraid of using a guy twice a week for more than one inning?? I really hope not.

I think there is a clear difference between pitching 2 innings at a time, multiple times a week than there is 1 inning at a time, multiple times a week.

There is a reason relief pitchers are used the way they are, and that 2 inning relievers are more the exception, not the rule.

But you don't bother to read or interpret correctly my posts anyways, so I'm not sure why I bother!

[dougdirt]

I don't see this at all.

Here's a pitcher who, as far as I can tell, has one very valuable pitch -- a 100 MPH fastball.

As far as I can tell, his secondary stuff isn't special. He can be effective with the change up, but largely because his fastball is so dominant the differential is great.

As a starter, he won't be able to use that 100 MPH fastball. His best attribute will be taken away, since he'll have to throw many more pitches.

The logic of taking Chapman and putting him where he can't use his best attribute is highly debatable.

I do not think it's a no-brainer to put Chapman in a spot where he can't throw his 100 plus MPH fastball.

Chapman had one of the most valuable sliders in baseball last year. And the year before.

[Crumbley]

Again, why is Aroldis's opinion being considered here? What human being wouldn't ask to stay in a role where he does one thing (throw fastballs) for one inning (the 9th) every couple of days v. actually having to prepare to start every fifth day, developing his secondary offerings, and grow as a pitcher?

It's a role change. It's going to be uncomfortable, it's going to take time, and it's going to take some getting used to.

That his opinion is even being considered is mind-boggling to me.

I want Chapman in the rotation too, but I remember what happened the last time they moved a successful closer to starter when he didn't want to go. Now, Chapman is a million times more talented than Danny Graves, but Graves should have done better in the role. His lack of desire to do it played a role in the miserable failure.

[dougdirt]

I want Chapman in the rotation too, but I remember what happened the last time they moved a successful closer to starter when he didn't want to go. Now, Chapman is a million times more talented than Danny Graves, but Graves should have done better in the role. His lack of desire to do it played a role in the miserable failure.

Do you know that is why, or are you just assuming that is why?

[RollyInRaleigh]

That slider is much more valuable, paired with a 100-105 mph fastball as opposed to a 93 mph fastball. Pinpoint location and the ability to consistently throw it for strikes is way less important.

[757690]

I distinctly remember Paps being very clear what his preference was. Probably an overall similar situation to the Reds last year.

You are correct, but I don't think that played into Boston's decision to move him back to the closer role after they tried him as a starter in spring training. They were fine with him as a starter, but the guys they had closing in spring training were terrible. That was the main reason they moved him back to closer.

[redsfandan]

That's actually what I said. It was an easier move to justify last year because of the bullpen hole. I was not referring to this year's situation. Didn't you read my post?

Gee, maybe I didn't. You tell me. Was there an actual hole in THIS years bullpen that required the Reds to keep Chapman in the bullpen?? I'm curious cuz I DON'T see the hole in the bullpen like there was last year. THAT'S why the justification this year and last year can't be the same. Unless you know something we don't.

Always great to have your inside info Dan.

Again, if you don't think Walt caved then PLEASE tell me why keep Chapman in the bullpen?

[Kc61]

Chapman had one of the most valuable sliders in baseball last year. And the year before.

Interesting phrase, most "valuable" slider. You didn't say one of the best sliders.

You have to look at an Arolidis Chapman without his 100 MPH fastball. The "anti-closer" group has to say, ok, I want to put Aroldis in a spot where he cannot throw that 100 MPH fastball. Then decide.

To me, Aroldis with a 93 MPH fastball is a much more questionable pitcher than Aroldis with a 100 plus MPH fastball. It impacts his fastball. It also impacts a hitter's approach to Chapman. It likely impacts the "value" of all of his pitches.

I think keeping him as a closer is a reasonable decision.

[Caveat Emperor]

OK, I'll bite then -- if this "Aroldis at 93 isn't special, Aroldis at 100 is special" is so obvious, why did the Reds drop a bucket of cash on Broxton instead of going out and using the same money to sign Kyle Lohse?

[Patrick Bateman]

Gee, maybe I didn't. You tell me. Was there an actual hole in THIS years bullpen that required the Reds to keep Chapman in the bullpen?? I'm curious cuz I DON'T see the hole in the bullpen like there was last year. THAT'S why the justification this year and last year can't be the same. Unless you know something we don't.

