I wish MLB had ruled before Pete Rose passed away that he’d be eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame after he died. Rose could have faked his own death, resurrected upon his induction, then charged more money to sign autographs at memorabilia shows.
Maybe, before he expired, Rose inscribed a bunch of baseballs with “HoF” below his signature. Just in case. Profiting from beyond the grave.
Rose is eligible for the Hall of Fame as per baseball’s ruling earlier this week. Anyone on the permanently ineligible list is, as long as they’re dead.
I have mixed emotions as to whether Rose should get in. He broke baseball’s No. 1 rule. He bet on baseball.
But MLB definitely mangled Rose’s potential path to Cooperstown.
Shoeless Joe Jackson is the other prominent name reinstated. He is MLB’s No. 3 hitter all-time with a lifetime average of .356. But Jackson took money to participate in a conspiracy to fix the 1919 World Series. How on earth can he be honored? (Then again, O.J. Simpson is still in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.)
Getting back to Rose, making him eligible a mere seven months after his death doesn’t ring proper.
Why couldn’t it happen while Rose was alive? It would have been easy and logical to permanently ban him from employment in MLB while making him eligible for the Hall of Fame. A name and likeness on a plaque doesn’t threaten the integrity of baseball.
This feels like teasing Rose. Even after his death.
His restored eligibility offers no guarantee of his induction.
Rose can get in via something called the Classic Baseball Era committee, which doesn’t meet again until December 2027. Because, after all, what’s the hurry? Rose is dead.
Who’s to say that committee won’t inflict its morality on the process and continue to keep Rose out of the Hall of Fame?
If you think Rose should be in, put him in ASAP. He’s got more hits than anybody else in MLB history. What’s there to debate? Why is a meeting required, then a vote?
The reinstatement of Rose and Jackson offers the Hall of Fame an opportunity to look even stupider than it already does. (It jumped the shark when it inducted meh talents like Harold Baines.)
Steroid-era superstars like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens got bypassed by the baseball writers and their keen sense of right and wrong. They can enter Cooperstown via the Contemporary Players committee, whatever that is. (All these committees.)
What’s worse, betting on baseball or taking PEDs? Is that the decision at hand?
Why can’t this be simple? Why has character and morality ever mattered? Why isn’t it just the black and white of what was accomplished?
If Rose gets in, put it on his plaque: “Was banned for betting on baseball.”
If Bonds gets in, put it on his plaque: “Was suspected of using PEDs.”
It’s only complicated if you want it to be.
The Hall of Fame has long been in a position where a lineup of those omitted could beat a lineup of those inducted: Bonds, Clemens, Jackson, Rose, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Curt Schilling and Sammy Sosa are a formidable group.
Schilling is perhaps the oddest case: Kept out because of his right-wing politics.
I’m convinced Bonds is excluded mostly because he’s unliked, with PEDs being the excuse. But everybody hated Ty Cobb, and he’s in.
