Marty lambastes Larkin

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by johngalt

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.
.

Well, they did a poll of GMs that year (they used to do it every year), and asked if they could add any one player to their team, who would it be.. Lark won that, hands down.

He could've been the highest paid player if he had shopped himself. There's no doubt. I agree that 8-9 million is speculation, but that's what the press was speculating at the time. You can't deny that he left a lot of money on the table

[MWM]

johngalt, so if you have such a problem with Barry's actions in supposedly airing dirty laundry, i suppose you're equally angry at Marty, correct?

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by johngalt

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

No he said that he doesn't understand why they did that, and it's effecting other players and his family. Not unreasonable for a guy that got just got fired, particularly when he was willing to work for a low salary.

If Allen had decided to fire Marty, with no negotiation, do you think Marty would've politely thanked the Reds for his career and been a class act? :MandJ:

[johngalt]

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.

He didn't mention anyone by name this year, but when things went down at the end of the 2003 season and Barry had a bunch of the reporters over at his apartment, he did mention John Allen by name then. I can't say that I really disagree with Larkin on a couple of matters, but he really is just as guilty when it comes to taking things out from behind the scenes.

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by MWM

johngalt, so if you have such a problem with Barry's actions in supposedly airing dirty laundry, i suppose you're equally angry at Marty, correct?

I'd pretty much lump Marty and Barry into the same boat. I think Barry played a hand in "starting" things moreso than Marty did here, but I think what Marty said about Larkin being classless was fairly classless as well.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by Darth Brennaman

Marty rules... Get over it!!!

Watch it there, Mr. Sith Lord :MandJ:

[M2]

Originally Posted by johngalt

He didn't mention anyone by name this year, but when things went down at the end of the 2003 season and Barry had a bunch of the reporters over at his apartment, he did mention John Allen by name then.

Again, I will require the quote.

[iammrred]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Not unreasonable for a guy that got just got fired, particularly when he was willing to work for a low salary.

... so long as he would be the starter. Which wasn't going to happen, at which point he decided he'd let all of those other teams clamoring for his starting services begin the bidding war. (Well, not so much of a war now, I suppose.)

I don't think johngalt is saying that Marty is a saint. But to believe that Barry handled the situation well and with his ego in check is a bit of a stretch.

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by M2

Again, I will require the quote.

http://www.cincypost.com/2003/09/23/reds09-23-2003.html

"I think John Allen's running things, and he's running me out of town," Larkin said Monday night.

Now where's that quote about Larkin turning down untold millions?

[westofyou]

In 100 years Marty will be remembered as a voice that reported the event, Red Barber, Waite Hoyt, Marty.

Barry was in the event, so even if "Marty rules" or if he's right or wrong his spotlight is a fleeting one at best.

Grab a Reds Media Guide in 10 years and see whose name is written in it more.

[iammrred]

:MandJ: :MandJ: :MandJ:

[RANDY IN INDY]

Originally Posted by MWM

Look in the mirror my friend.

Hmmm, must have hit a nerve.

[M2]

Originally Posted by johngalt

http://www.cincypost.com/2003/09/23/reds09-23-2003.html

"I think John Allen's running things, and he's running me out of town," Larkin said Monday night.

Now where's that quote about Larkin turning down untold millions?

Thanks for providing it. Larkin was wrong to say that.

Quote about untold millions? You realize other teams aren't allowed to offer contracts to players who don't enter free agency, right? That would preclude quotes. If you can't look at what players were getting in and around that period of time and measure what Larkin would have earned as perhaps the game's only plus shortstop that ain't my problem.

[tsj017]

Originally Posted by M2

Barry Larkin always had the courtesy to keep that stuff out of the spotlight.

:MandJ: :MandJ: :MandJ: :MandJ: :MandJ: :MandJ: :MandJ: :MandJ:

Er, um . . . you're joking, right? You must be.

Larkin conducted his politics through the media. With regularity. Like clockwork.

Ray Knight. Jack McKeon. Natural turf at Cinergy. His contract. The direction of the front office. His position in the batting order. David Weathers. (Hey, I just realized--Larkin's gone, but David Weathers is back! :MandJ: Now THAT'S funny.) Usually done with a certain amount of whining.

I can't possibly see how complaining to the media every time you're not getting what you want is equal to "keeping that stuff out of the spotlight".

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by M2

Quote about untold millions? You realize other teams aren't allowed to offer contracts to players who don't enter free agency, right? That would preclude quotes. If you can't look at what players were getting in and around that period of time and measure what Larkin would have earned as perhaps the game's only plus shortstop that ain't my problem.

Even Cal Ripken never sniffed anything north of $7 million, and he was arguably a better offensive shortstop than Larkin. There's no evidence to support the idea that Larkin would have gobbled up all of this money on the free agent market. When you look at salaries from that time, even an offensive second baseman like Alomar received a contract similar to Larkin's.

Where's the quotes where the player's union was "up in arms?" Where are the quotes of rumors about people who would be paying Larkin this money? Oh, that's right. I'm the only who's supposed to provide evidence in this discussion.