Marty lambastes Larkin

[REDREAD]

Larkin was not going to be the highest-paid player in baseball at any point in his career. That would have been completely ridiculous. Highest-paid shortstop and among the best in the NL in salary? That sounds like fair market value to me.

Sorry, but you obviously don't remember back then. If he had shopped himself to the highest bidder, he would've been the highest paid player.
He was just named MVP, played gold glove SS.. He was the ARod of the 1995 ERA.

[REDREAD]

His wanting to retire a Red was just a ploy to get more money, :

Yeah, that 700k he earned last year really made a difference in his portfolio

[MWM]

Marty might be critical, but he doesn't hold a candle to a lot of folks here at Redszone.

Look in the mirror my friend.

[dougflynn23]

:santa: Marty has a history of ripping Barry. I recall at RedsFest after the 1999 season, somebody asked during the "Ask The Announcers" session if he thought Barry Larkin was a good team leader. Of course Chris Welsh and George Grande ran and hit under the table, I think Joe was asleep, but Marty jumped right in and said, "On the field, yes...in the clubhouse, in my opinion, no". Marty went on to give examples such as the ripping of the C off of the uniform, the criticism of the Bret Boone trade from the year before, etc. All while Barry was standing about 50 ft away listening.

I appreciate Marty, but I don't really see much point in the comments. I doubt anyone whose been paying attention lately was shocked by his comments on the issue.

[Chip R]

Barry Larkin, as much as I love him as a player, is as much a self-aggrandizing twit as anybody in the game. But how does that excuse Marty for taking a potshot at someone who is no longer in the Reds' employ? Marty's not only self-aggrandizing, but under these circumstances, he comes off as pathetic.

I think I would agree with this - except the part about calling Barry a twit. It would have been one thing for Marty to say that Barry had a nice career here but he wasn't the same player he used to be and since the Reds wanted to go with Lopez it was time to part ways. I don't think many people would have a problem with that if he had left it at that. But ripping Larkin for being classless after he is gone is, in itself, classless. I know Marty and his acolytes will say that he has an opinion and he tells the truth and tells it like it is and what he said about Larkin was 100% truthful. That all may be correct but just because you have an opinion on a subject, doesn't mean you have to express it whenever one comes into your brain. Discretion would have been the better part of valor in this situation.

[johngalt]

Sorry, but you obviously don't remember back then. If he had shopped himself to the highest bidder, he would've been the highest paid player.
He was just named MVP, played gold glove SS.. He was the ARod of the 1995 ERA.

I'm sorry, but there was no chance Larkin was going to get $8 or $9 million a year in 1995. He could have shopped around, but he was not going to get some astronomical contract.

I still don't see how being the highest-paid player at your position and one of the best paid players in the league puts a feather in your cap for taking less money to stay.

[M2]

You mean like in 1992, 1993 and 1995 when Larkin had the 5th highest contract in the NL and was the highest paid shortstop in the league? I'm sure glad we have this myth about Larkin to fall back on everytime this discussion comes up.

Larkin was arb-eligible in '92 and, iirc, settled rather than going for every dollar he could have made. Can't remember what his status was in '93, though clearly he earned the raise. Plus, he should have been the highest-paid shortstop in the league in those days. He was the best shortstop on the planet at the time.

And he could have been the highest paid player in the history of baseball when he took that below-market contract after the '95 season. Probably could have been the first $10M-a-year player. He was that good and his position was that bereft of talent.

Where were you in September?

Provide me a quote where Barry ripped someone personally this September. My guess is you can't.

[Jpup]

Provide me a quote where Barry ripped someone personally this September. My guess is you can't.

he should have.

[johngalt]

Larkin was arb-eligible in '92 and, iirc, settled rather than going for every dollar he could have made. Can't remember what his status was in '93, though clearly he earned the raise. Plus, he should have been the highest-paid shortstop in the league in those days. He was the best shortstop on the planet at the time. And he could have been the highest paid player in the history of baseball when he took that below-market contract after the '95 season. Probably could have been the first $10M-a-year player. He was that good and his position was that bereft of talent.

Of course he deserved to be the highest-paid shortstop. I didn't say that he shouldn't have been. But it's laughable that revisionist history makes it out like Larkin turned down the chance to become the highest paid player in baseball history to sign an extension with the Reds.

Provide me a quote where Barry ripped someone personally this September. My guess is you can't.

Oct. 1:
"After Sunday's game, I'm going home," he said. "Nothing surprises me over the way things transpire around here. I don't understand the way they do the things they do. It always seems to come down this way.

"There are some guys in the clubhouse affected, too," he said. "Fans in all the cities on the last trip (Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Chicago) know of my situation and make a joke of it and that's unfortunate for the organization.

"I want to be proud of this organization, but its track record just hasn't been good," Larkin added. "My family is really upset about how things have gone here the last month. There are other guys in our clubhouse who are free agents, and they're frustrated. There are some good players who did some good things this year and they haven't heard anything from the organization."

No, he didn't say "John Allen is incompetent" or "Dan O'Brien is a moron" but that's just as bad.

