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.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
I would almost always prefer 1 or 2 year deals for closers. Including the Cordero deal, you can probably count on one hand the number of eight figure LTC for FA closers that have worked out well in the last several years.
Francisco Rodriguez, Heath Bell and Jose Valverde say hi.
Go BLUE!!!
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.
Put me down for liking this a lot more than guaranteeing money to one of the injured guys (Madson, Soria, Wilson, etc.). Broxton will be in his second season removed from arm surgery and I'd expect improvement from what he was in 2012. I'm also guessing that Broxton is getting an extra year in exchange for a lower salary in 2013. After 2013, the Reds would seem to have a lot more room in the budget. Votto's salary drops back down, Arroyo and Masset come off the books, and the national TV money should kick in to a $20 Million plus increase in revenue. The Reds would seem to be close to maxed out in 2013 with room in later years. I'd guess that will require longer deals, with options with significant buy-outs that serve as little more than a way to defer 2013 money into future seasons, for the Reds to compete for Free Agents under their current payroll situation.
I'd like to see the particulars of the deal, but I like the idea of Broxton as compared to a number of the alternatives that have been linked to the Reds. The end of the deal may not look so good once its revealed, but we need to keep in mind that is likely due to the budget crunch in 2013.
Last edited by mth123; 11-27-2012 at 03:11 AM.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
I'm the same way. I thought he was in his early 30's. This sounds better knowing that. The Reds need to give Chapman a serious look in the rotation. He has the potential to be another Randy Johnson. Worst case scenario is that Chapman fails in the rotation and goes back to being closer where we know he excelled.
Broxton isn't quite the lights out closer Chapman was for most of last season but he's not a bad alternative. I think he will be just fine. There will be a few more "Cordero" like moments from him than we got from Chapman. Also Hoover could get some opportunities to close and grow into that position. Really, I think this signing is a win-win all the way around. These are good days to be a Reds fan.
Reds Fan Since 1971
Cordero $12.5m/year
Chapman $3.5m/year
It's not so much about effectiveness as it is spending a tenth of your payroll (or in Cordero's case, more) on a relatively low-priority position. Cincinnati would be fine without Broxton. Maybe the pen takes a step back, but it's still league average or above. I have full confidence Marshall or Hoover could reach an 85% save rate, and you have $8m to spend on scoring some more runs.
"I never argue with people who say baseball is boring, because baseball is boring. And then, suddenly, it isn't. And that's what makes it great." - Joe Posnanski
That's a fair point, but I think Cordero was something like 4 years, 48 million?
(Or in that ballpark) Cordero was also older and a candidate for a decline.
Broxton is only 28, and really looked great as a Red.
The Reds are going to have to add a reliever in order to move Chapman to the rotation. Even if they wanted Hoover to close, they'd still need to add at least one more reliever. Why not get arguably the best FA reliever available (as opposed to trying to get lucky with a rehab or waiver wire pickup).. I trust Walt will not overpay. He's no dummy and is not going to cripple the team. I think the Reds have more money that we think they do.
In hindsight, Cordero was overpaid but he did a great job stabilizing the bullpen. It's a valid criticism that the Reds went one year (or maybe two years) too long on him.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
I can get on board with this point.
My gripe with Cordero was the money, not the years. And you're right that he was due for a decline, and I'm reading similar stuff on Broxton, with his dipping velocity and K rates. But if they can keep it under something like 3/22, I'll tip my cap and trust it'll work out.
"I never argue with people who say baseball is boring, because baseball is boring. And then, suddenly, it isn't. And that's what makes it great." - Joe Posnanski
The single infallible corollary of baseball, to me, is "You can never have enough good pitching" I'll not fault putting resources into more pitching. Ever. And I believe its easier to adaaddress offense by trade FA or resurgence cheaply than pitching. The Reds need pitching. Chapman may fail? OH MY. Then lets by all means just play it safe and never try and see what Aroldis in the
R rotation might mean. Forget he could succeed because he migjt fail! Heck it is scary but you win thinkng big and taking your shot.
.
I differ with this post because I would give Chapman some time to convert to starting. He has such a great arm, I think it's worth a try, it's an experiment with very high upside.
But I am sympathetic to cincrazy's point.
Brox has a history of elbow and shoulder injury, and he's more hittable than Chappy (who isn't?). I don't view him as a sure thing at closer. Hoover looks like a closer, he can be the backup, but I think Brox is something of a gamble at major dollars.
As is well known around here, I worry about bullpens. The Reds pen has good depth, but without Chapman I worry that they lack the lights out guy. Brox doesn't solve that problem for me.
I guess the thing to do is wait for the off-season to end and see what the staff looks like then. Plenty of time to complain. Maybe they will add still another good bullpen arm in their deals.
Last edited by Kc61; 11-27-2012 at 10:41 AM.
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |