So Who Moves and Who Stays?

[Blitzville]

Why was the Reds not trading Chapman bad? They probably set a price and no one met it, so they hold onto him until next trade deadline. No one wanted him bad enough and the Reds hold onto a showcase, ticket selling superstar.

 

[eburg5000]

I think a lot of teams were hoping the Reds would just give him away for a few minor leaguers. I believe the Reds wanted more than prospects. Might see him traded this winter. But what do I know? I'm just a greedy old man

 

[Tubbs1518]

Why was the Reds not trading Chapman bad? They probably set a price and no one met it, so they hold onto him until next trade deadline. No one wanted him bad enough and the Reds hold onto a showcase, ticket selling superstar.

Because as time goes on he loses value because at the next trade deadline he will likely be a rental. He won't be worth nearly as much. They HAVE to trade him this winter or its a major mistake.

 

[JohnU]

Throwing in the towel until you have a loaded gun is what the Cubs have done for the last 65 years and it's what the Pirates did for 20 years. Dumping guys now so you can get other people makes zero sense to me. If you intend to win, you need winning players, not a bunch of guys who are not quite ready for Pensacola. Unloading all the players now assures you that you are always playing for the future, and you can spend the next 6 decades doing what the Cubs have done.
Keep Chapman and if he leaves, he leaves.

 

[Tubbs1518]

Throwing in the towel until you have a loaded gun is what the Cubs have done for the last 65 years and it's what the Pirates did for 20 years. Dumping guys now so you can get other people makes zero sense to me. If you intend to win, you need winning players, not a bunch of guys who are not quite ready for Pensacola. Unloading all the players now assures you that you are always playing for the future, and you can spend the next 6 decades doing what the Cubs have done.
Keep Chapman and if he leaves, he leaves.

That's a real good way to be set back even farther. You don't let a great player walk for nothing. This team isn't competing as its built so you tear it down and build it again. You amass as much talented youth as you can and build it up. Chapman walking isn't the way you do that and would be a terrible terrible move.

 

[JohnU]

The ongoing presumption is you trade off your players for "prospects" who are going to turn this team into a contender in 2 years. Let's get real. If these guys are this close to being impact players at the top level, they are not going to be unloaded in rental trades.

I am forever amused at the notion that we bring in a dozen or so really cheap "prospects" out of rookie ball or at best, low A ball, and in 2 years we will see the reincarnation of the Big Red Machine.

If you are lucky, one or two guys you get in a trade makes the big club and I can most assuredly say, they are a LONG FUCKING WAY from being impact players in a competitive division.

But dream on. It's how we rationalize dumping players before their contracts are up, just so we can appease our own sense of "well, we're doing something, even if it's wrong, right?"

Can the Reds get a hoss for Chapman? Probably, but they won't. The guys they need are under contract. The rest of them are just a year better off than a bunch of "prospects."

They are 2 years from Chappy walking anyway. The whole team could look different by then. You are fixing things that you can't identify yet as being broken.

And I am waiting for another 1,000-word rant on how the core of this team doesn't exist.

All baseball teams depend on three things -- skill, luck and skill and luck from their opponents. Over-evaluating it is folly.

 

[JohnU]

I will add this addendum ...Chapman is the one piece of the Reds roster who can bring a return on a trade and the one guy the Reds can most easily afford to trade since he's clearly been misused as a closer, a position that is (a.) overrated and (b.) not particularly difficult to fill.

But if your assertion is that trading Chapman AND several other first-line players, I need to see the plan first. I don't buy it as workable or sensible.

The Reds have tossed a lot of eggs into the basket of a very unpredictable pitching future.

Keeping Chapman for that reason makes sense to me.

 

[Redsfan1507]

The sad truth is, Chapman was intended to be a SP from his signing. The Reds reaffirmed by signing Broxton to close... Then, he got nothing but reasons why he shouldn't start- he needed another pitch, he didnt have control, he didnt have stamina, he needed to acclimate to the culture, all were unwarranted. I saw public statements from Dusty and Arroyo saying listing lots of reasons they didnt think he should change roles- obviously Dusty didnt want another bullshit blame for his 6th young SP arm amputation, and Bronson didnt want to go to the pen. Not exactly unbiased guys, but influential to AC, who shortly stated he's rather stay a closer. So, I think a complete reversal was allowed to be orchistrated by people not even in the organization now. It's idiocy. The tail wagging the dog.

The funny thing is, it's still not too late . I'd move him to the rotation as soon as possible. I wouldn't trade him unless it was for equal value- but the Reds HAVE to dump salary-so that doesn't mean we're getting Justin Upton for him, can't afford the salary. It has to be for prospects because they can get 3 for 1/5 of Chapmans current salary. That's the big reason to trade these guys- they think they can't afford them.