I would guess the list of injured closers is proportionally similar to the list of injured starters. In fact, I think more closers get hurt than starters. I don't believe closing protects you from injury. Put Chapman where he brings the most value to the team and that is starting. Top starters are more valuable than closers.

He ended with, "If I had to pick..." How many times have you said that when you really wanted something? Regardless of the role, I find it humorous that he wouldn't want the two most highly touted pitching prospects in the last decade. But, to each his own.

 

Again, I believe the intent was to say that he wouldn't want them as starters. But I probably shouldn't speak for him on that.

 

I'd be happy to have both of them for as long as they could go, but of the two I'd take Chapman and put him as the closer, as several on here have said. See if I could squeeze years out of that arm.

Again, I believe the intent was to say that he wouldn't want them as starters. But I probably shouldn't speak for him on that.

 

I'd be happy to have both of them for as long as they could go, but of the two I'd take Chapman and put him as the closer, as several on here have said. See if I could squeeze years out of that arm.

 

Agreed.

I don't want to put words in SvFan's mouth but if he means he would take his money and spend it elsewhere to improve a team, I completely can see where he is coming from. I don't necessarily think I'd do the same, but I would look over the options and see what else was out there. Either way if that's what he meant I don't think it is a ridiculous statement at all.

I don't want to put words in SvFan's mouth but if he means he would take his money and spend it elsewhere to improve a team, I completely can see where he is coming from. I don't necessarily think I'd do the same, but I would look over the options and see what else was out there. Either way if that's what he meant I don't think it is a ridiculous statement at all.

 

In a league where pitching is at a premium and everyone realizes good pitching beats good hitting the majority of the time, you'd pass on these two for someone else? What other position could possibly be as important as a #1 starter and/or a closer?

In a league where pitching is at a premium and everyone realizes good pitching beats good hitting the majority of the time, you'd pass on these two for someone else? What other position could possibly be as important as a #1 starter and/or a closer?

 

A lot of different things would go into it. What kind of market am I in would be a big factor. If your the Yankees or Red Sox of course, it's an easy decision. But if I'm in a smaller market I don't know. If I could get Chapman at what the Reds got him for then yes, I think that's an easy decision. But if both stay healthy long enough to become free agents then there is no way you can do that as a small market team.

 

Perfect example with the Cardinals. They can either resign Pujols and have almost half their payroll go to 2 guys. Or they can let concentrate on getting two or three quality guys and better the team that way. That way you don't have guys like Skip Schumaker and Brendan Ryan playing everyday.

A lot of different things would go into it. What kind of market am I in would be a big factor. If your the Yankees or Red Sox of course, it's an easy decision. But if I'm in a smaller market I don't know. If I could get Chapman at what the Reds got him for then yes, I think that's an easy decision. But if both stay healthy long enough to become free agents then there is no way you can do that as a small market team.

 

Perfect example with the Cardinals. They can either resign Pujols and have almost half their payroll go to 2 guys. Or they can let concentrate on getting two or three quality guys and better the team that way. That way you don't have guys like Skip Schumaker and Brendan Ryan playing everyday.

 

It was a simple question, who do you take? No one is talking market size or any of that. Simply...who would you rather have? When a question like this is asked one should assume that it's within their team's means to complete the transaction for these players.

You get less funny with each post.

Not my best work, maybe a 7 out of 10. You really should lighten up. It's never as funny when it's at your expense.

 

Not to mention you've since edited your post to eliminate the comment about "so Reds fans never say anything dumb" which indicates you must have thought the same thing.

Not my best work, maybe a 7 out of 10. You really should lighten up. It's never as funny when it's at your expense.

 

I will be the first to admit that when it comes to some Reds fans, I have a chip on my shoulder. Overreaction I suppose, and quite frankly, I could not read your tone on the initial post.

I will be the first to admit that when it comes to some Reds fans, I have a chip on my shoulder. Overreaction I suppose, and quite frankly, I could not read your tone on the initial post.

Why do you have a chip on your shoulder about the Reds? Heck, we took Rick Mahler off your hands once upon a time.

It was a simple question, who do you take? No one is talking market size or any of that. Simply...who would you rather have? When a question like this is asked one should assume that it's within their team's means to complete the transaction for these players.

 

Okay then anyone who said Chapman because of Strasburg's injury is wrong too. And in that case I'd take Strasburg.

Why do you have a chip on your shoulder about the Reds? Heck, we took Rick Mahler off your hands once upon a time.

 

Same reason that some have a chip on their shoulder about UK fans - when you're surrounded by them, and not a fan of that team.....

 

Don't get me wrong. I like to see the Reds do well, and am very happy for them and their fanbase that they're going to the playoffs. My father and grandmother are Reds fans. But they weren't my cup of tea, and sometimes I run afoul of fans around here about it.

Okay then anyone who said Chapman because of Strasburg's injury is wrong too. And in that case I'd take Strasburg.

 

I would agree with that. Strasburg's injury doesn't concern me at all since there's such a high success rate and he will likely return at 100%, or better.

 

Plus, that's the easy answer.

I'd be happy with either. I think Chapman is/was more of a sure thing than Strasburg. I think Strasburg's hype was a little premature.

I'd take both. How's that?