By John Erardi
The Cincinnati Enquirer

Barry Larkin will have a tough, but perhaps not impossible, road to the Baseball Hall of Fame judging from the comments of 14 members of the Baseball Writers Association of America.

At best, Larkin probably faces a lengthy wait - maybe even as long as former teammate and manager Tony Perez, who made it in his ninth year of eligibility. (There is a 15-year window on the BBWAA ballot.)

At worst, Larkin won't make it in that 15-year window and will have to wait on the veterans committee to consider him.

The 14 BBWAA members who were canvassed either have Hall of Fame voting credentials now (10 continuous years of membership) or will by the time Larkin arrives on the ballot in five or six years. The Reds announced Monday that Larkin won't be a Red next year, but Larkin wants to play one more season. If he does, he's up for election in 2010; if not, in 2009.

There is a built-in waiting period for BBWAA balloting.

Four of the writers said they would vote for Larkin, four said they wouldn't, and the remaining six said they might.

Larkin will need 75 percent of the votes of the 500-plus electorate to be selected.

The Enquirer collected a cross-section of voters in National League cities, American League cities and cities that have both NL and AL teams, or writers who are so well-traveled between leagues that they have seen Larkin often.

None of the voting members of the Cincinnati-area chapter of the BBWAA was canvassed, because they are known to lean heavily in Larkin's favor, which would skew the results of such a small overall sample.

Here are the BBWAA members who were canvassed:

YES

Bob Nightengale, national writer, USA Today Sports Weekly: "I think he's a borderline guy, but if I had a ballot in front of me, I'd vote for him because of what he meant to the organization, on the field and off. When he won the MVP, he didn't have the best numbers, but he had the intangibles. He's the captain and a class guy."

Ken Daley, national writer, Dallas Morning News: "He has what you look for. He was the dominant player at his position for a decade, although he was overshadowed in his early career by Ozzie Smith. Barry would have been elected to more All-Star teams if not for Ozzie's popularity with the fans."

Larry Rocca, national writer, Newark Star-Ledger: "I've never thought about it, but without the numbers in front of me, my gut reaction is yes. He won an MVP, was the premier player on a championship team and the team captain, and had a long career. As great as Ripken was in the '80s and into the '90s, Larkin was the dominant shortstop in the National League, especially all around, including his offense."

Bob Klapisch, national writer, The Record: "Not a first-ballot guy, not a second-ballot guy, but eventually, yes. I like his career numbers, and the ring counts. For a long period, he was the best, or among the best."

NO

Furman Bisher, columnist, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "I think he's borderline. I doubt seriously he'll go into the Hall in the regulation time. He's had a punctuated career because of injuries. Having a shortened career can really hurt. It hurt Dale Murphy, who won back-to-back MVPs."

Bill Zack, beat writer, Morris (Ga.) News: "No. It's just a feeling you have about a player when the Hall of Fame comes up. Injuries hurt his career numbers. He's a very good player. But the elite of the elite? No."

Ross Newhan, national writer, Los Angeles Times: "My gut reaction is probably not. Without having the stats in front of me, he doesn't jump out at me, in the defensive fashion of an Ozzie Smith or the offensive fashion of today's shortstops. But he's a terrific player."

Larry Stone, national writer, Seattle Times: "I'd need to look at the numbers, but my gut reaction is he falls just short. That's no insult. He's in the debate, and that's good. What will hurt him is his career intersected the era of the superstar shortstops.

"It's not fair, but he's going to be compared to (Alex) Rodriguez, Nomar (Garciaparra) and (Derek) Jeter. Those first two, especially, are going to climb toward 300, 400, 500 home runs, with a lot of 100-RBI seasons. And his being overshadowed in his early career by Ozzie reminds me of Gary Carter being overshadowed by (Johnny) Bench, although Carter eventually got in. But I just don't see a groundswell for Larkin, and 75 percent is a big number. We may be talking election 20 years from now with the veterans committee."

MAYBE

Joe Henderson, national writer, Tampa Tribune: "He's borderline, but I definitely would consider him. The longevity thing may hurt him. The last few years have really sapped him. Two or three years ago, I remember thinking, 'He needs two or three more good years to be a lock.' It didn't quite happen."

Don Ketchum, national writer, Arizona Republic: "I straddle the fence with him."

Jim Salisbury, national writer, Philadelphia Inquirer: "I can't snap my finger and say, 'Hall of Famer' like I can with some guys. That's a sign to me that maybe he isn't."

Sheldon Ocker, beat writer, Akron Beacon Journal: "In my mind, he's one of those guys who isn't a lock. I'd look seriously at him, though. If I covered the National League 20 times a year, I'd have a better idea. Sometimes when you look up a guy's numbers, it helps his case, other times, it doesn't. Brooks Robinson had good numbers, not great numbers. You had to see him play. Some guys, you have to see."

Larry LaRue, beat writer, Tacoma News Tribune: "My gut reaction is he's borderline, which is good, because that means he gets a close look. You hope a guy like that gets considered carefully, because by the time he comes on the ballot, you're going to have young voters who grew up on A-Rod and Garciaparra."

Jim Street, beat writer, MLB.com: "He's borderline at best. He's a guy that doesn't jump out at me."

PROS AND CONS of Larkin's Hall of Fame candidacy

Pro: Won an MVP award in 1995 and was first shortstop in the 30-30 Club (HR and stolen bases). Also won nine Silver Slugger awards, which separates him from less offensive shortstops such as Dave Concepcion and Alan Trammell.

Con: Doesn't have big career numbers such as 2,500 hits, 250 HR or 1,000 RBI.

Pro: Was the best player at his position for several years and very nearly the best for several more years, within a 10-year stretch.

Con: Cal Ripken Jr. and Robin Yount, a pair of American League near-contemporaries at shortstop whose careers only slightly preceded Larkin, have bigger career numbers.

Pro: Blazed the trail for the strapping, athletic shortstops of the future such as Alex Rodriguez, Nomar Garciaparra and Derek Jeter.

Con: Is going to be dwarfed by the offensive numbers, especially those of Rodriguez and Garciaparra, by the time their careers are over.

Pro: Was by far a better offensive shortstop than first-ballot Hall of Famer Ozzie Smith of the St. Louis Cardinals.

Con: Smith redefined the position with his defense, something Larkin didn't do. Larkin won only three Gold Gloves, although he would have had more had Smith not received the last few off reputation alone.

Pro: Was the best player on a World Championship team (1990)

Con: So was Derek Jeter, who by the time he is through, probably will have a World Series ring for every finger (and both thumbs).

WHERE LARKIN RATES among all-time greatest Reds

(as slotted by one BBWAA voter, John Erardi):

1. Outfielder Frank Robinson

2. Catcher Johnny Bench

3. Outfielder/infielder Pete Rose

4. Second baseman Joe Morgan

5. Shortstop Barry Larkin