Kirkendall Posted November 10, 2004 Report Share Posted November 10, 2004 D.C. GM Bowdon is one of three clubs to contact Lark.From Cincy E...http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...100346/1071/SPT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyline Posted November 10, 2004 Report Share Posted November 10, 2004 That would suck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ackley1 Posted November 10, 2004 Report Share Posted November 10, 2004 That would suck. I'm gonna try to go down there to catch a game before I move to Idaho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belmontbengal Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 Sigh, maybe we can have the promised "Barry Larkin Day" when he visits as a Washington Senator/National/Gray?John Allen is a tool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesbrooks21 Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 Sigh, maybe we can have the promised "Barry Larkin Day" when he visits as a Washington Senator/National/Gray?John Allen is a tool. I can't believe one of the greatest Reds ever will not be finishing his career with Cincy even at the close to the minimum. What a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted November 18, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 Barry said to the team he is retiring after the season. The team set up a Barry Larkin day celebration. The team put together plans for 2005 which didn't include Larkin because of his "retirement". Then, all the sudden Barry cancelled the celebration, and Barry, FULLY knowing he wouldn't come back to Cincinnati, decided to come out of retirement. We HAVE to move on. We HAVE to put the younger guys in... Other than the phone call, I'm not sure why the team is being blamed for anything related to Barry Larkin. Perhaps it's a Cincinnatian gut reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesbrooks21 Posted November 18, 2004 Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 Barry said to the team he is retiring after the season. The team set up a Barry Larkin day celebration. The team put together plans for 2005 which didn't include Larkin because of his "retirement". Then, all the sudden Barry cancelled the celebration, and Barry, FULLY knowing he wouldn't come back to Cincinnati, decided to come out of retirement. We HAVE to move on. We HAVE to put the younger guys in... Other than the phone call, I'm not sure why the team is being blamed for anything related to Barry Larkin. Perhaps it's a Cincinnatian gut reaction. Don't act like the Reds are going to win the World Series next year. They cannot compete financially, so why can't they give Larkin one more year? For all he has done for Cincinnati. Not to mention I would think the last thing the Reds would want to do is do something to piss off some of their fan base. Some of that lost revenue might result in us not being able to sign our ace Paul Wilson. Larkin knew that he would be platooning and he was coming back for almost nothing - shame on the Reds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted November 18, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 Oh, I'm not saying the Reds aren't to blame for a lot of things; but I'm also unwilling to put this one into "the list" of Cincinnati Reds problems when Larkin backtracked forcing the Reds to take the fall for something they didn't anticipate. So why can't they give Larkin one more year? For all he has done for Cincinnati.Why not keep Jon Kitna in as the QB for all he did in 2003 or stuck with Cincy through the 2-14 season? We know Larkin isn't the future. And "for all he has done for Cincinnati" was well respected for a ridiculous 3-year $27 million contract in 2000. I would think the last thing the Reds would want to do is do something to piss off some of their fan base.Might be a little late for that. My thing is if we keep Larkin, it'll stunt the growth of the likes of Lopez (who when plays consistently plays very well) or whomever the Reds decide or have decided to put in there. Listen -- well read actually -- my favorite Red has always been Larkin -- well pre-Casey of 2003, his spirit just rocks like no other. But I also acknowledge it's time to move on without Larkin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbarian Posted November 18, 2004 Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 Oh, I'm not saying the Reds aren't to blame for a lot of things; but I'm also unwilling to put this one into "the list" of Cincinnati Reds problems when Larkin backtracked forcing the Reds to take the fall for something they didn't anticipate. So why can't they give Larkin one more year? For all he has done for Cincinnati.Why not keep Jon Kitna in as the QB for all he did in 2003 or stuck with Cincy through the 2-14 season? We know Larkin isn't the future. And "for all he has done for Cincinnati" was well respected for a ridiculous 3-year $27 million contract in 2000. I would think the last thing the Reds would want to do is do something to piss off some of their fan base.Might be a little late for that. My thing is if we keep Larkin, it'll stunt the growth of the likes of Lopez (who when plays consistently plays very well) or whomever the Reds decide or have decided to put in there. Listen -- well read actually -- my favorite Red has always been Larkin -- well pre-Casey of 2003, his spirit just rocks like no other. But I also acknowledge it's time to move on without Larkin. Yep--I agree. You CAN'T keep players forever. Bernie Lindner & Company gave Larkin the chance to go out peacefully and in a feel good way too. However, Larkin wanted to be a prick about it.And as for the Deads pissing off their fan base, it's too late. I don't care--I know the Deads will be in the cellar as long as Bernie Lindner is calling the shots.I could care less what the Deads do at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesbrooks21 Posted November 19, 2004 Report Share Posted November 19, 2004 So why can't they give Larkin one more year? For all he has done for Cincinnati.Why not keep Jon Kitna in as the QB for all he did in 2003 or stuck with Cincy through the 2-14 season? We know Larkin isn't the future. And "for all he has done for Cincinnati" was well respected for a ridiculous 3-year $27 million contract in 2000.Talking about funny, don't compare Kitna with Larkin. Kitna had one season worth a s**t and it couldn't even get us in the playoffs. I say get out when you should too but he can still play. Hell if you want to blame someone for a contract blame Akili Smith, Klingler, etc, etc not Barry Larkin. I would think the last thing the Reds would want to do is do something to piss off some of their fan base.Might be a little late for that. Exactly!!!!!!!!! I was being sarcastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cldoobie Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Hell if you want to blame someone for a contract blame Akili Smith, Klingler, etc, etc not Barry Larkin.Don't blame the player, blame the owner, and before you say..what are you doing in a Reds thread Browns fan...I'm a Reds fan.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesbrooks21 Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Hell if you want to blame someone for a contract blame Akili Smith, Klingler, etc, etc not Barry Larkin.Don't blame the player, blame the owner, and before you say..what are you doing in a Reds thread Browns fan...I'm a Reds fan.. I agree. I was just saying if you are going to blame someone don't blame one of the greatest players ever to wear a Reds jersey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted November 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Hell if you want to blame someone for a contract blame Akili Smith, Klingler, etc, etc not Barry Larkin.Don't blame the player, blame the owner, and before you say..what are you doing in a Reds thread Browns fan...I'm a Reds fan.. I agree. I was just saying if you are going to blame someone don't blame one of the greatest players ever to wear a Reds jersey. Why are you blaming ownership then? I blame them for a lot, but this? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesbrooks21 Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Hell if you want to blame someone for a contract blame Akili Smith, Klingler, etc, etc not Barry Larkin.Don't blame the player, blame the owner, and before you say..what are you doing in a Reds thread Browns fan...I'm a Reds fan.. I agree. I was just saying if you are going to blame someone don't blame one of the greatest players ever to wear a Reds jersey. Why are you blaming ownership then? I blame them for a lot, but this? No. As long as he is playing as well as he did this year he should be able to retire in a Reds jersey when he wants to not when the Reds think its time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.