PDA

View Full Version : 9/22 - Larkin News Conference at 7 PM



TeamBoone
09-22-2003, 06:22 PM
Just announced on the local news. It will deal with his future as a Cincinnati Red.

StillFunkyB
09-22-2003, 06:23 PM
TV or radio? Both?

TeamBoone
09-22-2003, 06:30 PM
Actually, they didn't say (it was NBC, channel 5). Probably WLW though. I can't imagine that they would interrupt tv broadcasting for it, but who knows?

TeamBoone
09-22-2003, 06:31 PM
You kind of have to think that he's going to announce his retirement, don't you?

savafan
09-22-2003, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by TeamBoone
You kind of have to think that he's going to announce his retirement, don't you?

That's kinda what I'm thinking TB.

JaxRed
09-22-2003, 06:34 PM
Can't make up my mind what it's going to be. Could be retirement, could be contract for next year, could be acknowledgement that he wants more than Reds will pay.

RFS62
09-22-2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by JaxRed
Can't make up my mind what it's going to be. Could be retirement, could be contract for next year, could be acknowledgement that he wants more than Reds will pay.


I'll bet retirement. Why would he need a press conference if he's coming back?

TeamBoone
09-22-2003, 06:37 PM
I can't believe they would schedule a news conference to announce that he'll play next year or to announce what he would/would not earn.

It's got to be retirement.

StillFunkyB
09-22-2003, 06:44 PM
They interupted TV for the Aaron Boone trade PC. So who knows.

Team Clark
09-22-2003, 06:47 PM
Probably retirement and the 1st base coaches job.

savafan
09-22-2003, 06:53 PM
Interesting thought TCII, hadn't considered that.

StillFunkyB
09-22-2003, 06:56 PM
WLW hasn't sed anything about it yet

JaxRed
09-22-2003, 06:56 PM
ESPN News will cover it live

TeamBoone
09-22-2003, 06:58 PM
Figures. I don't get ESPN News.

I'm still listening to WLW; they haven't even mentioned it.

StillFunkyB
09-22-2003, 06:59 PM
nothing on espn news yet

StillFunkyB
09-22-2003, 07:00 PM
now it sez on espn news that it is coming up

MWM
09-22-2003, 07:01 PM
It will be an extremely sad for me if he retires. Not so much because I don't think it's time, but because he is my all-time favorite player. He is the most under-appreciated player in the history of the game.

Barry is class and professionalism personified. He deserves so much better than what he's gotten from this organization (contract aside) in the twilight of his career.

If it's retirement, I don't think I'll be able to hold back the tears.

LINEDRIVER
09-22-2003, 07:02 PM
Just wondering, did it go this way ??????

Lark asked for 1-year @ $500,000 and John Allen said, "No, we cant break the bank for you, Barry."


The Reds are classless. No doubt. Period.

TeamBoone
09-22-2003, 07:03 PM
It's on local tv now... they're waiting for John Allen.

JaxRed
09-22-2003, 07:03 PM
"Since I can only play in 20% of the games, I'm switching to a position where that's a positive! Next year I'm a starting pitcher !!"

TeamCasey
09-22-2003, 07:04 PM
John Allen is doing it, not Barry. It's coming on now.

Team Clark
09-22-2003, 07:04 PM
If Allen is making the comments then this will not be good.

Team Clark
09-22-2003, 07:06 PM
What a PR move... Throwing it all on Barry. WOW!!

My guess is 1 Year 500k-750k. Knowing Barry would not accept. Allen is garbage.

savafan
09-22-2003, 07:07 PM
John Allen is an ass!

MWM
09-22-2003, 07:08 PM
John Allen is awful in front of the camera. the guy has no emotion at all. I'm starting to wonder if the guy is anything more than a machine.

This news conference is unnecessary and a slap in the face to Barry. If Allen remains with the Reds one more minute it will be too long.

UKFlounder
09-22-2003, 07:08 PM
Allen said they offered Barry a one-year contract on Saturday and then Monday (to his agent) and then he spoke with Barry. Barry also spoke with Lindnder, but the Reds didn't change their offer, and Larkin continually rejected it.

TeamBoone
09-22-2003, 07:08 PM
Barry declined the contract offer.... base contract BELOW major league minimum with incentives to be able to potentially double it.

savafan
09-22-2003, 07:09 PM
Why was this necessary, and why the hell is John Allen making baseball decisions?

MWM
09-22-2003, 07:11 PM
Does anyone else get the impression John Allen is actually happy about this.

I know I'll root like hell for Barry no matter where he ends up.

TeamCasey
09-22-2003, 07:11 PM
He didn't say below.

letsgojunior
09-22-2003, 08:23 PM
Larkin's agent said on ESPNews that the offer was for 500K with incentives that could possibly bring it up to 700K.

TeamBoone
09-22-2003, 08:25 PM
Yes, he did say "below". And, in the recap, the newscaster said "below standard value", then corrected it to "below MLB minimum".

iammrred
09-22-2003, 08:26 PM
If Allen would have issued this news just through a press release, people would be pissed too. He can't win. $500k is $500k more than I would have offered Larkin. If he thinks he can get much more from other teams, I say "go for it."

The guy has a done so much for this yeam, but I can't stomach watching him go on the DL for one more day.

cincinnati chili
09-22-2003, 08:31 PM
I think John Allen gets way too much criticism on this board and in general, but I agree with those who question why this press conference was really necessary.

While I'm one who believes Larkin is finished and shouldn't be taking up roster spots on this team, I think the classy thing would have been for the Reds to play this down a lot more. Maybe issuing a press release thanking Barry for his many great years, simply saying that they failed to come to terms, instead of making a spectacle and discussing specific dollar amounts.

Even if the "press release" was not the right route, I think this could have been brought up as part of an end-of-year press conference.

savafan
09-22-2003, 08:34 PM
http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cin/news/cin_news.jsp?ymd=20030922&content_id=538835&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin


Allen declined to divulge specifics of the offer other than to confirm it was a guaranteed Major League contract in excess of the minimum (currently $300,000) and the opportunity to double that base amount based on incentives that the two sides never really got a chance to negotiate. Allen said it was a set offer and would not change.


"We had a contract amount we felt was fair and fit into our structure," Allen said. "I can't speak for Barry, but I got the impression that he felt it was a smack in the face."

Fullboat
09-22-2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by TeamBoone
Yes, he did say "below". And, in the recap, the newscaster said "below standard value", then corrected it to "below MLB minimum".

How can it be below MLB minimum?Isn't it the minimum set in stone
by the players union?