No, I don't think there was a significant hole in the current year bullpen. Hence, I think it is logical to believe that there might be some reasoning we are not aware of as to why the Reds would move him to the closer's role. I think the obvious choice was to try him at starter. I don't think the Reds and/or Chapman were comfortable with that development for reasons I believe we are not currentl aware of

Again, if you don't think Walt caved then PLEASE tell me why keep Chapman in the bullpen?

Again, I'm suggesting that us, posters on the internet, are not currently aware of an interal organizational choice the Reds have not even publically announced yet.

I hope we find out in the near future.

But I also don't think it is fair or reasonable to simply make up reasoning and present it as fact.

[redsfandan]

Again, I'm not representing that a great reliever is better than a great starter.

I'm representing that a great reliever (maybe best in baseball) is perhaps more valuable than an average starter.

We don't know what Aroldis (especially an unhappy Aroldis is a starter).

We know he has bouts of control problems. We know that he isn't a particularly efficient starter. We know he has never started a game at the major league level. We know that he will throw wiith less velocity as a starter. It adds up to the fact that this guy would probably be on a Strasburg type of plan even if he did start. As a likely World Series contending team, I can see the logic behind not automatically penciling this guy in as a lock down starter, and rather keeping the bird in hand. It's not necessarily the best move, but I also understand there is probably some information that us on this board are not privy to. It's difficult to have a fair discussion on the matter if both sides don't recognize that option, or recognize that Chapman has not proven himself to be a major league starter, let alone, a 200+ inning, domininan rotation member.

WHY wouldn't you want to find out WHAT he COULD be as a starter? Afraid?

[WrongVerb]

Decision not announced anymore than officially than the Vulture's blog at this point. Regardless of the decision, now we can return to finding the answer to world hunger question now that this priority resolution is out of the way.

Are you suggesting that whether Chapman stays in the bullpen or goes to the rotation isn't a matter of life and death? What kind of Reds fan ARE you?

[Crumbley]

Do you know that is why, or are you just assuming that is why?

I'm on the go right now so I can't check for sure, but I have distinct memories of Graves coming in to camp fatter, not a move one makes if they're super psyched about a move that's a lot more physically demanding. It is possible that I'm getting stories confused as that decade just kind of blends together into one nightmare vortex.

[RollyInRaleigh]

Interesting phrase, most "valuable" slider. You didn't say one of the best sliders.

You have to look at an Arolidis Chapman without his 100 MPH fastball. The "anti-closer" group has to say, ok, I want to put Aroldis in a spot where he cannot throw that 100 MPH fastball. Then decide.

To me, Aroldis with a 93 MPH fastball is a much more questionable pitcher than Aroldis with a 100 plus MPH fastball. It impacts his fastball. It also impacts a hitter's approach to Chapman. It likely impacts the "value" of all of his pitches.

I think keeping him as a closer is a reasonable decision.

A hitter's approach is much different for sure. Much more likely to make a starting Chapman prove he can consistently throw the slider for strikes and if he cannot get the slider over, it is much easier for a Major League hitter to sit on a 93 mph fastball than a 100+ fastball.

[Kc61]

OK, I'll bite then -- if this "Aroldis at 93 isn't special, Aroldis at 100 is special" is so obvious, why did the Reds drop a bucket of cash on Broxton instead of going out and using the same money to sign Kyle Lohse?

First off, as I've said all along, the decision to start or relieve with Chapman is a debatable one. The Reds probably didn't decide until this spring.

Secondly, even with Chapman, they liked Broxton as a late inning reliever. You need a few very good relievers.

Third, Jocketty values the bullpen. He's recently made a number of fairly expensive bullpen signings. Madson is an obvious one. He signed Masset for two years. He's signed Ondrusek for two years. He traded for Marshall.

Fourth, the Reds still have high hopes for Leake apparently. He had a good 2011, a bad 2012. But they seem to like him enough and they like their rotation with him. Ergo, no Lohse.

Fifth, Jocketty spends money like a big time baseball exec. As does Castellini. All the gnashing of teeth about spending by the Reds seems to come from message board posters. The guys actually running the team are willing to spend on relievers.