Posted By:
Kenny ColePete Rose doesn't need to be elected to the HOF in order for it to reflect his "rich contributions" to the game. It undoubtedly has plenty of the Rose photos, cards, uniforms, bats, gloves, and other memorabilia necessary to celebrate his achivements. He may have even signed some of those items (for a price, of course). Similarly, the HOF has Joe Jackson items and items from players who had one or more shining moments of glory but who nonetheless will never be elected, i.e., Don Larson. Indeed, if the HOF's primary function is simply to act as a museum, it doesn't need to ever elect any members. How many museums do? If it is just a museum celebrating the history of the game, that celebration can be adequately exemplified by the artifacts reflecting that history.
I don't think of the HOF as simply a museum. To me, it is (or at least was supposed to be), more akin to a pantheon of the so-called "baseball gods." Moreover, to my way of thinking, election to the HOF should be viewed as an honor, not as some sort of right. It should be deserved, not expected or taken for granted. The criteria is not, nor should it be, simply based on a player's on the field performance.
Pete Rose reminds me of the old story about the guy who killed his parents and then, during his murder trial, asked the Court for clemency because he was an orphan. He spit on the game he professes to love for the simple reason that he didn't think he'd be caught. Even now, there are questions being raised about whether his 14-year late so-called "confession" is the whole truth. As far as I'm concerned, if Bud reinstates him, it will simply prove that the two of them richly deserve each other.
As far as the HOF goes, the accomplishments of Pete Rose the player can be duly celebrated without hanging his plaque there. However, in my opinion, Pete Rose the person does not deserve the honor which being elected to the HOF should represent. 'Nuff said.