By John Erardi
The Cincinnati Enquirer

PHOTO GALLERY

Barry Larkin photo gallery

Barry Larkin's status with the Reds - the shortstop is headed for whatever greener pastures he can find for next year - has not changed.

But one person thinks it could.

"The only hope there is, is that there is still time to get something done," Larkin said before Tuesday night's game at Great American Ball Park.

Larkin thinks he could have been the Reds' starting shortstop next season, despite averaging only 86 games the past three years. He wanted to try. If it didn't work, he willingly would have accepted being a utility player, he said.

He says the Reds really didn't want him to accept their $500,000 offer for next year - $200,000 above the minimum. Larkin's speculation on that makes sense if the Reds didn't want another Ozzie Smith on their hands.

Smith, the Cardinals' nonpareil shortstop who was elected to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot, put St. Louis manager Tony LaRussa in an impossible situation when LaRussa chose to play Royce Clayton over the beloved but aging Smith.

When Larkin was on the disabled list in April, he spoke as though he were ready to segue into a part-time role in 2004.

But to understand Larkin is to understand this: He really believes he would have won the shortstop's job next spring. He knows when he is healthy, he can still play.

The problem is, he can't stay healthy. That he would think he can reverse that trend appears to many people to be delusional. But that's the kind of thinking that made him great: He didn't believe there was a situation in which he couldn't deliver a hit or make a play.

"My politically correct answer (last April) was, 'I'll be a quasi-utility guy,' " Larkin said. "Because of the health problems I've had, I had to say, 'quasi-utility guy...' Now, that opportunity isn't going to present itself because of the way this whole thing has been handled."

Former Reds great Johnny Bench, a special consultant to the club, said Tuesday he thinks Larkin still has hopes of returning to the Reds.

"It happened one other time (in the summer of 2000), when it didn't look like they were going to sign him, and all of sudden the angel came through," Bench said.

The angel then was Reds chief executive officer Carl Lindner, who gave Larkin a three-year, $27 million contract. Now, however, there will be no such deal.

Larkin appeared in the Reds dugout Tuesday in street clothes, unable to put on his Reds uniform right away.

"I felt weird walking into the clubhouse today - I went to put on my jersey and..." he said, never finishing the thought.

Later, he said: "I still love this place. This is Cincinnati, man. This is me. This is like a bad dream. It's like sooner or later, I'm going to wake up."

Reds chief operating officer John Allen announced Monday night, with Lindner's blessing, that Larkin would not be a Reds player next season because he had turned down the Reds' take-it-or-leave it offer. That offer was a one-year deal for $500,000 plus another $500,000 in incentives.

Larkin said Tuesday that if the Reds had allowed for some negotiation, he probably still would be a Red next season, even if it weren't for a lot for money.

"Absolutely," he said.

Larkin didn't say what it would have taken to keep him. He did, however, recite the famous player mantra, "It's not about the money."

Larkin said he felt his lengthy, loyal service with the Reds deserved better treatment.

"It hasn't creeped up on this organization that this is the last year of my contract, that I'll be 40 years old next year, that I've been rooted in this community and have my baseball thing going on (a clinic, involving inner-city youth)," Larkin said. "The money is inconsequential. It's the principle. It's the lack of handling this situation in the way I think it should have been handled."

He said the way it was handled "was not classy."

"The relationship I've had with Cincinnati has been incredible," he said. "For it to come to an end on these terms is really unbelievable ... I would have much rather had John Allen and Carl decide, 'We really don't want this guy around here' - and I really believe that was John Allen's decision - I'd rather do that, have them say, 'We're not going to offer you a contract; we want you to retire (as a Red).' I'd have respected that so much more. Then it's my decision to say, 'I'm not ready to retire.' "

Exclusivity rule clarified

Barry Larkin referred several times to a "period of exclusivity" regarding the Reds' negotiating rights with him.

Under the rule:

• Only the Reds can negotiate on a future contract with Larkin until the day after the World Series ends.

• Beginning the day after the World Series, he can negotiate with all 30 teams.

• If the Reds do not offer him arbitration by Dec. 7, they cannot re-sign him until May 1.

No cameo

Don't look for a cameo appearance by Larkin over the last five games of the season.

Larkin was told after his left ring finger was examined Monday that he'd risk further damage by playing.

He wouldn't even consider pinch-running?

"Doc shut me down," he said.