Mar 16, 2013, 9:40 PM EDT
Perhaps the biggest debate of the off-season, at least after the AL MVP award was handed out, was the benefit or detriment of the Reds’ desire to move Aroldis Chapman to the starting rotation. Chapman, behind a high-90’s fastball, finished the 2012 season with a 1.51 ERA and 38 saves. However, the Reds signed Jonathan Broxton, giving them the flexibility to push Chapman into the rotation.
Here’s the latest wrench in the whole debacle. Chapman says he wants to close, according to Danny Knobler:
What was perhaps most interesting about the day was how strongly Chapman spoke when asked what he wants the Reds’ decision to be.
“I would like to be a closer, but that’s not in my hands,” Chapman said.
General manager Walt Jocketty and pitching coach Bryan Price have favored making Chapman a starter, while Baker has been considered the strongest advocate of leaving him in the bullpen.
The Reds are expected to decide in the next few days what Chapman’s role in 2013 will be, closing or starting. He tossed four innings in his most recent spring training outing, but his spring training use is no indicator of his regular season use as he was worked as a starter last spring as well.
- Christian Vazquez to undergo Tommy John surgery 9
- 2015 Preview: Colorado Rockies 4
- 2015 Preview: Minnesota Twins 18
- 2015 Preview: Philadelphia Phillies 30
- 2015 Preview: Cincinnati Reds 47
- The average Major League Baseball salary this year will be more than $4 million — a record 22
- 2015 Preview: Tampa Bay Rays 21
- The Cubs assign Kris Bryant and Addison Russell to the minors, option Javier Baez as well 70
- Ex-Cardinals outfielder Curt Ford was assaulted in St. Louis and told to “go back to Ferguson” (122)
- David Ortiz: “Nobody in MLB history has been tested for PEDs more than me” (118)
- Rob Manfred says it would be hard to reinstate Pete Rose in a limited way (91)
- The MLBPA releases a statement on Kris Bryant, mentions possible litigation (90)
- Did David Ortiz admit to more than he realized with his Players’ Tribune editorial? (88)