March 21, 201313 yr If that's truly how he feels, he would be starting, IMO. It could've been part of the process and not his true feelings. Pretty sure since Dusty and Price were against it from the start, it was his true feelings. Otherwise there's no reason to publicly be airing disagreements with your manager and pitching coach. Sounds like he gave in to Dusty's complaining.
March 21, 201313 yr I know one guy who supports the decision to move Chapman out of the starting rotation:
March 21, 201313 yr If you enjoy watching Leake get pounded every 5th day, I agree. Hey man...he has the occasional good start. (runs better than Choo and hits better than Cozart.)
March 21, 201313 yr If you enjoy watching Leake get pounded every 5th day, I agree. You can't really argue the Reds pitching staff if you actually look at the stats. Leake was a better than average 5th starter.
March 21, 201313 yr You can't really argue the Reds pitching staff if you actually look at the stats. Leake was a better than average 5th starter. Don't ruin his argument with facts. It's devastating to his case.
March 21, 201313 yr Leake will be fine 4 out of 6 starts, which for a 5th starter that's pretty good. Part of me wanted Chapman to start but then how many inning's is he good for before you have to shut him down. You can't go from 80 inning's to 200 plus. You have 4 capable starters that are above average and you have 3 potential studs in Cueto, Latos and Bailey (if he picks up where he left of last year). My plan would be to use him as a closer and in August if one of those 3 aren't having a good year then start to build Chapman up for the stretch drive and Playoff's to be a starter.
March 21, 201313 yr Don't ruin his argument with facts. It's devastating to his case. Funny you bring that up considering anytime I bring facts into the argument as to why Chapman shouldn't close, you resort to your usual tactics of trying to come up with witty rebutes that offer nothing to the discussion. And you guys are absolutely right, Leake is fine as a 5th starter, but you're lying to yourself if you don't think Chapman would be a vast improvement over him in the rotation. Given the fact that he was simply "good" in terms of effectiveness in the closer role, and it seems pretty reasonable to think the added benefit of him starting over Leake more than makes up for any slight dropoff they'd experience in the bullpen.
March 21, 201313 yr Funny you bring that up considering anytime I bring facts into the argument as to why Chapman shouldn't close, you resort to your usual tactics of trying to come up with witty rebutes that offer nothing to the discussion. And you guys are absolutely right, Leake is fine as a 5th starter, but you're lying to yourself if you don't think Chapman would be a vast improvement over him in the rotation. Given the fact that he was simply "good" in terms of effectiveness in the closer role, and it seems pretty reasonable to think the added benefit of him starting over Leake more than makes up for any slight dropoff they'd experience in the bullpen. Did you see him start any in spring training? You subscribe to the deal on Reds.com to watch those?
March 21, 201313 yr Did you see him start any in spring training? You subscribe to the deal on Reds.com to watch those? Nope. Followed the progress though. Very confident from that that he's an upgrade over Leake.
March 21, 201313 yr Author Don't ruin his argument with facts. It's devastating to his case. Yet you refuse to see the stats that clearly state how overrated closer are.
March 21, 201313 yr Yes, I think in the long run this will pay dividends to the Reds. I agree the Broxton deal NOW looks silly, but hindsight is 20/20. I believe there is no metric that can effectively measure how useful a disgusting closer is. I think this will be invaluable to the team and believe Ol' Walt will gladly swallow the $7,000,000 when they put another ring on his finger. I suggest the nay sayers accept this and move on because it seems this plan of action.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.