:confused:

KittyDuran
09-22-2003, 08:35 PM
discussing specific dollar amounts. but that's what most fans want to know... remember the reputation of this ballclub...:evilgrin:

alloverjr
09-22-2003, 08:36 PM
Good move by the Reds. They offered Larkin a contract to play one more year at about what most people on this board were saying was fair (I'm assuming about $750k after incentives). He rejected, it's time to move on. While I would have liked the new GM to make this decision instead of Allen, this does give them the opportunity to have a "Barry Larkin Day" if he wants it this year.

I don't blame Allen for bringing this public. Everyone wanted to know what the status was. Now we know. If it had waited until after the season, or was kept quiet, there would have been some that would have complained that they didn't have the opportunity to see Larkin in uniform one last time.

Good luck on a contract next season Barry. I just think you've overestimated your value in a soft market.

Hubba
09-22-2003, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by TeamBoone
Barry declined the contract offer.... base contract BELOW major league minimum with incentives to be able to potentially double it.

How in the heck do you make below minimum?:confused:

GAC
09-22-2003, 08:39 PM
It seems to me, from reading the article, that Larkin wanted more money than the 500,000 offered by the Reds.

I'm sorry, but I would have offered him the same thing. At this point in his career, money should not even be the issue. He should be more concerned about playing time, and continuing, at his age, to get the opportunity to do that. Especially as a back-up SS. How many other teams would have (or have in the psat) just cut a veteran player loose?

This was a tough decision that had to be made; but I agree with what they have done.


CINCINNATI -- Shortstop Barry Larkin rejected a one-year contract offer on Monday, leaving the Cincinnati Reds' captain to finish his playing days with another club.

Larkin, 39, has spent all 18 major league seasons with his hometown team, and hoped to return as a backup infielder next year.

Barry Larkin may have played his last days with the Reds.
The Reds offered the 11-time All-Star a one-year contract with a $500,000 base salary. Larkin turned it down, and owner Carl Lindner declined to increase the amount after talking to the shortstop by phone on Monday.

According to the Cincinnati Post, Reds chief operating officer John Allen and then-general manager Jim Bowden reportedly were opposed to re-signing Larkin when Lindner gave Larkin a three-year, $27 million extension on July 23, 2000.

Larkin's current contract expires at the end of the season, on Sept. 28. If that afternoon's game against Montreal at Great American Ball Park is to be Larkin's last in a Reds uniform, he could be given a formal sendoff prior to the game, the paper said.

Larkin has largely been kept out of the discussions regarding his future with the Reds, and has publicly expressed his frustration at not knowing whom to contact, the Post reported. The Reds continue to operate without a general manager, but, according to the paper, Allen hopes to fill the position within the next few weeks.

Since signing his contract in 2000, Larkin has been on the disabled list five times. He also missed the final month of 2000 and played through six different injuries in 2002. Now Larkin is on the DL again, sidelined for the third time in 2003 after suffering a sprained left ring finger Aug. 22 at Houston.

Whether Larkin, who has spent his entire professional career in the Reds' organization, will choose to retire rather than pursue a contract wtih another team when this contract runs out, is not yet known. If Larkin does decide to retire, one source told the paper the Reds are likely to keep him in the organization, possibly as a spring-training instructor and/or front-office consultant.

Larkin led the Reds to the Central division title in 1995, batting .319 with 15 home runs, 66 RBI and a career-high 51 stolen bases, earning him the MVP title that year. He batted .300 or better nine times, including five straight seasons from 1989-93.

Before going on the DL in August, Larkin was hitting .282 with 18 RBI. He missed almost four weeks in April and May with a strained left calf and another three weeks in May and June with a strained right calf.

In 2000, when Larkin's previous contract expired, negotiations on a new deal stalled, and Bowden agreed in principle on a trade that would have sent Larkin to the New York Mets for outfielder prospect Alex Escobar and at least one other minor-leaguer. But Larkin used his rights under MLB's basic agreement with its players to refuse that trade.

Shortly after that, the Reds called a press conference to announce Larkin's new deal. The contract included an annual salary of $9 million, with $3 million ($9 million of the $27 million total) deferred, at 4 percent interest, to a 16-year period beginning in 2004.

RFS62
09-22-2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by alloverjr
Good move by the Reds. They offered Larkin a contract to play one more year at about what most people on this board were saying was fair (I'm assuming about $750k after incentives). He rejected, it's time to move on. While I would have liked the new GM to make this decision instead of Allen, this does give them the opportunity to have a "Barry Larkin Day" if he wants it this year.

I don't blame Allen for bringing this public. Everyone wanted to know what the status was. Now we know. If it had waited until after the season, or was kept quiet, there would have been some that would have complained that they didn't have the opportunity to see Larkin in uniform one last time.

Good luck on a contract next season Barry. I just think you've overestimated your value in a soft market.


I completely agree.

savafan
09-22-2003, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by alloverjr
If it had waited until after the season, or was kept quiet, there would have been some that would have complained that they didn't have the opportunity to see Larkin in uniform one last time.



But Larkin's done for the season, so we won't have the opportunity to see him play in a Cincinnati uniform again.

KittyDuran
09-22-2003, 08:43 PM
But Larkin's done for the season, so we won't have the opportunity to see him play in a Cincinnati uniform again. But he has been in uniform and in the dugout while on the DL...

savafan
09-22-2003, 08:45 PM
I dunno, but I think when you're dealing with the captain of the team, you do so with a bit more class than what John Allen just did.

Not saying the contract offer wasn't fair, just the way it was handled.

GAC
09-22-2003, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by alloverjr
Good move by the Reds. They offered Larkin a contract to play one more year at about what most people on this board were saying was fair (I'm assuming about $750k after incentives). He rejected, it's time to move on. While I would have liked the new GM to make this decision instead of Allen, this does give them the opportunity to have a "Barry Larkin Day" if he wants it this year.

I don't blame Allen for bringing this public. Everyone wanted to know what the status was. Now we know. If it had waited until after the season, or was kept quiet, there would have been some that would have complained that they didn't have the opportunity to see Larkin in uniform one last time.

Good luck on a contract next season Barry. I just think you've overestimated your value in a soft market.

I agree with most everything you have said here AOJ except I wouldn't have put this decision about Lark's future on the shoulders of the new GM. IMO, that wouldn't be fair to him.

Regardless of what anyone may feel of John Allen, as CEO, he should have been the one standing at that podium representing the Reds to make this announcement.

If it had been Kullman, or anyone else, then people would have said... "Where's the chicken-@#@! Allen? Why did he push it off on an underling to make this public announcement?"

It was a lose-lose situation for Allen.

