Jump to content

Barry Larkin done in Cincy..... maybe


Ramp

Recommended Posts

PITTSBURGH -- According to multiple sources with ties to the Cincinnati Reds, all who spoke on the condition of anonymity, Reds officials have all but decided not to offer shortstop Barry Larkin a player contract for 2004, the Cincinnati Post has reported.

 

Barry Larkin may have played his last days with the Reds.

The 11-time All-Star and team captain could see his 18-year tenure with the Reds extended if owner Carl Lindner orders that Larkin be re-signed, but one source told the paper Lindner has left the final decision to chief operating officer John Allen.

 

Two sources close to Allen told the paper Allen has no intention of re-signing Larkin. Moreover, 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, the paper said.

 

Allen declined to comment on the Larkin issue when reached by the paper via telephone at his Cincinnati office this week.

 

Larkin's current contract will expire when the season ends Sept. 28, and Larkin could be given a formal sendoff before that afternoon's game against Montreal at Great American Ball Park, according to the paper.

 

Larkin, who has been kept in limbo on the issue of a new contract, has publicly expressed his frustration at not knowing whom to contact in his effort to negotiate a new contract or inquire as to his future with the organization. The Reds currently don't have a general manager, a position Allen hopes to fill within the next few weeks, the paper reported.

 

Since signing the last contract, 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. Larkin currently is on the DL for the third time this season and hasn't played since suffering a sprained left ring finger Aug. 22 at Houston.

 

It's not clear whether Larkin will retire or attempt to find another team to play for next year. A Cincinnati native, Larkin has spent his entire professional career in the Reds' organization since being drafted in the first round (fourth overall) out of the University of Michigan in 1985. One source told the paper that if Larkin doesn't wish to continue playing, the Reds likely will offer him some kind of job, possibly as a spring-training instructor and/or front office consultant.

 

Larkin captured the Most Valuable Player award in 1995, batting .319 with 15 home runs, 66 RBI and a career-high 51 stolen bases and leading the Reds to the Central division title, their last playoff appearance. He batted .300 or better nine times, including a stretch of five consecutive seasons from 1989-93.

 

Larkin presently is hitting .282, but has driven in just 18 runs this season. 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.

 

As Larkin played the final season of his previous contract in 2000, negotiations on a new deal became contentious, 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.

 

The next night, 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.

espn.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better owner? that has nothing to do with it. Jim Bowden an a**hole? He was a GM. and if you look back at all his trades and transactions, he did a Okay job. Its Boone and the ownership that was bad.

 

So marge is better because the new owner signed the fan favorite Larkin for 27 million? Marge was just portrayed as good, but she was really non existant. She was just a mediocre owner. Just because shes the only female owner doesnt mean shes automatically good. oh and bowden is bad because he wanted to trade larkin? i dont get what you are tyring to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better owner? that has nothing to do with it. Jim Bowden an a**hole? He was a GM. and if you look back at all his trades and transactions, he did a Okay job. Its Boone and the ownership that was bad.

 

So marge is better because the new owner signed the fan favorite Larkin for 27 million? Marge was just portrayed as good, but she was really non existant. She was just a mediocre owner. Just because shes the only female owner doesnt mean shes automatically good. oh and bowden is bad because he wanted to trade larkin? i dont get what you are tyring to say.

O and the new ownership got a new stadium and griffey. larkin was signed also. in 2000, being a red fan was the thing to be. Just bad luck from there afterwards then it all went to hell in a handbasket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better owner? that has nothing to do with it. Jim Bowden an a**hole? He was a GM. and if you look back at all his trades and transactions, he did a Okay job. Its Boone and the ownership that was bad.

 

So marge is better because the new owner signed the fan favorite Larkin for 27 million? Marge was just portrayed as good, but she was really non existant. She was just a mediocre owner. Just because shes the only female owner doesnt mean shes automatically good. oh and bowden is bad because he wanted to trade larkin? i dont get what you are tyring to say.

Come on, Barry Larkin is a staple of Cincy. I don't agree with getting rid of a guy who has kept your franchise afloat for so many years just because those days are gone.

 

Cincy has already axed Boone, White, Guillen, and the rest of their main relief and your saying this is ok.

 

Cincinatti's ownership is the equivalent of Sterling, it's ok if you lose just as long as you make the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol you are funnie. Larkin has had the franchise afloat, but now hes sinking it lmao. 9 million a year for being on the DL? they are being kind enough to offer him a generous coaching/ST job. according to you, they should resign him for 5 million right? just because he was there for so long? i dont undrstand ur logic.