[M2]

But it's laughable that revisionist history makes it out like Larkin turned down the chance to become the highest paid player in baseball history to sign an extension with the Reds.

What's laughable is that you don't think a guy who was the runaway best player at the shortstop position, and coming off an MVP season, in a league where almost no team had a decent shortstop wouldn't have commanded huge money. What's laughable is you seemingly forgetting the MLBPA howling over Larkin's contract and rattling its sword that it should be voided because he was being so grossly underpaid.

What's laughable is knowing what happened the last time a guy considered heads and shoulders above every other SS in baseball hit the market and thinking something similar wouldn't have happened for Larkin.

No, he didn't say "John Allen is incompetent" or "Dan O'Brien is a moron" but that's just as bad.

That's right. He didn't say those things. And, IMO, it's not just as bad or anywhere close to just as bad.

[johngalt]

What's laughable is that you don't think a guy who was the runaway best player at the shortstop position, and coming off an MVP season, in a league where almost no team had a decent shortstop wouldn't have commanded huge money. What's laughable is you seemingly forgetting the MLBPA howling over Larkin's contract and rattling its sword that it should be voided because he was being so grossly underpaid.

I just don't see him being grossly underpaid. In the free agent market, could he have had an offer of a million or so more? Probably. But he was simply not turning down a shot at some insane contract that some people feel he was.

What's laughable is knowing what happened the last time a guy considered heads and shoulders above every other SS in baseball hit the market and thinking something similar wouldn't have happened for Larkin.

Saying that since A-Rod got a huge contract that Larkin would have received the same is completely twisted logic. The type of grossly high contract A-Rod got is never going to be repeated again. The market of 2000 was a world unto itself.

That's right. He didn't say those things. And, IMO, it's not just as bad or anywhere close to just as bad.

You said Larkin didn't air dirty laundry or talk about things that should have been kept in house. You don't think that quote did just that? You don't think last year when he said Allen was running him out of town was airing dirty laundry? That's EXACTLY what Barry was doing.

[Falls City Beer]

"- except the part about calling Barry a twit."


Well, there is a reason the word "shameless" is so often affixed to the word "self-promoter."

[M2]

I just don't see him being grossly underpaid. In the free agent market, could he have had an offer of a million or so more? Probably. But he was simply not turning down a shot at some insane contract that some people feel he was.

Must be nice not to have to deal in the available facts. You can repeat the same thing as often as you like, but we know what other free agents were getting at that time, we know what Larkin's status was relative to his peers, we know what the level of need was at his position, we know what kind of ruckus got stirred up when he signed his deal. But you feel free to keep making your little baseless claim. The Braves, Mets, Dodgers, Rockies and Orioles would have been all over him. He passed on at least $10M, a legitimate shot to put another ring on his finger and the chance to put up a few great years in a national spotlight (which would have greased his HOF skids).

Saying that since A-Rod got a huge contract that Larkin would have received the same is completely twisted logic. The type of grossly high contract A-Rod got is never going to be repeated again. The market of 2000 was a world unto itself.

A-Rod got the contract he got because of what he was, a superhuman shortstop. Like A-Rod went through the top of the market in 2000, Larkin would have in 1995. Silly to insist otherwise. The market for the top shortstop is always huge and, unlike A-Rod, Larkin didn't have any peers at the time. Albert Belle cracked the $10M mark after 1996. Larkin, with the MVP under his wing and playing a much higher priority position, should have been close to that neighborhood.

You said Larkin didn't air dirty laundry or talk about things that should have been kept in house. You don't think that quote did just that? You don't think last year when he said Allen was running him out of town was airing dirty laundry? That's EXACTLY what Barry was doing.

I didn't see where Larkin ever mentioned Allen by name, you'll have to show me that quote. That's my point. He had some issues with the organization, but he never stooped to pointing a finger directly at someone and say, "This guy's a toad." That's a line he doesn't cross. Though I'll tell you what, I can see where you're coming from on this one. I don't agree. I think Larkin was trying to voice his dissatisfaction without adding a personal element to it, but I can see where a reasonable mind has a different take on it. It's a tough line Larkin was trying to walk.

[Darth Brennaman]

Marty rules... Get over it!!!

[iammrred]

A-Rod got the contract he got because of what he was, a superhuman shortstop. Like A-Rod went through the top of the market in 2000, Larkin would have in 1995. Silly to insist otherwise. The market for the top shortstop is always huge and, unlike A-Rod, Larkin didn't have any peers at the time. Albert Belle cracked the $10M mark after 1996. Larkin, with the MVP under his wing and playing a much higher priority position, should have been close to that neighborhood.

A-Rod's 1999 season (.285/.357/.586, 42 homers, 111 RBI, 110 runs) was far and away superior to Larkin's 1995 season (.319/.394/.492, 15 homer, 66 RBI, 98 runs), which makes it even harder to compare the two.

In fact, it would be easy argue that Larkin's '95 MVP is questionable. But, with Bichette playing in Colorado and Maddox being a pitcher, I guess things just fell into place for him.