TeamBoone
09-22-2003, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Hubba
How in the heck do you make below minimum?:confused:

I have no idea. All I know is what was reported by Ken Brew on WLWT, Channel 5.

Actually, that's not totally true... John Allen also said it earlier; Brew was recapping. I posted it right after John Allen said it.

LINEDRIVER
09-22-2003, 08:47 PM
I dont think Allen said "below the major league minimum", I think he said, "not at the major league minimum."


The Reds didnt even contact Barry and or his agent until about a week ago. Is that right??

If that is so, then that is a horsebleep way of doing business with an 18 yr vet of the ballclub.

savafan
09-22-2003, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by KittyDuran
But he has been in uniform and in the dugout while on the DL...

It's not the same as seeing him PLAY his final game, and take his final at bat. Not like giving him a good send-off the way San Diego did with Gwynn or Baltimore did with Ripken.

Barry was also the last player who will probably play his entire career with one team...well, until now.

lollipopcurve
09-22-2003, 08:49 PM
Agreed that they made a fair offer. I think it's a good move by Allen to get this taken care of, so the next GM (who may have to try to deal Griffey) doesn't have to get his hands dirty on this.

I hope Larkin handles this well -- no nasty parting shots. And I hope the club does a special day for him this year or next, where they retire his number. There were some things about Larkin that made me skeptical of his real leadership abilities, but there's no doubt he's one of the 5-10 greatest Reds ever, and in my opinion the best shortstop in Reds history. We've been lucky to have him. (I don't think we'll ever see another player go 18 straight seasons with the team, either.)

GAC
09-22-2003, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by savafan
I dunno, but I think when you're dealing with the captain of the team, you do so with a bit more class than what John Allen just did.

Not saying the contract offer wasn't fair, just the way it was handled.

OK. Then how differently would you have handled it?

They made an offer to Larkin, and he rejected it.

They held a news conference to inform the public (fans) of the results, and their final decision.

What did they do that was wrong?

I haven't had a chance to see the Allen announcement; but did he say anything that was inappropriate or wrong?

It appears to me that it was pretty "cut and dry".

savafan
09-22-2003, 08:53 PM
I think we may see Larkin in a Devil Rays uniform next year.

Reds4Life
09-22-2003, 08:55 PM
While I think the press conference was a poor move, I agree with not renewing Larkin's contract. The Reds made a fair offer, it appears Barry is just looking for another fat payday like he did 3 years ago. Barrys soon to be expired contract should go down as one of the worst in Reds history.

Thanks for the memories Barry, but it's time to move on.

letsgojunior
09-22-2003, 08:55 PM
Even though I really despise John Allen, I have to agree with the general sentiment on the board. I don't see how we could pay Larkin anymore than ~$700K on a limited budget, especially when he is spending much of his time on the DL.

It would have been nice to have a BL day, but Allen said that Larkin was offered it and rejected it (though his lips were moving).

It's very sad to see it end this way, but we certainly couldn't have paid him like $1.5 M for a farewell tour.

I'm not even interested in watching this disgraceful product next year, so maybe I am a bit dulled by players leaving - I don't know.

TeamBoone
09-22-2003, 08:58 PM
Where is everyone getting these $$$ figures? I haven't read anywhere or heard anywhere what the exact amount offered was.

Raisor
09-22-2003, 09:02 PM
I agree with those that say that the contract offer was fair. I just can't see paying Larkin more then that at this stage of his career.

FlyingPig
09-22-2003, 09:03 PM
Frankly, I was hoping Larkin would retire after this season totally after a career with the Reds..Down deep I knew he felt he wasn't done.

The Reds did what they had to do. Larkin is doing what he feels he has to do. Goodbye Barry and thank you for incredible memories. Good luck with whoever you land with..

Personally though, I don't know who'd offer him that much more.

He will look good going into the Hall with a Reds cap on though.

:)

Raisor
09-22-2003, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by TeamBoone
Where is everyone getting these $$$ figures? I haven't read anywhere or heard anywhere what the exact amount offered was.


The Reds offered the 11-time All-Star a one-year contract with a $500,000 base salary. Larkin turned it down, and owner Carl Lindner declined to increase the amount after talking to the shortstop by phone on Monday."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1619231

LINEDRIVER
09-22-2003, 09:05 PM
Who knows all the details at this point?

Maybe it was a non-guaranteed contract.

Just hard for me to believe everything John Allen says.

And here comes PART II of the plan. Gee, I hate to admit to such a leap in logic, LOL, but maybe this is the Reds way of pissing off Junior to the point that he ASKS to be traded. (Junior and Larkin are close buddies)

JaxRed
09-22-2003, 09:08 PM
Allen said that Larkin's agent said the Red's offer was "not even in the ballpark". So I assume he's looking for 2-3 million.

And yes, it was a guaranteed major league contract.

Raisor
09-22-2003, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by JaxRed
Allen said that Larkin's agent said the Red's offer was "not even in the ballpark". So I assume he's looking for 2-3 million.

If that is the case, then I'm doubly happy they didn't do it.

WVRed
09-22-2003, 09:11 PM
If you look at it, its been one slap in the face after another.

Reds announce Larkin wont be back(per Cincy post), then Larkin and his agent say it wasnt true in the DDN and Barry would talk to Linder. Then Allen calls a news conference and announces Larkin will not be resigned.

Id say that the bridges have been burned, and unless Allen is fired, you wont see Barry back in a Reds uniform, period.

Reds4Life
09-22-2003, 09:14 PM
As much as I hate John Allen, it's not his fault Barry is asking for yet another inflated contract. :rolleyes:

If he can do better with another team, good luck Barry. We simply can't afford to pay him $2-3 million dollars to sit on the DL for another 100 games.

Kc61
09-22-2003, 09:22 PM
Allen is the proverbial "hatchet man" who does the dirty work for the organization. Obviously some publicist decided this was the way to handle it. I wonder if Larkin was invited to the press conference to jointly announce that he and the Reds are parting ways.

I am happy the Reds will not bring Larkin back. The time has come to turn the page. I think Larkin is highly unsuitable as a utility man since he only plays one position and is injured so much. And from a financial viewpoint, the Reds would have been quite foolish to once again overspend on Larkin.

I think Larkin may be surprised by the lack of interest in him in the off season. Most teams are belt tightening right now and won't offer much for a 40 year old, injury prone, one position utility man. Retire, Barry.

savafan
09-22-2003, 09:25 PM
Would you feel the same way if Barry agreed to move to third base in 2004?

Raisor
09-22-2003, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by savafan
Would you feel the same way if Barry agreed to move to third base in 2004?

