Check this out: a Mets blog (frankly, one of the best baseball blogs anywhere) has imagined an alternate reality. The premise: what if Barry Larkin had accepted the trade to New York in 2000?

I like to imagine that dream scenario, too. Can you imagine how awesome it would have been to have had Alex Escobar in the Reds lineup for the last decade?

7 Responses

  1. hoosierdad

    Of course, you can always imagine the “what if” scenarios. What if Don Gullett had not gone free agent? What if Doggie wasn’t traded? What if Pete had not gambled? What if Sparky hadn’t been fired? In a way, it makes no sense to wonder “what if” because you can’t undo it. In another way, the “what if” questions about the past or the future are part of what keeps us sane until our beloved season starts all over again. So keep on “what iffing” to our hearts content and lets all dream a little more before the next season jars us back to reality!

  2. Mark in CC

    Alex Escobar certainly would not have been the answer but the Reds would have been better off if Larkin had gone, freeing up the money and getting a jump on finding a new shortstop.

    The blog was a little off as at the writer was confusing the average Larkin defensive range of 2000 (going behind second to dive for a ball) with the great Larkin range of three years before.

    The Larkin re-signing was the dumbest (dumbest not the worst)of Uncle Carl’s tenure. So maybe there should be a “what if” from the Reds perspective.

  3. Steve Price

    Yep, if Larkin had only left, Pokey could have taken his spot as rightful shortstop for the Reds.

    Or, may be Juan Castro could have become a regular…or Gookie could have gotten Pokey’s job.

    Fact is, it wasn’t Larkin’s contract that kept the Reds from winning. It was ownership not spending money to make money on getting more players, and overvaluing the young guys we had. Larkin’s jerseys and fun thingamobob’s paid for his contract, as did the people coming to the games.

    Lindner made enough money off his sale of the Reds to have bankrolled at many years-worth of Larkin’s contract. He would have made more, and given the city more civic pride, if he’d invested more.

  4. pinson343

    “Lindner made enough money off his sale of the Reds to have bankrolled at many years-worth of Larkin’s contract. He would have made more, and given the city more civic pride, if he’d invested more.”

    Great point. Carl’s defense “Hey, I’m just trying to break even” is specious when you consider how much he made in the sale. With Castellini I thought we were going to have a whole new approach, but I don’t see it. I’m not a fan of Steinbrenner’s, but he was right when he said that with a sports franchise, you look primarily for growth in value, not for year-to-year profit.

  5. pinson343

    Probably everyone knows this, but Larkin did not veto the trade. He did not have a no-trade clause.
    Carl nixed the trade after the Reds fans made their disapproval known, with a weekend of standing ovations for Barry.

  6. Luke Price

    If Barry Larkin was traded the Reds wouldn’t have to worry about paying his contract and him retiring,he was too old. The Reds had the time to trade him but they didn’t,maybe Pokey or Juan Castro could have took Barry Larkin’s spot. What if Alex Escobar would have been a 5time all star game and led the Reds to win the World Series.

  7. Mark in CC

    @pinson343: I was there for that standing ovation which came before he re-signed and it was a goodbye/thanks ovation not we want you to stay.

    Lets see if they had played Gookie, Pokey or Castro they might not have made to playoffs one of those years. Oops I guess that wouldn’t have changed anything.