Report: Harvey signs with Angels

[reds44]

I loved Harvey, but I’m not sure spending $24 million on Harvey and Roark is the best way to go about making this team decent. If he stays healthy and is better than awful, he’ll make $14 million. All his incentives are for starts.

[WVRedsFan]

Putting aside any biases, if you had asked me two weeks ago who I'd rather have between Roark or Harvey I would have said Roark. That Roark comes slightly cheaper is just the cherry on top.

Tom, it was a crap shoot. Roark was a good move, but Roark and Harvey made sense. At least to me. I saw Harvey getting it together next year. Many will not agree with me. He liked it in Cincinnati, and more often than not, he pitched well. Now, we are crossing fingers that a decent pitcher and a CF can be signed on the cheap (relatively). Harvey may tank and Roark might also. Whoever mans CF, is up in the air. IMHO, the Reds still have to get the pitching. And they are not doing well so far. A buddy says it's early. I don't believe that.

[WVRedsFan]

I loved Harvey, but I’m not sure spending $24 million on Harvey and Roark is the best way to go about making this team decent. If he stays healthy and is better than awful, he’ll make $14 million. All his incentives are for starts.

For one year.

[cumberlandreds]

I was hoping Harvey would remain out there a while longer and would be a fall back for the Reds if they couldn't get anyone better. I think Harvey can still give you six good innings most nights. I'm not sure the Reds have more than two pitchers that can do that now. I'm not sure Roark is that much better than Harvey overall. Roark is a little younger and doesn't have the injury baggage is his upside I suppose.

[Tom Servo]

He liked it in Cincinnati, and more often than not, he pitched well.

Liked it so much he bolted to LA the first chance he got. And considering he had exactly a 4.50 ERA with the Reds, I’d say he basically pitched poorly almost exactly as often as he pitched well.

IMHO, the Reds still have to get the pitching. And they are not doing well so far. A buddy says it's early. I don't believe that.

I don’t think there is anyone who thinks Roark alone means they got the pitching. But I also never considered resigning Harvey to be a sign that they had gotten the pitching either. There are still countless scenarios left for the Reds to improve their pitching. They need to get it done, but the door is far from closed.

[Old NDN]

I was hoping the Reds would bring Harvey back, also. It looked like he went about his business and was a good influence on the young pitchers. He gave this staff some credibility, in spite of some inconsistency, probably due to recovery from TJ. I felt he was the best (reliable) starter they had. I was surprised all it took was a one year deal. I'm not so sure they will find anything comparable much cheaper.

[StRedlegs900]

I'm of the opinion that the Reds need to shoot much higher than a guy like Harvey. I completely understand people being frustrated with the past half-decade, and therefore wanting any semblance of respectability in the starting rotation.

That said, I don't think guys like Harvey move the needle and get this team where I think most want it to go. If we're content with shooting for .500 then great, but as fun as 2010-2013 were (especially compared to recent history), those seasons are still considered to be disappointments to many. This team needs consistent, above-average starting pitching, and that isn't Harvey in my book. You need your Roarks and Harveys of the world for depth, but a rotation full of them will not help reach the true goal. JMO

[CaribbeanRed]

My biggest issue is that if they weren't going to bring Harvey back, then why not trade him for whatever you could get back at the deadline? I can't say that I am disappointed that they didn't resign him, but it was a waste of time running him out there for a losing team all season if that wasn't the plan. Same crap happened when they kept Cozart all year and he walked the next offseason.

[Alabama]

My biggest issue is that if they weren't going to bring Harvey back, then why not trade him for whatever you could get back at the deadline? I can't say that I am disappointed that they didn't resign him, but it was a waste of time running him out there for a losing team all season if that wasn't the plan. Same crap happened when they kept Cozart all year and he walked the next offseason.

Incompetence. That’s all it is

[bucksfan2]

As constructed right now, the Reds would be better with Harvey in the rotation than without him. I hope that isn't the case going forward, I hope the improve the rotation before opening day, but who knows.

I think Harvey can become an 100+ ERA type of pitcher, maybe even a little better. I don't think his days of utter dominance are going to come back. One year deals, even at $10-14M aren't that big of an issue if the player doesn't perform.

[Sea Ray]

We don't know if the Reds were offered anything for Harvey at the deadline. My guess is they did not turn down anything worth criticizing them for now.

As for re-signing him, I think it has to come down to him or Roark. It can't be both. Think of the abuse thrown at the front office if their fulfillment of their off season promise to get pitching and increase payroll amounted to Roark and Harvey?

[Mitri]

Roark made Harvey redundant. Gray too (maybe). From here I see the Reds trying for one multi-year guy (Keuchel on the high end, or a Stroman-type trade) and one or more dumpster dives for back-end filler.

And yes, Roark looks like a steal after seeing this deal. Harvey's potential is a touch higher than Roark's but his injury history and inconsistencies make him a much bigger risk (and $2MM-$5MM more).

Good luck Mr. Harvey, glad you got a deal in a city that suits your clothes.

[reds44]

For one year.

So signing a middle of the rotation and a back end of the rotation starter for a year is going to do what, exactly? I understand Wood from the Dodgers is only under control for a year too but he’s a much bigger improvement than Harvey.

[M2]

Roark made Harvey redundant. Gray too (maybe). From here I see the Reds trying for one multi-year guy (Keuchel on the high end, or a Stroman-type trade) and one or more dumpster dives for back-end filler.

And yes, Roark looks like a steal after seeing this deal. Harvey's potential is a touch higher than Roark's but his injury history and inconsistencies make him a much bigger risk (and $2MM-$5MM more).

Good luck Mr. Harvey, glad you got a deal in a city that suits your clothes.

Hopefully it's an incoming Alex Wood that makes them truly redundant. That deal needs to happen. I'm starting to get wistful over it not happening.

[Tracy Jones]

Yes, Harvey should have been traded at the deadline.

However, what would we have gotten for him? Another team’s Tanner Rainey? Nothing to really get upset about IMO.