According to ESPN Chapman wants to close. Baker said he was going to wait until he heard it from Chapman himself.

According to ESPN Chapman wants to close. Baker said he was going to wait until he heard it from Chapman himself.

 

I've heard this as well on a Red's Hot Stove league broadcast. Almost all of his Cuban career he was a starter but was used 11 times in 2007 as a reliever. I'm wondering why he wants to stay a reliever. Makes one wonder if, and I could be way off here, that he may not want to put in the physical and mental work it takes to be a starter. He probably feels the instant stardom he got last year is way easier tossing one or two innings than 7,8 or 9. I've always had the impression he's a bit on the lazy side.

Edited March 17, 201313 yr by OlDog75
spelling

This is what he really said :

 

 

Chapman: "I would like to be a closer, but that's not in my hands."

This is what he really said :

 

 

Chapman: "I would like to be a closer, but that's not in my hands."

No, that's what his interpreter said. Who knows what he really said.

The guy eats up entering the game three or four times a week. Honestly I don't want a guy as a starter if his heart and head aren't wanting the same.

The Reds finished the season with the 4th best ERA in all of baseball and we're talking about putting an unknown out there? Ain't broke.

 

7th in MLB in fielding percentage. Ain't broke.

 

They were below the league average in every major offensive category but HR's. Broke

Is the problem in this the fact that the Reds are paying him starter money?

 

I say this is what they get for babying him and not having him start immediately. They brought him in to start and put him in the bullpen and now he likes the bullpen. That's what they get. Leave him in the bullpen. Like Crash Davis said....it ain't broke.

Let's look at it this way and ask a question:

 

If you could add a #1 starter to your team or a top notch closer, which would you choose?

Let's look at it this way and ask a question:

 

If you could add a #1 starter to your team or a top notch closer, which would you choose?

 

Do I already have a #1 starter, what does the rest of my rotation look like and what does my current closer look like?

Let's look at it this way and ask a question:

 

If you could add a #1 starter to your team or a top notch closer, which would you choose?

 

A proven number 1 starter and its not even close... Notice I said proven. The Reds have a great rotation that doesn't need to be experimented with, it worked fine last season so there's no need. Chapman is a proven closer and will give the Reds great value in the pen. Too many unknowns at what Chapmans value would be out of the rotation. He quite frankly could turn out be a 1 or a 5 for all we know.

Let's look at it this way and ask a question:

 

If you could add a #1 starter to your team or a top notch closer, which would you choose?

 

That is an easy answer. I don't think that's what we are talking about here however, do you? Honestly.

That is an easy answer. I don't think that's what we are talking about here however, do you? Honestly.

 

Chapman won't be a #1 this year, but could he be #1 quality in 2 years? Could he be dominating enough by the end of the season to be better than Arroyo or Leake in the post season? So to bring it down to this year only, would you rather have a potentially dominant starter in post season or a potentially dominant closer? I want to win in the post season and I think Chapman as a starter in post season will be better than Chapman as a closer.

Chapman won't be a #1 this year, but could he be #1 quality in 2 years? Could he be dominating enough by the end of the season to be better than Arroyo or Leake in the post season? So to bring it down to this year only, would you rather have a potentially dominant starter in post season or a potentially dominant closer? I want to win in the post season and I think Chapman as a starter in post season will be better than Chapman as a closer.

 

If the question is, do you want Verlander or Valverde, I think most would take Verlander. However, that's not the question at hand. Would you take someone that MAY be a #1 over someone that's pretty darn good as a closer? No one knows what a season of starting and throwing every 5th day would do to Chapman.

Is the problem in this the fact that the Reds are paying him starter money?

I say this is what they get for babying him and not having him start immediately. They brought him in to start and put him in the bullpen and now he likes the bullpen. That's what they get. Leave him in the bullpen. Like Crash Davis said....it ain't broke.

 

I would say that may be what pushed them to make this move. He is paid too much money to pitch two innings maybe one a game. I don't agree with the move, but I think the front office is trying to get the most value for their money, and they felt that wasn't with him in the closing role.

 

Side note, to suggest he (Chapman) is selfish, or unwilling to work hard as being the reason for his apprehensiveness to go into the role is foolish. If you were really good at your job, maybe the best in the league would you want to switch gears in an off season to do something completely different. I don't think many of us would be happy about it.

Well, we have three threads talking about Chapman. I posted this in another thread and will include it here:

 

 

I think many of you are missing the point. Closers are part of baseball by the book 101 now. You aren't going to change that, especially with the money closers get today. The point is this ... it doesn't matter who your closer is. In my mind, if Chapman closes or Broxton or Hoover it doesn't matter. If none of them work out, there is another reliever that can be plugged in who will do the job. Heck, Sam LeClure would probably be a very good closer. The closer stats and blown saves stats will be about the same at the end of the year regardless of who closes, within reason of course. Chapman as a closer is not a difference maker over a season and he is even less of a difference maker in a short series, as was evidenced by the Reds vs. Giants.