Which would give the Reds an infield of Casey, Jimenez, Castro, and Larkin.

GAH!

Reds4Life
09-22-2003, 09:32 PM
Moving to 3rd base does not make up for the fact he's a walking injury and is nearly 40. No, it would not have changed my mind. So long Barry.

RedSchmo2
09-22-2003, 09:42 PM
Larkin was one of the most underpaid players in the league until he signed this last contract with the Reds.

Since then, he has been probably the most overpaid player. Even Griffey has done more for the dolllar.

Larkin should take the offer if he wants to leave a mark in baseball. Actually, I think he will hurt his chances of the HOF (as small as they are) by playing for another team.

The one thing he has going for him that may always stand is that he could be the LAST player to play his entire career (of any significant length) with one team. He will smear his career by playing elsewhere, period. The only exception is if he (by a very long chance) hooks up with the 2004 World Series Champs... and actually contributes.

Also, he doesn't sell tickets anymore, he sells very few jerseys with Griffey still strong in that area and Kearns and Dunn jerseys going like crazy

He needs the Reds much more than they need him at this point. He needs to figure that out. I am very disappointed in him and his agent when it comes to this decision. I am very pleased with the Reds good will gesture to offer him a contract even though they have several players waiting in the wings just as he was 18-19 years ago. The Reds traded Stillwell to make room and show their committment to him... and they are still showing a committment.



.

Raisor
09-22-2003, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by RedSchmo2

The one thing he has going for him that may always stand is that he could be the LAST player to play his entire career (of any significant length) with one team. .

1986-Barry Larkin
1987-Edgar Martinez
1988-Craig Biggio, John Smoltz
1990-Frank Thomas
1991-Jeff Bagwell

All these guys have played in the majors for one team.

SteelSD
09-22-2003, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by Raisor
1986-Barry Larkin
1987-Edgar Martinez
1988-Craig Biggio, John Smoltz
1990-Frank Thomas
1991-Jeff Bagwell

All these guys have played in the majors for one team.

Oh YEAH???

Well...Barry Larkin might just be the last Michigan Alumni in the NL who doesn't pitch or play first base or wasn't once a catcher to play his entire Major and Minor League career with one team.

I think that about covers it, smarty!!;)

Unless, of course, he plays somewhere else next year...then forget I said anything...

Reds4Life
09-22-2003, 10:00 PM
On Fox 19 they just played a blub from Larkin saying the contract was for $500K, but the incentives would have doubled it. So, in theory, it could have been for $1 million next year. He turned that down? I think Barry is going to have a major reality check on the free agent market.

tsj017
09-22-2003, 10:00 PM
This was so, so very predictable.

Despite the constant claims that Larkin is a "class act", it was predictable that he'd go out a la Ozzie Smith in St. Louis--kicking and screaming every step of the way.

The writing's been on the wall for a good long while now, but Larkin doesn't want to read it.

We should've let him walk 3 years ago. It would've been a reality check for him as to his value or lack thereof.

I feel much better about the direction of the Reds.

:thumbup:

redsrule2500
09-22-2003, 10:07 PM
I can't believe people are saying that the Reds are without class. In this case, Barry Larkin is, for asking for too much money. He was injured and barley helped the team out the last 2 years. If he really liked Cincinnati like he says, and is really a good person, I really think he would accept what he is given, not try to get more money and finish his career in a different city. Pathetic, Barry, just pathetic. :(

Chip R
09-22-2003, 10:10 PM
I think the Reds went above and beyond the call of duty in actually offering Barry a $500K deal. As I've said before I think they were trying to get Barry to take the hint and retire gracefully. Unfortunately for the Reds, and for Barry, he wouldn't retire. IMO, if Barry hooks up with another team, this could hurt his HOF chances. It shouldn't but sportswriters are funny like that and place a lot of value in stuff like playing for one team in a career.

It'll be tough next season not having Barry on the roster. He's my favorite player and I surely will miss him. I wish him the best of luck wherever he ends up and I hope he comes back with the Reds in some capacity.

But I don't think there is going to be a lot of interest in a 40 year old SS who can't stay healthy for any length of time who is wanting a million or two in salary. 3-4 years ago there may have been but teams are starting to get smart and they are spending their money more wisely.

It may have been nice to have Barry around in a coaching capacity and mentor the younger players but there comes a time where the younger players have to become leaders themselves. They cannot always rely on a crutch of a veteran leader. They have to take charge themselves. Barry did it. Sometimes, out of adversity, leaders emerge. Perhaps not having Barry around will encourage Jr. to take more of a leadership role on the ball club. All of a sudden he's the oldest player on the team. It's not a bad thing if he chooses not to. Some are leaders and some are not. If he can stay healthy and be content being a follower, more power to him. But no more can he look elsewhere for veteran leadership.

I love Barry but when you dislocate your finger just swinging a bat, I think the Man above is trying to send you a signal to retire.

guernsey
09-22-2003, 10:15 PM
Good move by the Reds to offer Barry a more-than-fair contract.

Good move by Allen not to leave it to be one of the first acts of the next GM.

The Reds have paid Barry over $70 million dollars during his playing career. They owe him nothing more than to give him a day and to retire his number.

Reds4Life
09-22-2003, 10:24 PM
Associated Press
CINCINNATI -- The Reds are cutting ties with their team captain.


Shortstop Barry Larkin rejected a one-year contract offer on Monday, leaving one of Cincinnati's most revered players to finish his career somewhere else.


Larkin, 39, has spent all 18 major league seasons with his hometown team, and hoped to return as a backup infielder next year before retiring and moving into another role with the Reds.


His 18 seasons with Cincinnati are the most that any current major leaguer has spent with one team.


"It's tough to say goodbye to Barry Larkin," chief operating officer John Allen said. "It's really hard. He's meant a lot to this organization."


Their inability to reach a deal was the latest disappointment in one of the franchise's worst seasons. The Reds moved into Great American Ball Park aiming for the playoffs, but are finishing the season fighting to stay out of last place.


Larkin's $27 million, three-year contract ends after this season. The Reds offered a one-year deal with a $500,000 base salary, plus incentives that could have doubled his pay. Larkin turned it down, and owner Carl Lindner declined to increase the amount after talking with the shortstop by phone on Monday.

"I don't know how you describe a contract like that to a player like Barry, but it's extremely disappointing," agent Eric Goldschmidt said. "All Barry was looking for was something respectable and fair."


Larkin didn't attend a news conference Monday night. Allen said the club won't improve the offer to Larkin, who grew up in Cincinnati and was the Reds' first-round pick in the 1985 amateur draft.


