Free Agents Frenzy Starts here

[PuffyPig]

The Reds should make the qualyfing offers to keep Madson and Broxton. If they refuse the $13.3 Million qualifying offers the Reds would receive compensation first round picks. If both or one of the players accept the $13.3 Million then the Reds could either keep them or trade them. Bray and other players could be non tendered if necessary.

You think you could trade Broxton or Madson if they had contracts at $13.3M?

I don't think there would be any chance.

And we sure couldn't afford to keep them.

And you can't make qualifying offers to players you obtained during the year, so Broxton would be out anyway.

[M2]

What is Melky Cabrera expected to bring? People act like he has to take a one year contract to rebuild his cache with baseball. I doubt he would take a whopping outlay of cash.

I was thinking the same thing.

[REDREAD]

It would make no sense for the Reds not to try to resign Madson because he wants to close just to turn around and sign a far worse closer like Valverde.

I think there's zero chance of the Reds signing Valverde.
It just makes more sense to overpay for Broxton, if need be.
I don't see it happening.. Walt's too smart to make a FA signing like that.

[REDREAD]

The Reds should make the qualyfing offers to keep Madson and Broxton. If they refuse the $13.3 Million qualifying offers the Reds would receive compensation first round picks..

I think Broxton would quickly accept that offer..which would kill our budget for LF and CF.. It's way too risky to offer Broxton that kind of money. The upside of a potential extra draft pick isn't worth scuttling the 2013 season for.

If it was still "the old rules" system, I would offer Brox arbitration.

Edit.. Also, since Brox was acquired midseason, I think he's ineligible for comp picks, even if the Reds offered him 13.3 million.. maybe someone else can verify this? I think they made that rule to prevent teams from trading for guys and getting draft picks out of them.

[Gallen5862]

That is correct about Broxton. Madson would be worth trying to make a qualifying article to Madson. If he declined the Reds get the pick. If Madson accepts you have kept part of the bullpen in tact.

[thatcoolguy_22]

WJ would be crazy to offer Madson a qualifying offer. He would accept. I know he is probably looking for a multiyear deal now, but how much can he get coming off TJ? Nathan got 3/21 (?) and thats the closest I can think of a similar situation. Madson would take his 13 mill this year and following his "bare with me guys as I work through the kinks, its my first year after TJ surgery season," to beat his comparable contract he would have to accept at least 2/9M deal.

Madson will accept the qualifying offer faster than the average drew stubbs at bat.

[PuffyPig]

That is correct about Broxton. Madson would be worth trying to make a qualifying article to Madson. If he declined the Reds get the pick. If Madson accepts you have kept part of the bullpen in tact.

No chance of them taking a risk that is certain to be accepted, IMO.

He didn't get $13.3M last year, coming off a superb season.

[PuffyPig]

I think Broxton would quickly accept that offer..which would kill our budget for LF and CF.. It's way too risky to offer Broxton that kind of money. The upside of a potential extra draft pick isn't worth scuttling the 2013 season for.

If it was still "the old rules" system, I would offer Brox arbitration.

Edit.. Also, since Brox was acquired midseason, I think he's ineligible for comp picks, even if the Reds offered him 13.3 million.. maybe someone else can verify this? I think they made that rule to prevent teams from trading for guys and getting draft picks out of them.

I believe I answered your question about 3-4 posts above yours.

[Kc61]

While I wouldn't mind it if Chapman started next year, removing him from the closer spot is dicey.

I would not overpay Broxton or Madson to be the Reds closer. Broxton is spotty and has trouble working multiple days. Madson is coming off injury.

Broxton is worth having for set up money.

Madson is worth having on a two-year contract that locks him up when he is healthy. Or a discounted one-year contract as a set up man.

The problem with Chapman as a starter is that fans start to come up with inadequate closer alternatives for 2013. We saw a shut down closer last year and I'd like one in 2013.

[RedsManRick]

While I wouldn't mind it if Chapman started next year, removing him from the closer spot is dicey.

