Thursday, July 20, 2000
Larkin's price too high
The Cincinnati Reds want Barry Larkin, but not at any price. Larkin would like to stay, but not for less than $27.9 million over three years. What we have here is an impasse, not a morality play.
Baseball is a business that alternately trades and treads on public sentiment. It sells nostalgia and tradition but at its core is cold-blooded commerce. Larkin is the best shortstop the home team has ever had — a local guy who grew to greatness — but his price tag now exceeds his projected return. If the Reds cannot get him for less than his asking price, they will let him go.
“We'd love to have Barry Larkin finish his career here,” said John Allen, the Reds' chief operating officer. “But their bottom line is just not something we can afford. It's not something we can do and keep a competitive, viable team. ... Based on what they've told us, there's no middle ground.”
Out of Reds' price range
We will hear a lot of talk about loyalty in the days ahead, about how Larkin accepted a below-market contract to stay with the Reds last time around and now is being mistreated by the ogres in the front office. His agent, Eric Goldschmidt, is already on the offensive, portraying the Reds as duplicitous cheapskates for telling Larkin he was next in line after Ken Griffey Jr., then refusing to meet his terms.
Yet the Reds have offered Larkin $18 million over three years — about $37,000 a game — and they might have offered more had the shortstop shown any inclination toward compromise. Though the truth may not be so Machiavellian, observers might look at Larkin's demands and conclude he is determined to leave and make the Reds take the heat.
Hard on the heels of the Denny Neagle deal, observers also could raise questions about the Reds' motives and commitment to contending. They might ask if the revenues generated by Griffey will be reinvested in better ballplayers or distributed as dividends to team principal owner Carl Lindner and his partners.
“I don't see a significant increase (in payroll),” Allen said Wednesday. “I don't see a slashing (either).”
Big bucks, small market
Can Larkin make more money somewhere else? Almost certainly. The New York Mets are bleeding to death at shortstop and need a high-profile acquisition to recapture the tabloids' attention from the New York Yankees. The Arizona Diamondbacks and Los Angeles Dodgers also are possessed of deep pockets and infield inadequacies.
As a “10-5” player — one who has spent 10 years in the majors and the last five with the same team — Larkin owns the leverage to pick his spot. If there are enough interested bidders, he may be able to dictate his dollars.
“I normally don't talk contract numbers in the media,” Allen said. “But they (fans) have to understand that $9.3 million a year is a lot of money. We have a payroll about 50 percent of the New York Yankees'. I can guarantee you we don't have 50 percent of the revenues of the New York Yankees.”
Regardless of market size and net proceeds, every baseball executive must strike some balance between income and expenditures. Regardless of longevity or stature, every player must determine his own priorities.
If Larkin wants to stay in Cincinnati, the Reds would be happy to have him. If he's looking for market value, he will have to look at a larger market.
Tim Sullivan welcomes your e-mail at tsullivan@enquirer.com.
Join the discussion with other fans in our Reds forum.
Reds Stories
• Return to Reds front page...
SULLIVAN: Larkin's price too high
