Mo Egger has been talking about whether or not the Reds should look to trade Chapman. Honestly, I can see his point. Chapman, though fun and exciting to watch, was signed to be a starter, and is getting starter money to be a closer who can't go three games in a row. The career length for someone that throws that hard is typically not that long. Do you think the Reds should look to move Chapman to improve their lineup and farm system? The Reds do have a lot of good arms in the minors.

Closer's are important in the bigs, but I saw a stat that last year the average MLB team blew three leads when they were winning after the 8th inning and lost. Chapman did that last year himself. Pretty sure that was the stat. It wasn't saying anything bad about chapman per se, just in that most organizations have competent closers who can do a pretty good job in securing late leads. Not everyone can do it with the authority as a Chapman can, but you don't have to be that dominating to be effective. Count me in as someone who wanted him in the rotation. I think he could have been like a Randy Johnson type of pitcher. No reason why he couldn't throw 95+ for 6+ innings, and by the extra pitches he would develop his other pitches much easier. The 'easy' answer was to put him back as the closer's role. You know what he can do there, he will dominate, blah blah blah. BUt If ya put him as a starter, he just might have fell on his face and struggled big time so the easy out was to put him in the closers role. Should they trade him? Really depends on what they could get actually. Although you never know how a guy will react until he gets into that spot, I think the reds do have enough live arms that they would be able to close games and have a very similar save to blown save ratio as Chapman. I would choose a very good starter over a dominate closer any day of the week.

I would be okay with trading chapman but it better be a great deal.

The suggestion was Chapman in a deal for Mike Stanton. That's a deal I'd definitely explore. Chapman, while would be heading to a terrible team, would definitely help out in many ways in Miami.

The real problem, however, is I don't see Miami paying to keep him around unless they plan to make him a starter long-term, which would be risky at this point.

Azubuike24;1473348 wrote:The suggestion was Chapman in a deal for Mike Stanton. That's a deal I'd definitely explore. Chapman, while would be heading to a terrible team, would definitely help out in many ways in Miami.

The real problem, however, is I don't see Miami paying to keep him around unless they plan to make him a starter long-term, which would be risky at this point.

So make the trade then when they don't pay him, sign him right back. Haha

Trade Chapman for Dunn. Or maybe we can get Stubbs back.

Rotinaj;1473355 wrote:Trade Chapman for Dunn. Or maybe we can get Stubbs back.

Chapman for Dunn, Cueto or Latos for Stubbs. I like the way you think.

Chapman for Sale (White Sox) who says no?

Terry_Tate;1473359 wrote:Chapman for Dunn, Cueto or Latos for Stubbs. I like the way you think.

You really think we could get Stubbs for just Latos or Cueto? I think we'd probably have to give both.

Rotinaj;1473380 wrote:You really think we could get Stubbs for just Latos or Cueto? I think we'd probably have to give both.

Anybody but Bailey and I'm okay with it.

I'd give up Bailey for a stud RH bat

Ironman92;1473390 wrote:I'd give up Bailey for a stud RH bat

Yes. Nows the time to do it after his 2nd no hitter.

Although he's like 0-2 with a 7 era since then. SMH

SportsAndLady;1473401 wrote:Yes. Nows the time to do it after his 2nd no hitter.

Although he's like 0-2 with a 7 era since then. SMH

I'd take him straight up for Tulo, Stanton, Trout, Janish or Miggy

Ironman92;1473405 wrote:I'd take him straight up for Tulo, Stanton, Trout, Janish AND Miggy

FIFY.

Chris Sale is as big of a risk as Chapman. I'd still make that trade, but unless the Reds play better offensively, I'm not sure that deal brings them any closer to a title.

Azubuike24;1473440 wrote:Chris Sale is as big of a risk as Chapman. I'd still make that trade, but unless the Reds play better offensively, I'm not sure that deal brings them any closer to a title.

Chris Sale is really fucking good

He makes them 10x more dangerous in October than having Chapman

(healthy) Cueto, Sale, Latos in a playoff series? god damn

Oh for sure. It would take a lot more than Chapman though.

However, Cueto is iffy and it's not guaranteed that Broxton or Marshall is back to being their expected form. If all those things are fine, explore the deal!

Yea, you're not going to get an ace for a closer. It would likely take several more arms from our minor league system or a Bailey.

The Reds could probably part with someone like Travieso, who might be someone the Sox want as they are probably in a 5-year rebuild.

Bailey and Chapman for Sale...add a few minor leaguers in the deal as well.

Make it happen, Walt!

It is rumored that Chicago is looking to clean house though, so Chapman + a prospect may do it.

Although I really like Sale, this team needs some offense. Stanton would be nice, but will be a liability in the field, which I will take for some production.

se-alum;1473496 wrote:Although I really like Sale, this team needs some offense. Stanton would be nice, but will be a liability in the field, which I will take for some production.

They have the offense, they need timely hitting. Who is their 3rd starter in the playoffs? You get Sale or someone like him, you have a ridiculous 3 man rotation...all you'll need is the offense to get a few timely hits.

SportsAndLady;1473500 wrote:They have the offense, they need timely hitting. Who is their 3rd starter in the playoffs? You get Sale or someone like him, you have a ridiculous 3 man rotation...all you'll need is the offense to get a few timely hits.

You make that sound easy....have you met Dusty?

Ironman92;1473514 wrote:You make that sound easy....have you met Dusty?

True