There's actually only 6 if you have an off day.

 

Who gets off days around here?

What would he know?

 

:lol:

Who gets off days around here?

 

Today's an off day for the Reds so it's a 6 day week.

 

Whatever is causing your wang to turn green must be sucking the power out of your sarcasm detector.

Today's an off day for the Reds so it's a 6 day week.

 

Whatever is causing your wang to turn green must be sucking the power out of your sarcasm detector.

 

oh lol now I feel dumb. You are right Crash, my sarcasm detector is very defective lately, too much going on.

oh lol now I feel dumb. You are right Crash, my sarcasm detector is very defective lately, too much going on.

 

Just fix the bright green hammer in your avatar.

As John Smoltz said, IF the Reds make him a starter it will be a HUGE mistake.

 

And why would it be a huge mistake? I guarntee you that you could take a lot of guys who are top aces, and make them closers instead and they would be dominate closers then too. However the only reason they are not closing is because they got a chance to start first. Yes the guy is a great closer, but he also could possibly be a great starter too. Not to mention being the lefty in the starting rotation that would be good to have. We already know he can be a great closer, so if he doesn't work out as a starter it is an easy fix.

And why would it be a huge mistake? I guarntee you that you could take a lot of guys who are top aces, and make them closers instead and they would be dominate closers then too. However the only reason they are not closing is because they got a chance to start first. Yes the guy is a great closer, but he also could possibly be a great starter too. Not to mention being the lefty in the starting rotation that would be good to have. We already know he can be a great closer, so if he doesn't work out as a starter it is an easy fix.

 

I don't know. I mean, for one, he has dead arm with 67 innings so you want to give him 200?

 

Also, Smoltz knew he was more valuable as a closer than he was as a starter. When is the last time anyone talked about a Cy Young closer? Why even think about moving him?

 

And, you're right, we already know he can be a closer (the best in baseball, I might add)...so don't change it.

^2003 when one won it....

^2003 when one won it....

 

Right, that wasn't yesterday. And before that was 1989. Point is, it doesn't happen all the time and the Reds have a guy that can be in that conversation every year.

I don't know. I mean, for one, he has dead arm with 67 innings so you want to give him 200?

 

Also, Smoltz knew he was more valuable as a closer than he was as a starter. When is the last time anyone talked about a Cy Young closer? Why even think about moving him?

 

And, you're right, we already know he can be a closer (the best in baseball, I might add)...so don't change it.

 

I agree that he is amazing as a closer. However the only reason why he is amazing as a closer is because that is the chance the Reds gave him first. My point is there are a lot of top starters out there who if they were made closers instead would have looked great as closers too. Smoltz is the perfect example of that, great starter and then showed he was also a great closer. If Randy Johnson was only a closer he would have probably been amazing. If David Price was only a closer to start his career he would have looked great like he did in the playoffs that one year, same probably with Justin Verlander.

 

Its very easy to say well this guy should just be a closer since we got to see him as a closer. However the samething probably would have happened if those guys were closers too especially Johnson, Price and Verlander. Should those teams make them closers now instead of starters since they probably would be dominant a a closer too? We know what he can do as a closer, but he possibly could be just as dominant as a starter. Which is worth a chance IMO.

I agree that he is amazing as a closer. However the only reason why he is amazing as a closer is because that is the chance the Reds gave him first. My point is there are a lot of top starters out there who if they were made closers instead would have looked great as closers too. Smoltz is the perfect example of that, great starter and then showed he was also a great closer. If Randy Johnson was only a closer he would have probably been amazing. If David Price was only a closer to start his career he would have looked great like he did in the playoffs that one year, same probably with Justin Verlander.

 

Its very easy to say well this guy should just be a closer since we got to see him as a closer. However the samething probably would have happened if those guys were closers too especially Johnson, Price and Verlander. Should those teams make them closers now instead of starters since they probably would be dominant a a closer too? We know what he can do as a closer, but he possibly could be just as dominant as a starter. Which is worth a chance IMO.

 

What about the additional workload? Says a lot when fatigue sets in at 67 innings. He'll be the best starting pitcher in baseball for 45 days.

What about the additional workload? Says a lot when fatigue sets in at 67 innings. He'll be the best starting pitcher in baseball for 45 days.

 

As a starting pitcher he won't have to be getting his arm heated up to be in a game 2 or 3 nights in a row and possibly dending on how the team is doing 4 or 5 times a week. For a guy who throws as hard as him, having to get his arm heated up like that a few days in a row throughout the whole season is still a lot. Not to mention everytime he is in the game he is throwing as hard as he can basically every pitch since he really only throws his fastball as a closer. He showed in spring training he would mix up his pitches more as a starter and would even take some off his fastball. So who knows if he gets arm fatigue this if he was starting and not having to get his arm heated up enough to be in a game a few times a week. So thats not a good comparison since things would be different if he was starting. Yeah it still may have happened, but it is a different type of workload he would be doing.