I would not overpay Broxton or Madson to be the Reds closer. Broxton is spotty and has trouble working multiple days. Madson is coming off injury.

Broxton is worth having for set up money.

Madson is worth having on a two-year contract that locks him up when he is healthy. Or a discounted one-year contract as a set up man.

The problem with Chapman as a starter is that fans start to come up with inadequate closer alternatives for 2013. We saw a shut down closer last year and I'd like one in 2013.

Or we just disagree strongly with your notion of "adequate closer". I don't think you need a 1.50 ERA and 15 K/9 to convert 90%+ of your save chances. In fact, Chapman's 38/43 (88%) placed him 15th in MLB behind the likes of dominant closers Brett Myer, Chris Perez and Frank Francisco. Dominant as he was, how many more games would we have won or lost with Chris Perez or Tom Wilhelmson? Who thought Fernando Rodney and Jim Johnson would have two of the great closer seasons of all time?

Point being, as awesome as Chapman was last year, and has awesome, throwing 70 great innings is nowhere close to as hard nor as valuable as 2-3 times that. And the downgrade from from 70 great innings to 70 just pretty good ones, especially when you consider how many of them are not really high leverage, simply isn't all that big in terms of wins and losses.

Or put differently, if Chapman threw even 150 innings of 3.50 ERA baseball, nobody would be clamoring to put him in the closer role. And when you consider that he's got as good a chance of throwing 200 innings of 2.50 ERA as virtually anybody who hasn't done it yet, it strikes me as as a no-brainer unless you have inside knowledge of injury risk or inability to be effective for more than 2 innings at a time.

[Kc61]

Or we just disagree strongly with your notion of "adequate closer". I don't think you need a 1.50 ERA and 15 K/9 to convert 90%+ of your save chances. In fact, Chapman's 38/43 (88%) placed him 15th in MLB behind the likes of dominant closers Brett Myer, Chris Perez and Frank Francisco. Dominant as he was, how many more games would we have won or lost with Chris Perez or Tom Wilhelmson? Who thought Fernando Rodney and Jim Johnson would have two of the great closer seasons of all time?

Point being, as awesome as Chapman was last year, and has awesome, throwing 70 great innings is nowhere close to as hard nor as valuable as 2-3 times that. And the downgrade from from 70 great innings to 70 just pretty good ones, especially when you consider how many of them are not really high leverage, simply isn't all that big in terms of wins and losses.

Or put differently, if Chapman threw even 150 innings of 3.50 ERA baseball, nobody would be clamoring to put him in the closer role. And when you consider that he's got as good a chance of throwing 200 innings of 2.50 ERA as virtually anybody who hasn't done it yet, it strikes me as as a no-brainer unless you have inside knowledge of injury risk or inability to be effective for more than 2 innings at a time.

Just misses the point entirely. Classic straw man argument.

I didn't say that a closer has to have a great strikeout ratio, or a great ERA, or great velocity, or any particular makeup.

I did say, and I do maintain, that a closer has to be consistently effective in the ninth inning.

We've seen what happens with weak bullpens. It is demoralizing to a team. Blowing leads can tear a ballclub apart. And I believe, strongly, that having a consistently effective closer is very, very, very important.

I have no inside knowledge of Chapman's makeup, but neither do you. I do know that his velocity in single inning appearances does not necessarily translate into an effective seven inning pitcher.

Still, I'm willing to try Chapman as a starter, I've never opposed it, and I don't deny his potential. But the propensity of some posters to assume that a good bullpen will materialize out of the blue is deeply flawed thinking.

I agree that a top notch starter is worth more than a top notch closer. But an experiment at starter with no proven closer is a recipe for disaster.

The Reds have two viable choices. One, to keep Chapman as closer. Two, to put him in the rotation but replace him with an effective, proven, and healthy closer.

The choice of making Chapman a starter and ignoring the bullpen, or assuming the pen will take care of itself, is not viable. It is a losing proposition.