"Barry Larkin for many years was the heart and soul of this team," Allen said.


Larkin helped the Reds win a World Series in 1990, earned NL Most Valuable Player honors in 1995 and was a steadying influence in the clubhouse during former owner Marge Schott's suspensions in the 1990s.


Former general manager Jim Bowden said repeatedly that he wanted Larkin to spend his entire career with the Reds, but tried to trade him to the New York Mets in 2000 for prospects.


Larkin blocked the proposed trade, and Lindner was so moved by the reception that Larkin got from fans that he approved a $27 million, three-year extension.


Bowden and manager Bob Boone were fired in July, when the club started a series of payroll-slashing trades that dealt away top players. With no general manager to make decisions, Larkin's fate became an issue as the season wound down.


Larkin has been limited by injuries for the past three years, and acknowledged that he can no longer be an everyday player. He was willing to take less to stay in Cincinnati, but found the Reds' offer unacceptable.


"When you play this many years on one team _ your hometown team _ and you only want to play one more year and you're flexible on a contract and your expectations are not that high, you'd think something could be done," Goldschmidt said.


Goldschmidt said Larkin will try to play one more season for another club. Although Allen said Larkin would still be welcome to join the Reds in another capacity when he retires, Goldschmidt doesn't consider that an option now.


"If this is the way John Allen feels about Barry Larkin, why would Barry Larkin want to work for John Allen?" Goldschmidt said.

I highlighted some of the important parts. The article is from ESPN. So, Larkin turned down a contract that could have been worth $1 million for next year. It appears the bridge has indeed been burned with Larkin/Allen. As much as I dislike Allen, Larkin was offered a fair contract, more than fair acutally. Looks like Barry wants another fat payday. His idea of a "respectable and fair" contract needs some adjusting. He was offered a more than fair contract, and turned it down. Don't start whining now Barry. :thumbdn:

guernsey
09-22-2003, 10:31 PM
Yep. Barry ain't gonna get a better offer than that anywhere else.

savafan
09-22-2003, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by guernsey
Yep. Barry ain't gonna get a better offer than that anywhere else.

That's why I don't think this press conference should have been held, because before this, Larkin may have returned for less money after not finding a contract on the open market.

remdog
09-22-2003, 10:37 PM
I'm on record here as saying, on many 'Larkin Next Year?' threads, that I (personally) would go up to $1M to bring Barry back. Most on here felt that I was far to generous. Well, basicly, that's what the Reds offered Barry (the opportunity to earn $1M) and the Reds get ripped for it!?! Geez, short memory on this board!

The Reds offer was fair, IMO. It gave Barry a way to earn his salary and go out with class with his home town team. Barry is the disappointment here, from my point of view.

I agree that it will hurt his HOF chances.

I agree this is a mirror image of the car-wreck that was the Ozzie Smith snit.

I think that Barry may find himself 'retired' by opening day ala Davy Conception and his 'farewell tour' with the Angels Spring Training squad.

Personally, I'm glad that John Allen did the dirty work and brought this out into the open. Hell, everyone and his pig hates Allen so why put this burden on a new GM's shoulders. Thanks for taking the hit, John.

At least this issue is taken care of----only about 45 more to go. We've got six months till opening day, let's get a move on....

Rem

gonelong
09-22-2003, 11:26 PM
Its not suprising that Larkin turned it down. I think Barry is going to get some backlash and it will suprise him.

I didn't mind him getting the 3yr/$27M deal, I considered it backpay.

Talk about your "out with a whimper" ...

GL

Team Clark
09-22-2003, 11:34 PM
Typical, classless John Allen. I agree that Barry should not have been offered a sizeable contract, however, he should not have been treated like Tony Perez. Fans wonder why there is so much animosity with the Reds and with former players. Gee I wonder? This really is not so much about the contract offer as much as how poorly the FO handled an 18 year Reds veteran. Brutal.

I knew this was coming when Allen alleged he could not get ahold of Barry over the weekend. I think I even posted something about that. Setting Barry up to look bad. Funny how phones work. I picked mine up dialed Barry's number and there he was. Maybe Allen was calling Barry's psychic line. TOTAL PR MESS!! We know who to blame for that. The Reds FO (and I mean the ENTIRE FO) is so spiteful. They just drive the fans away. VERY dissapointed.

2001MUgrad
09-22-2003, 11:54 PM
SIGN BARRY!!!!

SteelSD
09-22-2003, 11:57 PM
Hmn...a lot of interesting takes.

In a situation like this, it seems human nature begs for blame assignment roles. Good versus evil.

There's no good here. No evil. Just business.

Barry Larkin has meant more to this club than most people remember (and more than some care to). In fact, during his peak, Larkin was THE reason to watch the Cinncinnati Reds. Exciting. Character. Drive. Pride. All words used to describe Barry Larkin, and those words are all spot on.

Barry Larkin is a legacy player for this franchise and demonstrated that with everything he did. Great numbers? Good for you, Barry. Gold Gloves? Good for you, Barry. World Series ring? Good for you, Barry. MVP? Good for you, Barry. Hall of Fame? Maybe, and if so- good for you, Barry.

And GOOD for the Cincinnati Reds. All of it.

And dammit, good for us. Thank God we have all had the privledge to watch Barry Louis Larkin play Major League Baseball for all these years. Good for us, Barry and thank you, sir. THANK YOU.

And now Barry Larkin wishes not to accept a contract below that which his pride says he deserves. Ok. No evil. It's not your fault that the Reds paid you far more than your performance dictated for the past three years.

And now our Front Office has learned a valuable lesson and doesn't wish to overspend for a part-time infielder whose best years are behind him. Fine. Just business. It's not John Allen's fault that his player feels he deserves more.

And what does this all come down to?

Barry Larkin, thank you for everything you've done for the Cincinnati Reds over the course of your career. You've been a tremendous influence to all of baseball, a legend to many, and a hero to some. I will never forget how you've played the game and what you've meant to this franchise. EVER.

Is it time for Barry to go? Sure. But there's no good and evil spin to it. It's just business.

JMHO

Steel

remdog
09-23-2003, 12:16 AM
Let's say that you're a middle-market 'sports bar' that was hot in the '90's. And, you've got a bar tender that was a big fav back then 'cause he could do all those 'behind the back glass flips' and he could quote all the latest stats and he could work the remote on all 8 TVs at the same time.

But, now 'Larry' drops a glass or two. He doesn't really follow the stats anymore. The remote and the Tivo are beyond him now. Plus, he calls in sick more and more.

