It's very simple: should Aroldis Chapman start?
No strings attached. You're in charge. Do you try to move him to the rotation this year?
It's very simple: should Aroldis Chapman start?
No strings attached. You're in charge. Do you try to move him to the rotation this year?
Go BLUE!!!
I'm fine either way.
I'm ok with either option, which led me to vote to keep him as closer (bird in hand and what not).
I went with starter. Simply because I fully believe that he can be moved back to a closer without much issue if he doesn't quite work as a starter. But you can't really wait any longer to try him as a starter and have him be of value in that role to the Reds, so there really is no "you can try the other option later" if you don't try it now.
If Price sees tangible progress and thinks Chapman's at least capable of being a competent starter next year, then yes he should start. If we're looking at a year of struggles and just hoping to hear the proverbial click at some point, then we're just trashing the best closer in baseball for no good reason.
I'm more of a believer now than I was this time last year. Chapman's still prone to uncork a wild one, but he progressed light years this season in terms of command. If his split-finger is a workable offspeed pitch, I'd be even more convinced.
I said starter. If he fails (I don't think he will be nearly as successful as many here do) then you have a dominant closer again. At the end of a month or so fans can either say I told you so or I told you so. Maximize his potential. If he does succeed (sub 3 era) though, print WS tickets now.
Sidenote- he needs a 3rd pitch. fastball slider combo is nasty, but when hitters see him 3 times a game I imagine it will lose its effectiveness.
I used to be very much in the "starter" group. I'm fine either way now I think. If we do move him to a starter, I start shopping one of the Leake/Corcino/Cingrani trio. Maybe 2 of them.
As for the closer if the change is made...I'm still fine with Marshall in that role. I thought they pulled the plug on him way too early last season IMO.
I think I comfortable leaving it in the hands of the people who gave him $30M.
None of us really know how he will respond as a starter. Presumably the Reds management has a better idea of that.
I can't vote with incomplete information.
Tough to contemplate "you're in charge". Is Broxton in the budget? Do they anticipate having money to get a replacement? What does the landscape look like?Originally Posted by Benihana
I think a great bullpen is very underrated in today's game. Chapman makes the Reds pen great. You also have to factor in the added expense of signing another closer. Are the Reds better with Leake in the rotation, Chapman in the pen, and Ryan Ludwick or Pagan on the team? Or are they better with Chapman in the rotation, Leake gone, and paying $8M for Valverde or Broxton?
That said either way I really don't care.
I'm in the starter camp, but this uncertainty over his role has gotten me thinking in a different direction. At the risk of being hooted down, does anybody think that Chapman might be prime trade material? I say that because 1) as a closer he tended to come and go this year, and as great as he was most of the time you were often never really sure what you'd get, 2) as a starter, there are questions about his control, his repertoire and at least for the short term his endurance, 3) his value ought to be at a very high point, and 4) to me, there are uncertainties about his character/makeup. It's not just the legal stuff, but I sometimes question his focus and enthusiasm. It seems like the Reds have 24 guys who are really into the program, fired-up to do all they can do in the pursuit of a pennant, and then Chapman. If they would indeed get in discussions about the likes of David Wright, I'm not sure that I'd exclude Chapman from those talks. And I'm certainly not sure that the Reds could afford to deal anyone else of that caliber.
I truly agree with the bolded part particularly. And, furthermore, it isn't like the Reds are hurting in the SP department, especially with Corcino and Cingrani in the wings after a year of development.
This is my biggest problem with the Chapman situation. There is no more valuable piece in baseball, especially in a short series in October, than a guy who can take the ball for seven or eight innings and win a game for you. It really should not matter how the back of the bullpen is shaping up or how much depth you have in the rotation IMO. If management believes Chapman can be that guy, then Bill Bray's groin, or Madson's elbow, or Broxton's contract shouldn't get in the way.
I voted to let him start. If he fails at this, he can go back to the pen. Of course this assumes that the Reds sign Jon Broxton or Ryan Madsen or someone else to help the back end of the bullpen.
__________________
"I think we’re starting to get to the point where people are starting to get tired of this stretch of ball,” Votto said. “I think something needs to start changing and start going in a different direction. I’m going to do my part to help make that change.”
Voted let him start but I'm fine with either situation. Just prefer to see him start
Posting Permissions
|
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. |
Reply With Quote