More positive reaction on Chapman

[wolfboy]

Originally Posted by top6

LOL, keep telling yourself that, but some guy who signed for about 1/15th of what Chapman made, and has never even pitched a single professional baseball game, just made this team over Chapman. If Chapman comes up in a few weeks, I'll eat my words, but I don't get at all why everyone thinks this was such a great idea.

What are you basing this on? You realize that one of two reasons kept Chapman off of the opening day roster: 1. Financial concerns, or 2. Back spasms. It wasn't poor performance by any stretch of the imagination.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Charles, I can't take seriously a scout who says "they were fouling off the 98s, not swinging through it." That is about as assanine a comment as a scout could make.

Oh, I know. I wasn't specifically referring to this one quote. Just negative comments about Aroldis in general. It seems like any time there is anything remotely negative about him from a scouting perspective...it's dismissed as "this scout just doesn't want to look bad" kind of stuff. That's all I was saying. The kids got great talent, but he's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. He does have some things he needs to work on. What they are...no clue. I've only seen him pitch once and it was the time his back acted up. But the experts have...and I just don't think we should blindly dismiss the negative because a scout is "grumpy" he didn't endorse his acquisition.

[Tommyjohn25]

Originally Posted by top6

LOL, keep telling yourself that, but some guy who signed for about 1/15th of what Chapman made, and has never even pitched a single professional baseball game, just made this team over Chapman. If Chapman comes up in a few weeks, I'll eat my words, but I don't get at all why everyone thinks this was such a great idea.

Really? So if Jason Heyward, Stephen Starsburg, or our own Mike Leake played their respective careers overseas, that would somehow diminish their value because they would cost more? That is the only way you can get these guys. Pay. There is no other option since there is no international draft. I say if Chapman doesn't suffer the setback with his back spasms, we are buying up tickets to see him pitch this Sunday at GABP.

I'm not sure what you're basing your opinion on here. It's certainly not his stuff, I wouldn't imagine. Maybe it's the .02% of scouts that have shaky (at best) reasons not to like him, I don't know. What I do know is that if you are basing your opinion on spring numbers, as impressive as Leake was (and I'm a fan), Chapman was better.

I'd be working up an appetite if I were you, and hope your words taste good.

[top6]

Originally Posted by wolfboy

What are you basing this on? You realize that one of two reasons kept Chapman off of the opening day roster: 1. Financial concerns, or 2. Back spasms. It wasn't poor performance by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm basing it on Leake being on the team, and Chapman not being on the team.

[Sea Ray]

I don't think it's a slam on Chapman that he's not ready to pitch in Cincinnati as of April 8, 2010. Nor does it mean that he has shaky stuff or that it wasn't a good signing. By the way his contract was structured, I think it's safe to say even the Reds felt like he wasn't going to be ready to begin his big league career in early April yet they clearly did think he was worth $30mill.

If I'm Walt Jocketty, there's nothing that's happened thus far that's giving me buyer's remorse

[Tommyjohn25]

Originally Posted by top6

I'm basing it on Leake being on the team, and Chapman not being on the team.

If that's the only thing you're basing it on, I would argue that you either don't fully grasp the reasoning, or are just trying to be difficult. Especially with your initial "Lol, keep telling yourself that" response.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Oh, I know. I wasn't specifically referring to this one quote. Just negative comments about Aroldis in general. It seems like any time there is anything remotely negative about him from a scouting perspective...it's dismissed as "this scout just doesn't want to look bad" kind of stuff. That's all I was saying. The kids got great talent, but he's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. He does have some things he needs to work on. What they are...no clue. I've only seen him pitch once and it was the time his back acted up. But the experts have...and I just don't think we should blindly dismiss the negative because a scout is "grumpy" he didn't endorse his acquisition.

Agreed, but the "negative" comments have to at least pass the test of plausibility. These do not.

[Tommyjohn25]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

If I'm Walt Jocketty, there's nothing that's happened thus far that's giving me buyer's remorse

I would bet my bank account on it that there is no buyers remorse.

[Spring~Fields]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I don't think it's a slam on Chapman that he's not ready to pitch in Cincinnati as of April 8, 2010. Nor does it mean that he has shaky stuff or that it wasn't a good signing. By the way his contract was structured, I think it's safe to say even the Reds felt like he wasn't going to be ready to begin his big league career in early April yet they clearly did think he was worth $30mill.

If I'm Walt Jocketty, there's nothing that's happened thus far that's giving me buyer's remorse

I agree, I don’t see any reason for alarm, pessimism or negatives on Chapman. I could see that if the other starting pitchers did well for the Reds, that it might make it difficult to find him a spot when he is ready, but that would not be negatives.

[reds44]

Wasn't the man reason Chapman didn't make the team because he hurt his back? He had an ERA under 1 in the spring training, so clearly him not making the team had nothing to do with his pitching.

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Charles, I can't take seriously a scout who says "they were fouling off the 98s, not swinging through it." That is about as assanine a comment as a scout could make.

Not necessarily. MLB players can hit straight fastballs no matter how high the speed. Its all about keeping a batter off balance. If players are fouling off Chapman's heat that could mean they have him timed.

As for the scouts comment its one of the few negative ones we have seen. We do need to temper the good evaluations with the poor evaluations.

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by reds44

Wasn't the man reason Chapman didn't make the team because he hurt his back? He had an ERA under 1 in the spring training, so clearly him not making the team had nothing to do with his pitching.

I think that was a convenient excuse to get Chapman some seasoning in AAA.

[Eric_the_Red]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

Not necessarily. MLB players can hit straight fastballs no matter how high the speed. Its all about keeping a batter off balance. If players are fouling off Chapman's heat that could mean they have him timed.

As for the scouts comment its one of the few negative ones we have seen. We do need to temper the good evaluations with the poor evaluations.

One of the ex-players on MLB Network (I think it was Reynolds?) disagrees. The player said that 100mph is basically impossible to hit consistently for any hitter.

Sure, if that was all Chappy threw, then the hitters could adjust and try to get their timing down. But if he mixes in a breaking ball or 80mph change, I don't see them having much success.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Agreed, but the "negative" comments have to at least pass the test of plausibility. These do not.

Fair enough.

[membengal]

Also, I have my own eyes to trust now. And I saw enough from his spring to know that guys were swinging and missing plenty on high 90s pitches, as opposed to fouling them all off, as that scouting report seemed to imply.