Chapman

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

Plus, there's always bullpen help available during the season. The Reds acquired Alfredo Simon for nothing and JJ Hoover for Nothing +/- a few hundred pounds of dead weight.
.

I would say that sometimes there's bullpen help available. Sometimes you can find a Hoover or Simon. Other times, you end up with the Galloping Gonad, Cormeir, etc.

My perception is that the value of relievers in a trade has gone up tremendously over the last 10 years. The market is valuing them higher in trade. They are getting paid more. Good relievers are scarce. Sometimes you can roll the dice and find a good reliever off the scrap heap. That's a fine strategy during a rebuilding year, but most contenders don't want to rely on picking up Simon types to fill out important roles.. Even the Reds planned on using Simon for mopup, until he performed so well.

But yea, Walt did a brilliant job getting Hoover and Simon last year. Not so sure we can count on that every year though.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by RedEye

I don't know how many times I've read the phrase "There's no guarantee that Chapman will be a dominant starter" in the reasoning of posters (not you). To me, that sounds like, word-for-word, a demand for a guarantee.

Well, I think I've said that.
The point is, the results of Chapman starting might be Leake-like or worse.

Chapman's velocity will drop.
His control of the slider comes and goes.
His changeup and splitter are works in progress (and they are saying he's having trouble consistently controlling them in spring training).

In short, Chapman has great tools, but it's questionable how he will perform as a starter this year.

He might be the next Randy Johnson, he might be the next Edison Volquez.
I still think it's worth trying, but I won't be upset if the Reds decide that he's just not ready this year or maybe its' better to have a closer for the remainder of his contract (as opposed to investing 2-3 years for him to grow as a starter)

I don't think all the pro-starting people are guaranteeing that Chapman will be an ace. Likewise the pro-relieving people aren't saying Chapman is guaranteed to flop.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by M2

You might be right, though I was thinking more that an editor would demand confirmation or an unimpeachable source. Technically the editor cares about the paper's reputation and doesn't want to be printing fiction.

Low as our opinion of the Enquirer's professional standards might be, even if the story came from the equipment guy it's still highly likely the editor would demand Jocketty, Baker of Price confirm the story.

Does the Enquirer have an editor? I'm only half-joking, plus this was a blog post, so i don't know how much they vet those.

[redsfandan]

Originally Posted by Old NDN

Man!! All these posts and threads about speculation. I don't care which way they go with Chapman. I voted closer in the poll because he's unique. Nobody else has a 100-105mph closer. But, I can see the Reds' desire for him to be a starter. The last thing this team needs going into the season is controversy based on indecisiveness. Players want to know their defined roles. Just make a decision and go with it.

I'm pretty sure that he's not the only closer that can hit 100. 105? Sure, he's the only one that can do that. But, I think velocity can be overrated sometimes.

[Benihana]

The problem with not trying Chapman as a starter is the whole Broxton signing.

The organization clearly needs to pick a direction, and at least TRY it for a bit. There is always room to pivot later. The schizophrenic nature of what they've done is what is bothering some people (including me).

If they weren't sure about Chapman, don't give Broxton $20M (I said so at the time I wasn't a fan of the signing). I always thought Marshall, Hoover, et al could have handled the back end if Chapman was in the rotation, and if he wasn't, they'd have $20M+ to spend on other areas. Now we have this glut that was completely avoidable (unlike what happened last spring with the injuries).

It's tough to find things to complain about these days with this team and front office, so this is hardly a rant, but it is a bit perplexing.

[757690]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Does the Enquirer have an editor? I'm only half-joking, plus this was a blog post, so i don't know how much they vet those.

These days, newspapers have fewer and fewer editors. There might not even be a "sports" editor at the Enquirer these days, just a general editor who has to monitor multiple sections. I believe there's something like only nine full time employees in the sports section at the Enquirer right now, including all the reporters and columnists. And I doubt there is anyone who monitors the blogs.

[Billy Hamilton's Legs]

Originally Posted by TRF

Jerry Jones would. I think BCast is a more hands off owner, but with an opinion. How much weight it carries is anyone's guess.

