9/22 - Larkin News Conference at 7 PM

[letsgojunior]

Larkin's agent said on ESPNews that the offer was for 500K with incentives that could possibly bring it up to 700K.

[TeamBoone]

Yes, he did say "below". And, in the recap, the newscaster said "below standard value", then corrected it to "below MLB minimum".

[iammrred]

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]

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]

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASAp...=.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]

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?

[KittyDuran]

discussing specific dollar amounts.

but that's what most fans want to know... remember the reputation of this ballclub...:evilgrin:

[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.

[Hubba]

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?

[GAC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.