You take Larry aside and say, "Maybe it's time to retire Larry." But Larry doesn't want to go. "All those years of faithful service", he says. "All those years of stand up play when the crowd didn't want to hear 'last call' ", he says. "All those years of working for minimum wage", he says. "All those years of breaking in all those new bartenders that we knew were never going to make it", he says.

"Larry, I really, really appreciate all you've done for the folks here", you say. "But you don't have 'it' anymore. And, I really want you to go out in style. So, how about you work the lunch shift 3 days a week. I'll guarantee ya' more than minimum wage. Plus, if you perform well, you'll double your wages in tips! What do ya' say, big guy. We'll even have a 'Love ya' Larry Night' for ya. It'll be great! And, when you're done with that floor gig, we'll make ya' a part of the management."

Yep. Definately classless on the part of that bar owner.

Rem

Phoenix
09-23-2003, 01:42 AM
I support John Allen and the Reds. Larkin has made millions this year and wasn't worth $500K. These are the Reds and not the Yankees and can't afford the kind of sentimentality many on this board want. Larkin's time has passed. Thanks for the memories.

WVRedsFan
09-23-2003, 02:12 AM
Having worked in PR for a few years, I can honestly say this is the biggest train wreck of a non-event I've ever seen.

Barry Larkin, the lone former MVP on the team (if it is a team) gets the humiliation of having a press conference called by his team--the one he played his whole career for--to say he was greedy and not worth a half mil to finish out his career in Cincinnati. Wow.

Barry Larkin is one of the most underrated players to ever put on spikes, and his salary over the last three years was payback for him taking low salaries in the other years. Those are givens. And maybe he thinks he's worth more than 500-1 MIL per year. That's OK, but to call a news conference to say that he refused the contract is a bit over the line--heck, it's more than a bit over the line!

The great stars who spend a long time with a team should be treated with dignity when it's over. I look back at how the Reds have handled these situations and just shake my head. Why in the name of all that's decent did John fricking Allen have to have a news conference? What good did it do? If you're going to do this, do it after the season and save face. It's like the Reds just love to shove it in the fans faces. You like and appreciate Barry? Well, here's the real scoop. He's greedy. Give me a break.

I agree with the decision to offer Barry a half mil with performances clauses. I agree that Barry had every right to decline this offer (though I think he's foolish) and I agree that the Reds did the right thing regarding their future. But to make a spectacle out of it? That's just foolish.

Some day in the not to distant future a new front office team will run the Reds and they will have two strikes against them when they start. This, the oldest franchise in baseball, has been plagued by a majority owner and Marge Schott's business manager who do not know how to treat people. I thought the firing of Jim Bowden would begin a new era for our team. I was wrong. Classless just is the beginning. I sure hope the "young arms" they've accumulated and the banjo hitters they covet win. If not, we're looking at ten years of second division baseball. Why? Griffey is next. Mark my words. Then, we can root for the likes of Ryan Freel and Juan Castro because only the desparate want to play for us.

I had better stop. It's just too disgusting

malcontent
09-23-2003, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by SteelSD
Is it time for Barry to go? Sure. But there's no good and evil spin to it. It's just business.
Maybe not in this one isolated case. But the Lindner/Allen axis of evil still reigns!

oregonred
09-23-2003, 02:46 AM
Good stuff Remdog. Love the "Larry" analogy :thumbup:

ukwazoo
09-23-2003, 03:46 AM
See ya, Barry. You have been my favorite Red since Eric Davis left. But the contract offered was more than fair. I'm sure some team will pony up and give him what he wants,but I can't blame the Reds FO one bit for not offering him more. It's been fun.

creek14
09-23-2003, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by Team Clark
Typical, classless John Allen.
I can't stand JA, but I disagree, TCII.

The Reds had to make a preemptive strike.

Look at the crap Barry's agent is spewing about a "respectable offer". If he had been given a chance to say those things without the fans knowing what the Reds offered, the masses would have been livid with the Reds.

Allen didnít slam Barry. Barryís agent is slamming the Reds. Someone is classless. This time (and maybe only this time) it isnít John Allen.

TeamCasey
09-23-2003, 06:45 AM
It's a swing and a miss


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Club's last offer not sufficient for captain

By John Fay
The Cincinnati Enquirer


PHOTO GALLERY

18 Larkin photos
In the end, it was about the injuries. When the Reds were deciding what to do about 18-year shortstop Barry Larkin, his medical history played a key role in formulating an offer.

"One of our problems this year has been the number of players on the disabled list," Reds chief operating officer John Allen said Monday. "Barry has been on the DL three times himself."

That's why the Reds were willing to offer Larkin a base salary of only $500,000. He would have been able to earn $500,000 more in incentives for plate appearances and games played.

Larkin rejected the Reds' offer first Saturday, then again Monday after a face-to-face meeting with Allen. Larkin also spoke to chief executive officer Carl Lindner on Monday. The offer wasn't going to change.

"I was told that in business, if you don't produce, you get taken off the shelf," Larkin said, refusing to specify who said that. "They said some pretty matter-of-fact things today that I won't repeat. I'm just very disappointed."

Larkin said he thinks he can be a productive player and plans to play next year. He saw a hand specialist Monday. And though he expects to be 100 percent healthy for next season, he was advised not to play anymore this season.

Larkin acknowledged that $500,000 is a lot of money (the major-league minimum is $300,000). But, he said, it was presented as a take-it-or-leave-it offer. He would not say what he thought a fair offer would have been.

"The reason that the amount of money that they offered me was unacceptable is because of the principle," Larkin said. "I was surely not looking to break the bank. But there are other players out there that have been loyal to franchises and that have done some things in their careers that I think (were) respected by the franchises. This contract shows me the door, basically."

Larkin said he wanted to finish his career in Cincinnati.

"I think one of the things that bothers me most is the fact that a guy who's not from Cincinnati appears to be empowered to make this decision," he said. "I talked to Carl a couple of days ago to see where his head was, and he told me to call John."

Allen said the Reds had internal discussions about Larkin's future before the All-Star break when Jim Bowden was still general manager.

Larkin made it clear that he wanted to play one more season. Then he hoped to work in the front office.


Click to view Acrobat PDF file (496k) showing statistics and milestones from Barry's career with the Reds.
| ZOOM |
"I think John wants to run things," Larkin said. "I don't truly believe that he felt there was a (power) struggle between him and me, because I'm only a baseball player. But I did have aspirations of ... playing one more year in Cincinnati, then going up in the front office and helping the organization - because we definitely need help."

The choice to offer Larkin a contract set at a maximum of $1 million was clearly a baseball decision.

Allen usually deferred such decisions to the general manager, but the Reds have been without one since Bowden was fired July 28.