 

Boone? lol another one. they had to let him go. once you fire his dad, he is a distraction to the rest of the team. they got AWESOMe prospcet for him too. yanks were dumb and reds need pithin pictchin pitchin PITCHINg.

 

gabe white? lol umm who cares?

 

guillen? he is going to be a free agent. might as well get good pitching prospects for him instead of over paying him when he can be just a one year wonder...

 

and yes, trading relievers is the best thing to trade. because they can be re;placed the easisst and playoff contenting teams will overpay in the middle of the season for them.

 

now, pittsbrug is who you should be dissing. not cincy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boone? lol another one. they had to let him go. once you fire his dad, he is a distraction to the rest of the team. they got AWESOMe prospcet for him too. yanks were dumb and reds need pithin pictchin pitchin PITCHINg.

 

gabe white? lol umm who cares?

 

guillen? he is going to be a free agent. might as well get good pitching prospects for him instead of over paying him when he can be just a one year wonder...

 

and yes, trading relievers is the best thing to trade. because they can be re;placed the easisst and playoff contenting teams will overpay in the middle of the season for them.

 

now, pittsbrug is who you should be dissing. not cincy

This is amazing.

 

So trading away your best players for Cash and Mid Level Prospects is a good thing?

 

I have never heard anyone acknowledge a fire sale as a good thing.

 

So what trading your best relievers when you have a team that's starting pitching can't do a damn thing. I'm glad you think it's ok to have a pen full of scrubs right after your starter gives up five in the first, we all know it's the right way to go.

 

Barry Larkin has not been sinking this franchise, actually overpaying Junior Griffey and then making it so clear you love your current players by putting your future in every trade rumor imaginable. Yeah another great way by The Reds FO to build support with the local fans and your players, screw the future we want to suck now! :thumbup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cincy's ownership BLOWS....

 

Lindner and Allen promised them they would be competitive and that they would go out and get some missing pieces and they DIDNT....

 

ask and Cincy fan and I am sure they would agree that their ownership sucks

u cant say they didnt try ok. they got griffey when he was in his prime and they went out and signed larkin when he was pretty good. What else could they have done? it wasnt ownership. it was badluck. and alot of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

u dont make any sense rune.

 

ok you are right. in 1998 the marlins should have held on to piazza because he was the best player and not gotten burnett, p. wilson and lee for brown. you are right. mantei should have been kept and alfonseca too.

Funny, your basis of arguement is a trade that happened in 98!

 

Would you like to mention the trades that didn't work for numerous teams?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cincy's ownership BLOWS....

 

Lindner and Allen promised them they would be competitive and that they would go out and get some missing pieces and they DIDNT....

 

ask and Cincy fan and I am sure they would agree that their ownership sucks

u cant say they didnt try ok. they got griffey when he was in his prime and they went out and signed larkin when he was pretty good. What else could they have done? it wasnt ownership. it was badluck. and alot of it. this year...

 

and last year....

 

these were the promises that were made....

 

they had a chance to go get players but instead settled for retreads like Brian Moehler and Paul Wilson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

u dont make any sense rune.

 

ok you are right. in 1998 the marlins should have held on to piazza because he was the best player and not gotten burnett, p. wilson and lee for brown. you are right. mantei should have been kept and alfonseca too.

Funny, your basis of arguement is a trade that happened in 98!

 

Would you like to mention the trades that didn't work for numerous teams? no you imbicele. in 1998 marlins were rebuilding like the reds are doing. many teams go through it and its one of the only ways to solve the problem they have. they had pitching problem like ramp saiid they didnt get good pitching. now they are getting pitching prosepects and doing what they should have done in teh first place in 1996. they never had pitching. now they are focusing on it.

 

you dont know nothing man. you even think bowden is the owner and marge was better lol.

 

an d ramp, yea they were wrong about the promises, but hey they did try. bowden had bujet comstaraints and didnt have much money to work with to get solid pitching. now they realize they have no choice but to rebuild the whole pitching situation. its the only way they can do it with their budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

u dont make any sense rune.

 

ok you are right.? in 1998 the marlins should have held on to piazza because he was the best player and not gotten burnett, p. wilson and lee for brown.? you are right.? mantei should have been kept? and alfonseca too.

Funny, your basis of arguement is a trade that happened in 98!

 

Would you like to mention the trades that didn't work for numerous teams? no you imbicele. in 1998 marlins were rebuilding like the reds are doing. many teams go through it and its one of the only ways to solve the problem they have. they had pitching problem like ramp saiid they didnt get good pitching. now they are getting pitching prosepects and doing what they should have done in teh first place in 1996. they never had pitching. now they are focusing on it.