 

I am not saying I would have a problem if they only keep him as a closer. If they do great, however I am just not someone who thinks like yes closer is definitely the best thing to do with him. Then acting like how he is doing as a closer shows that. Yet when you could have taken a few of the starters I mentioned, and they probably would be dominant as closers too. He very well could be a dominant starter, and I would prefer having a dominant lefty in the starting rotation. I know the Reds would then have to go make sure they find a closer then, which if they didn't then yeah you have to make sure you keep him there.

As a starting pitcher he won't have to be getting his arm heated up to be in a game 2 or 3 nights in a row and possibly dending on how the team is doing 4 or 5 times a week. For a guy who throws as hard as him, having to get his arm heated up like that a few days in a row throughout the whole season is still a lot. Not to mention everytime he is in the game he is throwing as hard as he can basically every pitch since he really only throws his fastball as a closer. He showed in spring training he would mix up his pitches more as a starter and would even take some off his fastball. So who knows if he gets arm fatigue this if he was starting and not having to get his arm heated up enough to be in a game a few times a week. So thats not a good comparison since things would be different if he was starting. Yeah it still may have happened, but it is a different type of workload he would be doing.

 

I am not saying I would have a problem if they only keep him as a closer. If they do great, however I am just not someone who thinks like yes closer is definitely the best thing to do with him. Then acting like how he is doing as a closer shows that. Yet when you could have taken a few of the starters I mentioned, and they probably would be dominant as closers too. He very well could be a dominant starter, and I would prefer having a dominant lefty in the starting rotation. I know the Reds would then have to go make sure they find a closer then, which if they didn't then yeah you have to make sure you keep him there.

 

It is a lot easier to make a starter into a reliever than vice versa. I'll give you a good example just from this season. Look at Daniel Bard of the Red Sox. He was very similar to Chapman. He is basically a two pitch pitcher. His fastball hit 100 mph regularly, though not as often as Chapman. He was moved to the starting rotation and it went horribly. His second pitch wasn't nearly as successful when hitters were seeing a 93 mph fastball instead of a 100 mph fastball. He got knocked around, lost confidence and has been terrible out of the pen since he returned a couple of weeks ago. As a reliever he had a 3.00 ERA, 1.071 WHIP and recorded 9.7 Ks/9. As a starter those numbers jumped to 5.30 ERA, 1.620 WHIP and 5.6 Ks/9. Granted Bard isn't the pitcher that Chapman is but in 2010 and 2011 he was one of the most dominant set up men in baseball. Chapman is cut from very much the same mold. If he is having shoulder fatigue from throwing as a reliever the cause is almost certainly mechanical, not from warming up too much. That would only get worse as a starter when he starts to tire in the later innings. He needs to stay in the pen.

As a starting pitcher he won't have to be getting his arm heated up to be in a game 2 or 3 nights in a row and possibly dending on how the team is doing 4 or 5 times a week. For a guy who throws as hard as him, having to get his arm heated up like that a few days in a row throughout the whole season is still a lot. Not to mention everytime he is in the game he is throwing as hard as he can basically every pitch since he really only throws his fastball as a closer. He showed in spring training he would mix up his pitches more as a starter and would even take some off his fastball. So who knows if he gets arm fatigue this if he was starting and not having to get his arm heated up enough to be in a game a few times a week. So thats not a good comparison since things would be different if he was starting. Yeah it still may have happened, but it is a different type of workload he would be doing.

 

I am not saying I would have a problem if they only keep him as a closer. If they do great, however I am just not someone who thinks like yes closer is definitely the best thing to do with him. Then acting like how he is doing as a closer shows that. Yet when you could have taken a few of the starters I mentioned, and they probably would be dominant as closers too. He very well could be a dominant starter, and I would prefer having a dominant lefty in the starting rotation. I know the Reds would then have to go make sure they find a closer then, which if they didn't then yeah you have to make sure you keep him there.

 

Starting pitchers still throw everyday, even though they have off days. I'm not sure anyone wants to see Chapman at 95 MPH's once a week when you can get him 5 days a week at 100+.

Starting pitchers still throw everyday, even though they have off days. I'm not sure anyone wants to see Chapman at 95 MPH's once a week when you can get him 5 days a week at 100+.

 

Thats the thing I don't care what everyone wants to see, I want what will possibly put the Reds over the top. If the Reds can get it done this year with their current make of the starting lineup, then I am all for never moving Chapman out of the closer role. I still worry about the Reds in the playoffs against other teams Aces. I know we have Cueto and Latos, but I don't see them as guys who will completey shut a team down in the playoffs and probably even at best give up 2 or 3 runs. While the Reds do struggle with aces and even would need to score more than 2 or 3 runs to win. Having Cueto, Chapman, and Latos at the top of the rotation for the playoffs would be very dangerous if Chapman transitioned to starter well. For me I just think it would be a good thing to at least try, if it doesn't work then he is back to dominating as a closer. It is a good problem to have and ultimately I will be fine with either choice, I just would still like them to try it out.