Allen said he did not consider waiting until a GM was hired, and added Larkin eventually could return to the team in some capacity.

The Reds finish their regular season Sunday at Great American Ball Park. They offered to hold an appreciation day for Larkin, but he declined.

"If I were retiring, I would absolutely enjoy it," he said of a Barry Larkin Day. "I'm not retiring. I think the fans in Cincinnati deserve it. And I would love to give it to them, and one day I will - if they want to give it to me."

Since Larkin signed a three-year, $27 million contract extension in July 2000, he has been on the disabled list four times and has dealt with other nagging injuries. He averaged only 86 games a year in that span.

In those three years, Larkin has a total of nine home runs, 82 RBI and 18 stolen bases. In his MVP year of 1995, he hit 17 home runs, drove in 66 runs and stole 51 bases.

Larkin's departure means the Reds will have a new everyday shortstop for the first time since he took over for Dave Concepcion in 1987. Concepcion had held the spot from 1972 until Larkin replaced him.

His permanent replacement will be one of the most important calls the new general manager makes.

MikeS21
09-23-2003, 06:56 AM
I think John Allen did the right thing. Calling it a PR nightmare may be technically true, but this was one nightmare that HAD to happen. I'm surprised Lindner didn't cave in like he did last time.

What if a new GM comes in and expresses interest in bringing Barry back at a SLIGHTLY higher rate (say $700K-$800K) and can talk Larkin into accepting that salary as a utility player? My thinking is that the Reds are trying to clean up all the loose threads before a new GM is named, BUT a new GM needs to opportunity to put together a team at a decent payroll. He may decide Barry would make a nice utility player.

I just think we're making a lot of assumptions based on the opening moves in a financial chess game. Allen has spoken. Larkin is appealing to the sentimental fans. It's one big negotiation done in a public forum.

TeamCasey
09-23-2003, 07:00 AM
Captain's role was discussed


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By Michael Perry
The Cincinnati Enquirer


PHOTO GALLERY

18 Larkin photos
This might give a glimpse into the relationship between Reds shortstop Barry Larkin and Reds chief operating officer John Allen.

When Allen called Larkin's agent, Eric Goldschmidt, to talk about a new contract, he asked whether Larkin needed to remain team captain.

The shortstop said he asked Allen about that Monday when the two met. Allen said it was former general manager Jim Bowden who named Larkin captain, and Allen said he never really understood what that meant.

"He asked what was the role of the captain, and I told him some of the things that I have to go through," Larkin said.

"I think when Jim left, John became empowered, and I think this is a product of John Allen being in power."




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Krusty
09-23-2003, 08:33 AM
After reading all these posts, I have come to these conclusions:

1. John Allen isn't the bad guy in this. Actually he is the one taking the hit for what everyone has been saying about Larkin the past three years....his time has gone by.

2. If this is such a public relations nightmare, how would you handle it especially when you're captain refuses to retire (when he knows he can't play everyday) and another bloated contract to Larkin would hinder this ballclub next season?

3. Would you have been happy if Barry Larkin was making 1.5 to 2 million next season while just playing in an utility role?

4. Since Larkin signed that extension, the Reds haven't won a thing. With his declining performance in that time span, the club has had no financial room to improve other areas of the ballclub. As much as an icon Larkin is, who is more important....Larkin or the Reds?

5. Finally, with Larkin not coming back next season, could Junior and his salary be next on the hit list? It is obvious the Reds want to give the new GM a clean slate. Moving Junior would be another step in that direction.

Roy Tucker
09-23-2003, 08:34 AM
I can't find great fault with what the Reds did.

The offer they gave Larkin fit into their financial parameters, gave Barry a chance to come back, fans to see Barry one more time and give him a proper send off, etc.

I do think though the Reds handled it in a clumsy way. I think they should have been talking to Goldschmidt over the past few weeks setting the stage for this offer, feeling out what Barry wanted, what could and could not be negotiated, etc. Lots more finesse could have been used (finesse and Reds front office are an oxymoron of sorts) to ease the blow to Barry's ego and let him get over thge shock before responding.

And, I think Barry didn't handle it very well either. Given he was underpaid early in his career and then overpaid later, I think the $$$ scales have balanced out over the course of his career. I can't imagine he honestly feels that he'll get a better offer.

But, if he wasn't happy with the offer, it would have created a bad situation to come back.

I will really hate to see Barry go to Tampa Bay or wherever, spend one last year hanging on, and then retiring.

The Reds will have a day for him, but it will be in 2006 or later. Kind of like when the Reds retired Frank Robinson's number in 1998. A good move, but waaaay overdue and won't feel truly coupled with his career.

Somehow, I feel like the Reds are being portrayed as the bad guys and I don't think it was necessary.

WVRed
09-23-2003, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by MikeS21
I think John Allen did the right thing. Calling it a PR nightmare may be technically true, but this was one nightmare that HAD to happen. I'm surprised Lindner didn't cave in like he did last time.

What if a new GM comes in and expresses interest in bringing Barry back at a SLIGHTLY higher rate (say $700K-$800K) and can talk Larkin into accepting that salary as a utility player? My thinking is that the Reds are trying to clean up all the loose threads before a new GM is named, BUT a new GM needs to opportunity to put together a team at a decent payroll. He may decide Barry would make a nice utility player.

I just think we're making a lot of assumptions based on the opening moves in a financial chess game. Allen has spoken. Larkin is appealing to the sentimental fans. It's one big negotiation done in a public forum.

Im in no way supporting John Allen, but had he not came out and done this, Larkin would have appealed to the fans just like last time(difference is Larkin cant take the field for the fans to sway Linder).

If im reading John Allen correctly, I think he is definitely trying to get rid of all the people who have in his eyes caused problems and start over. Bowden and Boone first, then Larkin. Expect Griffey to be the next casualty.

GAC
09-23-2003, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by creek14
I can't stand JA, but I disagree, TCII.

The Reds had to make a preemptive strike.

Look at the crap Barry's agent is spewing about a "respectable offer". If he had been given a chance to say those things without the fans knowing what the Reds offered, the masses would have been livid with the Reds.

Allen didnít slam Barry. Barryís agent is slamming the Reds. Someone is classless. This time (and maybe only this time) it isnít John Allen.

I can't believe you're defending John Allen! Just wait till I see you this weekend! :evilgrin:

But I wholeheartedly agree.

I've listened to the interview with Larkin, at his home, several times now.

It's again, all about money...and it shouldn't be IMO.

Here's a guy who has spent 18 illustrious years with the same organization.