 

you dont know nothing man. you even think bowden is the owner and marge was better lol.

 

an d ramp, yea they were wrong about the promises, but hey they did try. bowden had bujet comstaraints and didnt have much money to work with to get solid pitching. now they realize they have no choice but to rebuild the whole pitching situation. its the only way they can do it with their budget. :lol Here come The Childish Insults.

 

This is hilarious, you once again forget to mention that their is no such thing as a "Can't Miss".

 

Let's look back at The Old Barry Larkin trade he was going to be traded for who? Oh yeah guys that never did cut, did they?

 

The Pirates were rebuilding for now just a few years back with can't miss prospects and damn their rebuilding now.

 

The Reds ownership is nothing more than A Daniel Sterling wannabe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could this be Castillo's Replacement at 2nd?

God, I hope not.

 

He's done.

 

And signing Barry like they did, when they did was a good move. Sure, it might have been a little too long of a deal, but the stadium tax hadn't been approved yet and trading him might have cost them Great American Ballpark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read a article on MLB.com that says Larkin rejecte d a deal for 500k for 1 season with incenativees for 1 million. He says its the "principle" and not the money. he says that gwyn and grace both got 2 mill and 1.5 mill and he should get a deal like that and they embarras him with that offer. he also said that even though they gave him 9 mill a yer for 3 years he says that that offer was more like for previous service because he played under market value before.

 

i think larkin is unapreciattive asswipe. principle my anus. he a greedy man that dont care. grace and gwyn are 3000 hits club and will first ballot HOF. Larkin is not a 1st ballot. 500k is alot for a guy that get injured all time and he was even over paid for 3 yrs big time. he should play 2004 and 2005 for free but he dont give a s***. and what is getting paid for previous service? thats some excuse he make up.

 

also this isnt 2000 or 2001. ppl dont get that much money anymore. i think he just wants to go to the yanks to get a ring. nobody is going to give him more than 1 mill and thats what he got with incenatives if he would stay. waht a b*tch

 

o and rune i see u think escobar sucks? hes a awesoem prospcet for cleveland now. hes gonna be great. larkin is not a man.

 

can somebody post the article from mlb here? my comp keeps frezing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CINCINNATI -- Barry Larkin's 18-year playing career with the Cincinnati Reds will soon be at an end.

 

Club management was unable to agree on a one-year contract for 2004 with Larkin, effectively severing his association with the only organization he has played for once this season concludes.

 

"Obviously, there's no doubt what Barry Larkin has meant to this organization and to this city," Reds Chief Operating Officer John Allen said at a Monday night news conference. "His performance speaks for itself. ... Barry Larkin, for many years, was the heart and soul of this team. He's going to be greatly missed. I guess really, that's kind of it in a nutshell."

 

Larkin, the Reds' first-round selection in the 1985 First-Year Player Draft, ascended to the Major Leagues the following season and soon became the team's most recognizable and accomplished performer. The Cincinnati native's numerous achievements include the 1995 National League Most Valuable Player award, 11 All-Star selections and three NL Gold Gloves for defensive excellence. Larkin hastened the evolution of shortstops as key sources of offense by becoming the first player at his position to exceed 30 homers and 30 stolen bases in the same season in 1996.

 

Larkin, 39, is on the disabled list with a sprained left ring finger and is unlikely to be activated before Sunday's regular-season finale against Montreal at Great American Ball Park. Allen said Larkin will be with the team and in uniform for Cincinnati's final six games but has declined the opportunity to be honored by the club with a "day" in his behalf.

 

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

 

Eric Goldschmidt, Larkin's agent, said that his client "absolutely" wants to play in 2004, indicating that he'll venture into free agency this offseason.

 

Allen said that the Reds' hierarchy had discussed a potential contract extension for Larkin for much of the year. Larkin's three-year, $27 million contract, which he negotiated with team owner Carl Lindner in July 2000, expires after this season. But without a general manager controlling day-to-day baseball operations for the Reds since Jim Bowden was relieved of his duties on July 28, Larkin and Goldschmidt had nobody to negotiate with until Allen made an offer by telephone on Saturday.

 

Allen said that the Reds' one-year proposal included performance bonuses for plate appearances, games played and games started that would have doubled the deal's value. Though Allen declined to divulge the figure of the base salary, Goldschmidt said it was $500,000.

