Chapman to Arizona Fall League

[757690]

Originally Posted by mth123

I don't get that thinking. I want more certainty pitching the larger number of innings. He likely pushes Bailey or Leake out of the rotation or causes the Reds to pass on help from the outside. Each of those options is likely to be a better starter than Chapman in 2012.

Why would I want to replace those guys with a question mark. I'd be all for upgrading to a more proven guy, but I'd prefer the Reds be less dependent on question marks. He's been decent as a reliever. I don't really think he's a question mark in the bullpen. He may not prove to be a closer, but flip flop him with another reliever and move on. If he flops in the rotation, who replaces him? Traviis Wood? Matt Maloney? I don't see the Reds keeping Bailey around as a long reliever.

Why go into next season with just 5 starters? You can never have enough starting pitching, so I see no reason why the Reds would have to bump someone just because they are stretching out Chapman.

Stretch him out, bring Cueto, Leake, Arroyo, Bailey, Wood, Maloney, LeCure, a new acquisition or two, and Chapman into camp and have them compete for the five spots. Most likely, injuries will decide whose in the rotation at the start of the season. And if Chapman isn't one of them, move him back to the pen.

If the Reds have too many good guys for the 5 spots, how horrible!

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by mth123

I don't get that thinking. I want more certainty pitching the larger number of innings. He likely pushes Bailey or Leake out of the rotation or causes the Reds to pass on help from the outside. Each of those options is likely to be a better starter than Chapman in 2012.

Why would I want to replace those guys with a question mark. I'd be all for upgrading to a more proven guy, but I'd prefer the Reds be less dependent on question marks. He's been decent as a reliever. I don't really think he's a question mark in the bullpen. He may not prove to be a closer, but flip flop him with another reliever and move on. If he flops in the rotation, who replaces him? Traviis Wood? Matt Maloney? I don't see the Reds keeping Bailey around as a long reliever.

I think you have to qualify this reasoning with "as the roster stands today." This is a piece of the puzzle being placed if the Reds are going to win in 2012.

Of course, every one wants certainty. Some teams get to buy into increased certainty, but still come up short more often than not. Other teams, like the Reds can only afford to have a few "sure things" and have to rely on question marks being gold rather than pyrite. A fan of the Reds type of org. is going to be a lot less frustrated if they accept that as a given rather than a choice the Reds ownership and management make for some unknown reason, or to simply line their pockets, or simply exhibiting incompetence.

[wlf WV]

Originally Posted by traderumor

I think you have to qualify this reasoning with "as the roster stands today." This is a piece of the puzzle being placed if the Reds are going to win in 2012.

Of course, every one wants certainty. Some teams get to buy into increased certainty, but still come up short more often than not. Other teams, like the Reds can only afford to have a few "sure things" and have to rely on question marks being gold rather than pyrite. A fan of the Reds type of org. is going to be a lot less frustrated if they accept that as a given rather than a choice the Reds ownership and management make for some unknown reason, or to simply line their pockets, or simply exhibiting incompetence.

And this is one of the reasons the sport has fallen in popularity.

[marcshoe]

I could be completely wrong about this, but...

I think there was some reevaluation in the organization this year because of the disappointing season. I think that there's a good chance that Dusty has been put on notice about a few things, and that Walt will likely tweak the way the club is run a little. I'm seeing evidence of it in moves such as this. What I'm trying to say, though, is that I honestly believe that Arroyo may not be as assured of a no-matter-what spot in the rotation from April through October as he has been.

This may be wishful thinking on my part, but even if it isn't, I think Chapman's value lies in the rotation and that this shouldn't hinder Bailey's development. We'll see.

[Blitz Dorsey]

This is epic win for all of humanity!

(I mean, I like this idea.)

[I(heart)Freel]

Originally Posted by mth123

Because when he went south in early June, Travis Wood came up and pitched like a TOR starter. Counting on something like that again?

Leake had an ERA under 3.5 until early August and under 4 til last few starts in mid to late August.

http://redsnetlive.wordpress.com/201...ke-leake-2010/

But to your point, if the Reds are in it and Chapman is hitting a wall, then that's when the trade deadline could net you a playoff arm too.

The timing isn't bad for this strategy.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by mth123

The problem is that Arroyo, Cueto and Leake are going to be in. The team needs a stabilizer from outside to take up one spot, so putting Chapman in the rotation means giving up on Homer Bailey. I'm not really sure that is that much of an upgrade down the road and its a downgrade in 2012 while weakening the bullpen. Worse, the team may just pass on bringing somebody in. If so, kiss any 2012 play-off dreams goodbye.

