The balloon is aloft. Now let's see how many people take a shot at it.
That is really what we're talking about with this Will Clark trade stuff, after all - whether public opinion will outweigh financial considerations in a San Francisco Giants' decision.The rumor that Clark may be sent to (ugh) New York isn't all that tantalizing, except to Mets fans who like to spend their lunch hours calling WFAN radio to suggest stupid trades in which the Mets get everything and give up nothing. You know, those Roger Clemens-for-Jeff Kent deals that give thinking people migraines.
Everyone knows Clark has a no-trade clause in his contract, and as much as general manager Bob Quinn hates no-trade deals, he knows two things:
1. Clark isn't going anywhere he doesn't want to go.
2. He surely has a lot of teams on his list ahead of (ugh) New York. Like Atlanta and Houston, for starters.
But the rumor is out there anyway, and it could be as simple a case as (ugh) New York general manager Al Harazin trying to figure out a way to get Bobby Bonilla out of (ugh) New York and asking Quinn if he'd be interested in separating himself from Clark. Purely theoretical, of course, they would both ahem.
Even if it's just rumor-floater Peter Gammons' imagination on autopilot, the interesting thing about the whole Clark-leaving idea is the reaction in San Francisco. And that reaction is still to be gauged. Put simply, the new owners are about to learn what the public is going to think of them if they do not sign Clark to a new, long-term, big-dough contract. If the outrage is outrageous enough, they will swallow hard and try to figure out how to pay him a living wage, baseball style.
If the outrage is muted or even absent, they may make the financial decision not to afford him. Which is to say, Will Clark would be allowed to become a free agent after the season and sign with any team he wants, even (ugh) New York.
Don't be surprised by this. The Giants are the most owned team in baseball, and though they have enough accumulated wealth among them to buy Will Clark, his agent, Jeff Moorad, their families and pets and still have funds to pay for Uruguay, that doesn't mean they feel like spending it.
It is telling that most of these ultrarich guys are in for "only" $5 million apiece, and that front man Peter Magowan is still hustling up fresh investors to bolster the portfolio. It is equally instructive that they anticipate losing money unless they draw close to 2.5 million fans. And it is educational as hell to consider that their $34 million payroll is going to shoot past $40 million if they win the National League West, as they seem bent upon doing.
The baseball argument is a simple one to make. Clark is either the best first baseman in the land or close enough to the top to make losing him a mistake, and there is nobody in the minor leagues who could step in and be four-fifths as good. Second, the Giants may not make money even with record attendance, but they will lose a load of money (plus jeopardize what new stadium support they do have) by finishing fourth or fifth.
Third, and most important, the Giants have built their new clientele on winning baseball and customer service. There isn't much service being offered the customer when the owner starts throwing around baseball terms like "We can't afford him."
In short, the Giants' new owners are in for their second significant decision. The first was to pay for Barry Bonds. The second will be whether they want to pay for Clark, too.
They may keep the payroll in line, but they will lose far more down the road by letting Clark go, even to (ugh) New York.