This is a team, it has to cover the early innings AND the late ones. Whatever the benefits of Chapman as a starter, it will ultimately be meaningless if you can't close out the games.

[RedsManRick]

Still, I'm willing to try Chapman as a starter, I've never opposed it, and I don't deny his potential. But the propensity of some posters to assume that a good bullpen will materialize out of the blue is deeply flawed thinking.

The problem is that your point is fundamentally flawed.

When you say "We've seen what happens with weak bullpens.", you're essentially asserting that, without Chapman or without adding a proven closer, our bullpen would be weak. If you didn't believe this to be the case, there'd be no reason for you to say it. It's the core of your argument. And yet, when you actually look at it, this was a very good bullpen even without Chapman.

Every single reliever with more than 20 IP had an ERA under 3.50. That's 7 guys. A whole bullpen's worth of guys who were above average. Sure, they're likely to regress some. I've certainly argued that Ondrusek will. But as a group, they're likely to regress from great to good. Not from great to "weak".

And that ignores that we have Bray and Masset who should be healthy. And it ignores that we have Todd Redmond and Tony Cigrani who could both be positive contributors. This team does not want for quality bullpen arms.

Yes, taking Chapman out of the bullpen makes it weaker, no doubt. But we don't need anything to "materialize" to have a good bullpen without him. Even without Chapman, the players we already have on the 40 man roster comprise a good bullpen.

We shouldn't let fear of the horrible bullpens of years past that we simply assume anything less than having the best bullpen in baseball is a "losing proposition". Heck, just ask the Giants (3.54 ERA, 8th in NL) and the Tigers (3.79 ERA 10th in the AL) if you have to have a lights out pen to win. Or just ask your fellow Reds fans if they would have traded Chapman the closer for Chapman the starter when Johnny Cueto walked off the mound in Game 1 of the NLDS.

[lollipopcurve]

If Chapman doesn't work out as a starter, or they can't fashion a workable pen out of others on the roster (which I find unlikely), they can always move him back. The potential payoff of having him pitching well in the rotation is too significant to not give it a shot. Seems like a pretty simple decision to me.

The only reason not to try it, IMO, is if Chapman wants to close.

[Kc61]

The problem is that your point is fundamentally flawed.

When you say "We've seen what happens with weak bullpens.", you're essentially asserting that, without Chapman or without adding a proven closer, our bullpen would be weak. If you didn't believe this to be the case, there'd be no reason for you to say it. It's the core of your argument. And yet, when you actually look at it, this was a very good bullpen even without Chapman.

Every single reliever with more than 20 IP had an ERA under 3.50. That's 7 guys. A whole bullpen's worth of guys who were above average. Sure, they're likely to regress some. I've certainly argued that Ondrusek will. But as a group, they're likely to regress from great to good. Not from great to "weak".

And that ignores that we have Bray and Masset who should be healthy. And it ignores that we have Todd Redmond and Tony Cigrani who could both be positive contributors. This team does not want for quality bullpen arms.

Yes, taking Chapman out of the bullpen makes it weaker, no doubt. But we don't need anything to "materialize" to have a good bullpen without him. Even without Chapman, the players we already have on the 40 man roster comprise a good bullpen.

We shouldn't let fear of the horrible bullpens of years past that we simply assume anything less than having the best bullpen in baseball is a "losing proposition". Heck, just ask the Giants (3.54 ERA, 8th in NL) and the Tigers (3.79 ERA 10th in the AL) if you have to have a lights out pen to win. Or just ask your fellow Reds fans if they would have traded Chapman the closer for Chapman the starter when Johnny Cueto walked off the mound in Game 1 of the NLDS.

I understand the zeal to have Chapman start, but relying sub 3.50 ERAs as a hallmark of a good bullpen sweeps the issue under the rug. That number may indicate reasonable overall performance -- it does not provide the late inning stoppers a team needs in the pen.

Right now, the Reds have a number of steady middle relievers. (Some not so steady.) Lecure, Arredondo, Simon, Ondrusek. Reliance on Bray and Masset is a dream. Masset wasn't very good in 2011 and missed 2012. Bray is a huge question mark who might even be let go.