 

Barry Larkin / SS

Height: 6'0"

Weight: 185

Bats/Throws: R/R

 

More info:

Player page

Stats

Hit chart

Reds site

 

 

 

After Larkin and Goldschmidt declined the offer, Allen suggested that the sides "sleep on it" until Monday. Allen then submitted essentially the same offer in a telephone call to Goldschmidt, who spurned it again. A face-to-face meeting between Allen and Larkin did not bridge the gap. Nor did a phone conversation Larkin had with Lindner, whose reaction to the support of Reds fans for the team captain prompted the 2000 contract extension.

 

Allen believed Larkin would accept the club's offer. "I've got to admit I'm a little bit surprised," he said. "Based on the feedback I got from Barry and his agent, we weren't even close."

 

"The reason that the amount of money that they offered me was unacceptable is because of the principle," Larkin told The Cincinnati Enquirer. "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."

 

Goldschmidt said that his client merited the sort of compensation that San Diego outfielder Tony Gwynn received in 2001, his final season, and that Arizona first baseman Mark Grace is earning this year. Gwynn earned $2 million; Grace is playing for $1.75 million.

 

"Those are players more of Barry's caliber," Goldschmidt said, citing the $500,000 figure as something a Spring Training invitee would merit. "... The $500,000, in relation to what players on his team and in the industry make, is not where Barry should be slotted. I'm sure John Allen did not present all those facts to the owner."

 

Allen said that Lindner approved the offer. "In our situation, we had a contract amount we thought was fair and fit into our structure," Allen said. Asked if a new general manager might reconsider and make Larkin a more lucrative bid, Allen replied, "At this point in time, I just don't see, knowing where we are salary structure-wise and so forth, that our offer's going to change."

 

Since July 29, the Reds have lowered that salary structure by trading veterans with seven-figure contracts such as third baseman Aaron Boone, catcher Kelly Stinnett, left-hander Gabe White and right-handers Scott Sullivan and Scott Williamson. Larkin's situation, charged Goldschmidt, was different: "Barry and I both believe that John Allen doesn't want him on the team. You don't start negotiating basically on Saturday, make an offer that you know is totally unacceptable and three days later say, 'Take it or leave it' and it's over."

 

Asked if he thought Larkin would accept a modest salary after having received his previous deal, Allen said, "Not really, because I know that Barry has felt that the last contract was, to a certain extent, a payment for previous services, where he felt he was playing below market value. I can't speak for Barry Larkin, but that's my personal interpretation of the last three years."

 

Injuries have limited Larkin to 260 games, a .257 average, 11 home runs, 82 RBIs and 18 stolen bases in that three-year period -- including this season, when he went on the disabled list twice in the first two months with strained calf muscles. Before 2001, Larkin's career batting average was an even .300; it has dwindled to .295. This year, Larkin batted .282 with two home runs and 18 RBIs in 70 games.

 

Allen referred to Larkin's struggles to stay on the field in explaining the Reds' contract offer.

 

"Part of our problems this year, I think anybody will realize, has been the number of players on the DL," Allen said. "... We're last in the National League in defense and that's not Barry Larkin's fault, certainly. But some of the things we have to look at is making sure we have healthy players next year and a solid defense. We have a lot of work to do in the offseason."

 

Ramp, 500k isnt the league min. 300 k is. stop blaming the reds FO. They even signed him for 27 mill for 3 years before this just to rid e pine. Barry and his agent were being buttholes. Barry doesnt want to finish his career with a team that is rebuilding. He never got a ring before.

 

what do you expect? for reds to sign him for 3 mill to be on the DL again? we got tim raines for league min. and rickey is playing for a bag of balls in LA. larkin is not a 1st ballot HOF. look at his career stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st ballot may be pushing it but i believe he will be one...

 

he was one of the best SS of the 90's and hit well there when SS wasnt a hitting position.... he even won an mvp there along with being an 11 time All Star along with 3 gold gloves....

 

the Reds front office are douchebags.... ask any Reds fan and they will gladly tell you that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will agree that the Reds front office sucks, but they were right on this one. Well, on getting rid of him at least, they probably would have been better off making no offer at all and just saying "we're going in a different direction" and give Larkin a nice send-off before the final game of the year. Either way, at least he won't be on the team next year, so the end result is positive. There's no reason for him to be there when they're in such a deep rebuilding mode.

 

Granted, I don't see much reason for Larkin to be anywhere anymore. Helluva ballplayer, but he's done. Walk away, Barry...please. I don't need to see him hit .210 while barely playing for some random team.

 

Well, let me rephrase that, I would prefer not to see that, I'm in no postition to tell Barry Larkin whether he can play next year or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...