Put Pete In?

The day after this year's Hall of Fame induction ceremonies, notorious non-Hall of Famer Pete Rose's name came up.  Bill Madden of the New York Daily News penned a story claiming that Commissioner Bud Selig was re-considering Rose's application for reinstatement. Rose, who agreed to a lifetime ban from the game in August of 1989 due to gambling allegations, has the support of such notable veterans as Joe Morgan and Hank Aaron, writes Madden.  "Charlie Hustle," as he was known, spent the better part of a decade claiming the betting allegations were false before finally fessing up in an ill-timed release of book "My Prison Without Bars" in 2004.

The release was ill-timed because it came right as Selig was leaning towards reinstating Rose.  Instead, the book release seemed like a money-making market hack job by Rose and Selig denied the reinstatement.

Fast forward to this week, and Rose seems to be getting another chance.  In the very least, the media is talking about it in droves.  Rose, who loves the spotlight, must be loving it.  Buster Olney of ESPN.com has opined that Rose's motivation to get into the Hall aren't just for fame, but also for how he could market himself.  You see, Rose has never been shy about charging top dollar for his autograph at shows, speaking appearances and such.

Regardless of his motives, the question remains: should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame?

Personally, I am in agreement with Olney that the Hall of Fame should represent the history of baseball.  It shouldn't be a history of baseball as voting human beings want the game to be thought of.  By allowing writers and former players to pick and choose who is canonized, they are basically saying "we don't like this guy or what he did, so let's pretend it never happened."

I am all for the idea of having plaques that note players with suspicious behavior, whether it be gambling, steroids, or other criminal acts.

But when I go to the Hall of Fame, it's unfathomable for me to think I would go there and not see anything representing the man who has more hits and played in more games than anyone in the history of baseball.

As Olney pointed out today, when we look at a history of U.S. Presidents, you still have to include Richard Nixon in that story, even if you don't want to.

Barry Bonds belongs in because he was an incredible player who captivated audiences unlike anything this generation has ever seen, regardless if it was love or hate.

Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, to me, do not belong in.  Not because of their steroid links, but because they were one-dimensional players.  McGwire was a better version of Dave Kingman.

I don't care much for Pete Rose after reading his arrogant book and hearing him play the victim for twenty years.  I don't condone a manager betting onMLB games.

But I also don't think the National Baseball Hall of Fame is truly what it represents, if it doesn't show the dirty laundry.  Especially when it has already enshrined plenty of people who have their own warts which may or may not be known to the public.

(Photo: Getty Images)

Unless otherwise stated, no particular sexual orientation of anyone depicted is implied or should be presumed.

Comments

[Reds fan]

Even thought I'm a Reds fan I don't think they should let him in. But then I'm also for not letting in A-Rod and all the other steroid gang either.