I am not quite sure I understand the front office's rationale. The primary reason the front office did not re-sign Barry Larkin was to clear the path for the younger talent. Yet they turn around and sign a veteran shortstop (Rich Aurilia). This goes against what they were telling the fans. Nothing against Aurilia, but if the reins are not handed over to Lopez, don't you think keeping Larkin around for a final year would have benefited the organization and the fans? -- Will R., Philadelphia

Don't forget that at the time the Reds decided to part ways with Larkin, they figured Anderson Machado was still in the mix to compete with Lopez for the starting shortstop job.

When Machado went down with a knee injury during winter ball in Venezuela, the Reds had to rethink their strategy. They didn't want to immediately hand over the job to Lopez. My guess is that they're reasoning was competition would be good for the youngster, and having a player with some experience around could prove to be a benefit.

So along comes the free-agent Aurilia, who made a strong case for the starting job this spring and ended up winning it.

The Reds didn't see Larkin as having the skills to be an everyday shortstop anymore, and he didn't want to be anybody's backup. He refused such a role with the Reds and eventually retired.

Does Aurilia still have those everyday skills? I guess we'll see this season. But I think Lopez has a bright future in this organization, and I think he'll get plenty of opportunities to showcase his talents in '05.
click here