I just think that if there is a significant amount of tension (perhaps this has been overstated or misinterpreted) between Dusty and Walt about the decision, maybe the big man writing the checks puts his foot down and settles things. I get the impression Cast is the kinda guy that would want Chapman in the rotation, particularly because he's the guy already paying a premium price for 2 other relievers. I also bet he's as curious as the fans about Chapman's real potential. I agree he's a hands off owner, which might make all of this speculation irrelevant, but this is a pretty contentious issue with some far-reaching consequences. Maybe he throws his weight around?

[mth123]

Originally Posted by RANDY IN INDY

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.

This is the point people just don't get. As a reliever, that slider breaking out of the zone working off a 100 MPH fastball with little time to look at it is a swing and miss pitch. As a starter, that pitch being off the plate is a pitch count killer that hitters will lay-off of the second time through. I want to see him start too, but it's just not a foregone conclusion that he'll be any good.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by mth123

This is the point people just don't get. As a reliever, that slider breaking out of the zone working off a 100 MPH fastball with little time to look at it is a swing and miss pitch. As a starter, that pitch being off the plate is a pitch count killer that hitters will lay-off of the second time through. I want to see him start too, but it's just not a foregone conclusion that he'll be any good.

Funny you mentioned pitch count. The one thing that I couldn't shake this spring was the thought that Chapman would struggle to go 5-6 innings on a regular basis. Just my hunch. And I still wanted to see him try.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by mth123

This is the point people just don't get. As a reliever, that slider breaking out of the zone working off a 100 MPH fastball with little time to look at it is a swing and miss pitch. As a starter, that pitch being off the plate is a pitch count killer that hitters will lay-off of the second time through. I want to see him start too, but it's just not a foregone conclusion that he'll be any good.

Honest question: Why would hitters not lay off of it the first time through but they would the second time through? If they can read it as slider the second time, they should have been able to do so the first time, right? I certainly get that there is a difference between 100 and 95, but 95 still leaves you so little time to react to a slider that if you aren't seeing it the first time I don't think you are seeing it the second time.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Honest question: Why would hitters not lay off of it the first time through but they would the second time through? If they can read it as slider the second time, they should have been able to do so the first time, right? I certainly get that there is a difference between 100 and 95, but 95 still leaves you so little time to react to a slider that if you aren't seeing it the first time I don't think you are seeing it the second time.

Chapman's slider is nasty. But I would certainly wager hitters would improve the second and third time thru the order if Chapman threw the slider in each at bat.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

Chapman's slider is nasty. But I would certainly wager hitters would improve the second and third time thru the order if Chapman threw the slider in each at bat.

Why though? They know he throws a slider in at bat #1. They know that he probably isn't throwing it behind in the count and will throw it when ahead in the count or even in the count. If he is tipping the pitch, that is one thing, but if he isn't, then at bat 1 or at bat 15 shouldn't really make a difference assuming the velocity remains the same on the FB and the SL.

[bigredmechanism]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

Kimbrel and Chapman were pretty even. Just because 2 of the greatest relief seasons ever happened in the same same season does not diminish them.

Rodney was not on Chapman's level, ERA or not.

Rodney was outstanding last year. Him and Kimbrel both had better years than Chapman. And that's not taking away form the fantastic year AC had, either.

[redsfandan]

Originally Posted by mth123

This is the point people just don't get. As a reliever, that slider breaking out of the zone working off a 100 MPH fastball with little time to look at it is a swing and miss pitch. As a starter, that pitch being off the plate is a pitch count killer that hitters will lay-off of the second time through. I want to see him start too, but it's just not a foregone conclusion that he'll be any good.

I don't know, I mean are there people that think he'd be an ace overnight? I hope not. If he ended up being a #2 in year 3 I'd be thrilled.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by mth123

This is the point people just don't get. As a reliever, that slider breaking out of the zone working off a 100 MPH fastball with little time to look at it is a swing and miss pitch. As a starter, that pitch being off the plate is a pitch count killer that hitters will lay-off of the second time through. I want to see him start too, but it's just not a foregone conclusion that he'll be any good.

So Verlander doesn't ever expand the zone? Kershaw's curveball is a count killer?