He's been paid very, very well, and is just ending a contract that paid him 27 MIl. And he will be receiving deferred payments in the millions for how many years?

He's at the end if his career. He says that the most important thing for him right now is to play one more year, if given the opportunity, and to then retire from the team that has employed him for these last 18 years.

He knows his skills aren't what they use to be, and that age is the reason for that (including the several trips to the DL). He is at the "crossroads" that every aging veteran player must face.

He also knows that the franchise cannot afford to spend lots of money, nor take the chance, on a 40 yr old, injury prone player who is simply trying to hang on.

So money should not even be an issue. The "issue" IMO, is simply being offered the opportunity to fulfill that wish (see above ;) ).

This organization, if they really didn't want Barry back, could've offered him NOTHING as far as continuing to play.

They could have said... "We are not going to offer you a contract for 2004, as a player, but instead would like you to accept an offer to work somewhere within this organization, contingent on that you announce your retirement."

But they knew Barry wanted to play one more year, and that he would reject that offer.

So they offered him a base contract, with incentives, to come back for the final year in a Red's uniform.

If it were me, and being in that same situation, I would have jumped at that opportunity. To heck with the money! It's not like I should need it. It's a one year contract!

Both sides basically get what they want IMO.

But what does Barry do?

He rejects it, and says he does so "based on principle"... i.e. "principle" = meaning "more money".

He says that by making that financial offer (his agent states they cannot accept this economic contract), that it is just a formality, and they are showing him the door.

WRONG Barry! You are showing yourself the door!

Barry Larkin says he wants "respect"; but at the same time he doesn't show others that same respect he demands.

I'm no big fan of JA either (though I don't hate him as some seem to do); but I would take it as being very disrespectful, and insulting, to me, if as the CEO, an employee not only rejects the offer, but then tries to go over my head to talk to my boss to change his mind. He is AGAIN trying to show "one upmanship", and make Allen look bad (and JA doesn't need any more help in this category ;) ). But IMO, it's wrong, and classless.

Shades of 1999, and the previous contract negotiations, when Barry did this then also? ;)

And Barry then goes on to publically say that he thinks this FO (referring to JA) are making this "personal"? Talk about "burning bridges"... WOW!

WHO is making it personal? John Allen, in that press conference, had nothing but appreciation and praise for Larkin, and what he has done (and meant) for Cincy.

Now maybe John didn't really mean it, and there may be some animosity there between him and Barry (I don't know)...but publically, Allen took the "high road", and did the class thing.

And I'm sorry, but for Barry to say that he doesn't want a "Barry Larkin Day" is, IMO, a slap in the face of the fans who have supported him these many long years.

Why he lets money do this to him, and again make an issue of it, is beyond me? :rolleyes:

But lets see who uses the media, and for whose purpose, over the next few weeks? Wanna make any bets? ;)

Krusty
09-23-2003, 08:43 AM
Nice knowing ya, Barry. Good luck getting what you want on the free agent market. Maybe your buddy Junior will be joining you with the same team next season.

As for the Reds.....move on. We have alot of work to do between now and Opening Day.

Kc61
09-23-2003, 10:06 AM
Having thought about it, the Reds are at fault in one respect. They shouldn't have offered Larkin anything. Rather than turn this into a money dispute, the Reds should have told Larkin that they think he should retire, they will give him a job, they will have a day for him, etc., but they want to go with a younger team. I think that would have been a cleaner approach and led to better PR.

traderumor
09-23-2003, 10:36 AM
I'm not sure that I can follow the PR disaster considering that many who have vehemently opposed the evil regime that made this decision have agreed with the decision, and for the most part the handling of the announcement. I'm sure they could have done a few things a little better, but it seems like they may have been hoping that Barry would realize himself that he should step down and retire after this season. Since that didn't happen, they at least made him a reasonable offer. Like others pointed out, I'm not sure what he thinks his worth is, but if someone pays him more than the Reds offered, at least the money's coming out of their account and not ours.

I must give a general apology to those on this board who have been so vocal about their dissatisfaction with the Reds FO. I had unfairly concluded that these folks were just complaining for the sake of complaining--but they have proven otherwise with their willingness to admit the FO has handled a very delicate situation as well as could be expected. And that causes me to reconsider some of their opinions about how this franchise is being run.
I still think John Allen is a scapegoat in some instances, but I am concerned about whether he is best suited to hire the next GM.

buckeyenut
09-23-2003, 10:51 AM
I've got no problem with the money issue here.

What I do have a problem with is the captain thing. You don't take away the Wishbone C until a guy leaves the team, period. That is the bush league part of this. If he comes back next year, he should still have been a captain, no question.

If it is about the money, screw Barry and his agent.

If it is about the C, I'm with them.

savafan
09-23-2003, 11:04 AM
When healthy, Larkin has produced at a higher level than most on this team this season. For the organization to feel that Juan Castro is more valuable to the team....yeah, I still say that's a slap in the face.

Many of you are looking at this purely as a financial decision, but I stress that this is much more than that. To the great majority of the casual fans, Barry Larkin is the Cincinnati Reds, and there is no way to make the casual fan understand the business side of baseball, because to them, it is still just a game. We sometimes mock them for their ignorance, but forget that we too, were once just like them. Every fan of this game starts out as a casual fan, and baseball needs to wake up and do something, because they can't afford to lose the fans.

Barry Larkin means more to the city of Cincinnati than just being a ballplayer. He is a positive African-American role model in a city that desperately needs them. He is a hometown boy who has become a success story. He is a hall of fame baseball player, and they don't make those every day.

The good things Barry has done for the city have always seemed to go unnoticed, but he has always been there in the community, giving back wherever he can.

I don't believe this is just about the money. I know Barry is a proud and intelligent man, as I know some of those who grew up with him, and I think that had the offer been presented in a more gentlemanly manner besides a take it or leave it way, that he likely would have signed a very similar contract to the one he was offered.

Call me naive, or a homer, but this is how I feel. I have been a Cincinnati Reds fan I was born in 1977, and I have always loved Barry Larkin. To me, this is just another nail placed in the coffin by the absentee owner's megalomaniac fantasy dolt. I have more baseball knowledge in my left nostril's shortest nose hair than John Allen has in his entire body.

Redsland
09-23-2003, 11:19 AM
All of that good stuff could have continued. Barry chose to end it.

traderumor
09-23-2003, 11:58 AM
Savafan,

Those are nice thoughts. Perhaps send them on to Goldschmidt for his Larkin file. I'm not real sure what he was looking for the Reds to do, but the offer was fair. By the way, Juan Castro was available to play most of the season. It's hard to argue for your worth to a team from the DL.