They have Marshall to set up. They have Hoover who potentially could pitch in the late innings and might be a partial answer to the problem.

I don't see this group as an acceptable bullpen for a contender. Chapman as closer made a huge difference on this ballclub. Sticking a bunch of "sub-3.50 ERA" guys into the late innings is part of the classic attitude that a bullpen will materialize out of thin air.

I understand the excitement of having Chapman as a starter and, in part, i agree with it.

But ignoring his importance as closer last season and assuming any decent reliever can assume that role is not a good plan.

[Plus Plus]

The problem is that your point is fundamentally flawed.

When you say "We've seen what happens with weak bullpens.", you're essentially asserting that, without Chapman or without adding a proven closer, our bullpen would be weak. If you didn't believe this to be the case, there'd be no reason for you to say it. It's the core of your argument. And yet, when you actually look at it, this was a very good bullpen even without Chapman.

Every single reliever with more than 20 IP had an ERA under 3.50. That's 7 guys. A whole bullpen's worth of guys who were above average. Sure, they're likely to regress some. I've certainly argued that Ondrusek will. But as a group, they're likely to regress from great to good. Not from great to "weak".

And that ignores that we have Bray and Masset who should be healthy. And it ignores that we have Todd Redmond and Tony Cigrani who could both be positive contributors. This team does not want for quality bullpen arms.

Yes, taking Chapman out of the bullpen makes it weaker, no doubt. But we don't need anything to "materialize" to have a good bullpen without him. Even without Chapman, the players we already have on the 40 man roster comprise a good bullpen.

We shouldn't let fear of the horrible bullpens of years past that we simply assume anything less than having the best bullpen in baseball is a "losing proposition". Heck, just ask the Giants (3.54 ERA, 8th in NL) and the Tigers (3.79 ERA 10th in the AL) if you have to have a lights out pen to win. Or just ask your fellow Reds fans if they would have traded Chapman the closer for Chapman the starter when Johnny Cueto walked off the mound in Game 1 of the NLDS.

Isn't someone who is for moving Chapman to the starting rotation also going to be against moving Cingani, who is coming off of a dominant minor league season, to the bullpen?

And I think that the greater point is almost a subtly implied one, which is that going from Chapman to David Weathers or Chris Perez or whoever is behind door #3 is effectively a lateral move because both convert saves at about the same rate. I fundamentally disagree with this.

And I think that the Tigers, who would have not made the playoffs up until September because of a weak bullpen, namely Valverde, would agree that you need a better bullpen than they had to win. It isn't about having the best bullpen or being unable to win, it is about maximizing assets and looking at the roster of a team that just won 99 games and realizing that some moves might need to be made aren't the drastic ones, like taking a 3.3 win reliever and making him a starter when he hasn't started a game or shown a third pitch to real live batters since 2010 in AAA, if he even did with regularity there.

I also think it is pretty interesting that a lot of posters who grow tired with the fantasy baseball trades for Wright or players of that ilk are often the same posters who want to make Chapman into a starter when he has shown almost nothing as a pitcher that materially separates him from Kimbrel (outside of "he used to start in Cuba"). Sure, I would have felt great if Chapman could have come in and pitched 8 innings after Cueto got hurt in game one. I also would have felt great if Verlander, Felix Hernandez, RA Dickey, Scherzer, Gio Gonzalez, Cy Young, Tom Seaver, Tom Browning, or Johnny Van Der Meer could have come in and pitched for 8 innings too. In the end, that game was a Reds win and the real culprit was in games 3 and 5 where hits suddenly became scarce, especially in key situations.

Sometimes assets need to be protected. Sometimes it is a smart idea to get up from the poker table, regardless of how well you have been doing. I think that moving Chapman to the rotation is a ship that has sailed and now a gamble that doesn't make sense to take, especially given that Cueto, Latos, and Bailey all had stretches of dominance and that Arroyo and Leake are still very serviceable and good in their roles.