Why do you say this? If there's anybody we're going to be "giving up on" it would be Volquez IMO. I fully expect to see him either in L'ville or traded by the beginning of next season. Homer's in the rotation.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Will M

i agree here. let Chapman close in 2012. then go get the best starter we can. likely Shields or Wandy. the other 4 starters are Cueto, Leake, Bailey & Arroyo. the Reds are not going to eat the money owed to Arroyo so he is in as the 5th starter. so moving Chapman to the rotation doesn't give us a strong starter that we need. it just gives us a question mark. it also means that the Reds go spend money on a 'closer'.
would you rather have:
a) Chapman in the rotation & Cordero as closer
b) Wandy/Shields in the rotation and Chapman as closer

thats an easy decision for me. the 2nd choice gives us a clear rotation upgrade over the 2011 Volquez/Willis slot and gives us a strong closer.

option c) some joe schmoe bargain bin starter in the rotation and Chapman as closer.

Or even worse, option d) Some joe schmoe bargain bin starter in the rotation, Cordero as closer and Chapman still as a middle reliever.

At the end of the day, I still think it'll end up being option A. But the rest of the rotation is NOT a lock. Trades change that up possibly.

[IslandRed]

It was fine with me when they moved him to the bullpen in 2010. From the reports we were reading, it seemed as if he needed the discipline of coming to the ballpark every day knowing he might need to pitch. In 2011, I'm not so sure leaving him in the bullpen was the best course of action, but we had rotation depth (at least at the time) and were coming off a division title, so short-term thinking won out.

But since the Reds can't afford to win bidding wars for top-shelf free-agent starters, if they have a guy on hand who offers the potential to be that guy, they're pretty much duty-bound to try it at some point. This seems like a feasible point. Uncertainty is part of the deal, which is why they'll need depth. But really, a team hardly ever gets through a season with the five original starters healthy and effective, so that's just what I'd consider normal contingency planning.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Why do you say this? If there's anybody we're going to be "giving up on" it would be Volquez IMO. I fully expect to see him either in L'ville or traded by the beginning of next season. Homer's in the rotation.

If the Reds bring in a starter from outside, and have Chapman filling the fifth starter spot, how is there room for Bailey? Cueto, Leake and Arroyo will fill the other spots. One question mark with high upside in the rotation is reasonable, so if that's Chapman, Bailey and Volquez are odd men out and I don't see either being suited for the bullpen.

BTW, I fully expect Chapman to be a batting tee for about 200 innings or so while he learns to work his way through a line-up multiple times. That would put him on track to become what we all hope for the 2014 season (after Votto is gone and trying to win becomes a taller task). At that point, he'll be arb eligible, the remainder of his contract will convert to a signing bonus and hopefully the Reds can get 2 decent seasons out of him (but they won't be cheap) before he bolts to the Yankees or Red Sox for the big pay day.

No question moving Chapman to the rotation is the best thing for his career. I just suspect it won't be the best thing to help the Reds win while he's still here.

[757690]

Originally Posted by mth123

If the Reds bring in a starter from outside, and have Chapman filling the fifth starter spot, how is there room for Bailey? Cueto, Leake and Arroyo will fill the other spots. One question mark with high upside in the rotation is reasonable, so if that's Chapman, Bailey and Volquez are odd men out and I don't see either being suited for the bullpen.

BTW, I fully expect Chapman to be a batting tee for about 200 innings or so while he learns to work his way through a line-up multiple times. That would put him on track to become what we all hope for the 2014 season (after Votto is gone and trying to win becomes a taller task). At that point, he'll be arb eligible, the remainder of his contract will convert to a signing bonus and hopefully the Reds can get 2 decent seasons out of him (but they won't be cheap) before he bolts to the Yankees or Red Sox for the big pay day.

No question moving Chapman to the rotation is the best thing for his career. I just suspect it won't be the best thing to help the Reds win while he's still here.

Chapman was a starter up until mid 2010. He has significantly more experience starting than relieving. If anything, it would take him longer to get used to pitching everyday than it would for him to get used to pitching a complete game.

As for Bailey and Volquez, why is it bad to have too many options at starting pitching going into spring training?

[mth123]

Originally Posted by 757690

Chapman was a starter up until mid 2010. He has significantly more experience starting than relieving. If anything, it would take him longer to get used to pitching everyday than it would for him to get used to pitching a complete game.

As for Bailey and Volquez, why is it bad to have too many options at starting pitching going into spring training?

So far, against Major League hitters, he's been pretty good when he comes in and gives it all he's got for about 15 to 20 pitches. When he's not throwing 100 MPH, he gets hit. As a starter, he won't be working in that range. He'll probably be throwing 95 to 97 and when he does that now he gets hit hard. He wasn't even a good starter in AAA. Its going to take him a while to have the type of pitch selection that can fool major league hitters twice through a line-up (let alone 3 times). Add that he's never topped 120 innings in a season and he's not ready for the workload.

As for Bailey and Volquez, its not bad to have more than 5 starters, but if Chapman is in the rotation, those guys won't be good options for relief IMO. I think it takes them too long to warm up and Volquez control and first inning woes will make him useless. I don't see Bailey being on the team if he's not in the rotation. The 2012 Reds are a better team with Bailey in that 5th starter spot and Chapman in the bullpen and I could care less about the Reds grooming Chapman just for some other team to get the benfits when he blows town. He's a weapon as is that can help them win. I think he'll be a negative in the rotation.

[757690]

Originally Posted by mth123

So far, against Major League hitters, he's been pretty good when he comes in and gives it all he's got for about 15 to 20 pitches. When he's not throwing 100 MPH, he gets hit. As a starter, he won't be working in that range. He'll probably be throwing 95 to 97 and when he does that now he gets hit hard. He wasn't even a good starter in AAA. Its going to take him a while to have the type of pitch selection that can fool major league hitters twice through a line-up (let alone 3 times). Add that he's never topped 120 innings in a season and he's not ready for the workload.

As for Bailey and Volquez, its not bad to have more than 5 starters, but if Chapman is in the rotation, those guys won't be good options for relief IMO. I think it takes them too long to warm up and Volquez control and first inning woes will make him useless. I don't see Bailey being on the team if he's not in the rotation. The 2012 Reds are a better team with Bailey in that 5th starter spot and Chapman in the bullpen and I could care less about the Reds grooming Chapman just for some other team to get the benfits when he blows town. He's a weapon as is that can help them win. I think he'll be a negative in the rotation.

Chapman has not been hit hard yet in his time in the majors. His problem has been his control, for a one week period in May. Other than that four game bout of wildness, he was dominant last season. Including that week, he held batters to this slashline:

.147/.325/.209/.534

If the Reds stretch him out and have him compete for the starting job in spring training, there is no downside. First, chance are, between Cueto, Leake, Arroyo, Bailey, Volquez, Wood, Champan and anyone new brought in, only 5 will be healthy when the season starts. Remember last season when the Reds had "too many" starters in spring, only to start Chad Reineke in May?

But even if everyone is healthy, if Chapman isn't ready to start, they either send him to the minors or the pen. If he is, and he beats out Bailey and Volquez, then you trade Bailey and Volquez. Now, that only happens if they aren't good enough to win a spot in the rotation, so who cares?

If you don't stretch out Chapman, then all he can do is relieve, which means you are stuck with Bailey or Volquez, even if they aren't very good.

Stretching out Chapman is simply about creating more options, and if he isn't ready to start, it's no great loss.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by 757690

Chapman has not been hit hard yet in his time in the majors. His problem has been his control, for a one week period in May. Other than that four game bout of wildness, he was dominant last season. Including that week, he held batters to this slashline:

.147/.325/.209/.534

If the Reds stretch him out and have him compete for the starting job in spring training, there is no downside. First, chance are, between Cueto, Leake, Arroyo, Bailey, Volquez, Wood, Champan and anyone new brought in, only 5 will be healthy when the season starts. Remember last season when the Reds had "too many" starters in spring, only to start Chad Reineke in May?

But even if everyone is healthy, if Chapman isn't ready to start, they either send him to the minors or the pen. If he is, and he beats out Bailey and Volquez, then you trade Bailey and Volquez. Now, that only happens if they aren't good enough to win a spot in the rotation, so who cares?

If you don't stretch out Chapman, then all he can do is relieve, which means you are stuck with Bailey or Volquez, even if they aren't very good.

Stretching out Chapman is simply about creating more options, and if he isn't ready to start, it's no great loss.

Stretching him out is fine. Penciling him in is not. They aren't going to know based on spring training whether he should beat out Bailey for the last spot. So they either give it to him or not. If they wait until Spring and then decide, they'll probably have to give Bailey away. They should have stretched Chapman out in Mid August and gave him 5 or 6 starts at the end of the year against Major League hitters with a deep bullpen from expanded rosters backing him if they were trying to make a judgement. Seems to me they aren't going to have any more information than they do right now whether or not Chapman can handle starting until they put him in the rotation. I think the idea that Chapman is being stretched out to start means the decision has already been made. I think a bullpen sans Chapman is weaker than one wiith him, I think a rotation with Chapman in the 5th spot over Bailey is weaker than one with Bailey instead and, finally, if they pass on bringing some one in and have both Chapman and Bailey in the rotation, its akin to punting 2012. I suspect that final option is the option we'll see and its not enough to address this team's issues.

[IslandRed]

Originally Posted by mth123

I think a rotation with Chapman in the 5th spot over Bailey is weaker than one with Bailey instead

Well, yeah, I guess the whole exercise would seem like a waste of time if you don't think he's going to be any good.