No. He should be. If you're going to put in a guy like Kirby Puckett who's career was cut short then you have to look at Belle.
The differences here are that everyone loved Puckett and he had glaucoma. Everyone hated Belle and he had a bad hip. Glaucoma and loss of eyesight in a guy that everyone loves gets sympathy. A bad hip on a guy that everyone hates gets ignored.
Puckett: .318/.360/.477 for an .837 OPS, 124 OPS+ 51.1 WAR. 2,304 hits, 207 homers, 1085 RBI in 7,244 at bats. Pretty confident that if he played out his career he'd have gotten 3,000 hits. Also worth mentioning his 6 Gold Gloves.
Belle: .295/.369/.564 for a .933 OPS, 144 OPS+ 40.1 WAR. 1,726 hits, 381 homers, 1,239 RBI in 5,853 at bats. Pretty confident that if he played out his career he would have passed 500 homers, maybe approached 600.
Belle had 1,391 less at bats and trailed only by 11 WAR. If I'm doing my math correctly, had Belle been able to have an equal number of at bats, he would have slightly exceeded Puckett's value.
But Belle was a bad guy, threw baseballs at people, terrorized trick or treaters, was surly and didn't like the press. So the press took joy in letting him drop off the ballot. Don't get me wrong, I understand it and I'm not saying Belle is a shoe-in by any stretch. But I feel like there have been less deserving players who have stayed on the ballot longer. If Belle was an angel, he'd have a different legacy, IMO.
The two options are to (1) pay the players to play what you have agreed to pay them in front of no fans or (2) cancel the season. Logically, the only way that paying the players becomes economically infeasible is if it is cheaper to cancel the season completely.
Economic feasibility isn't based on maximizing profitability or minimizing losses to the owners by modifying the other portions of the agreement. It is based on the difference between those two binary choices.
I don't like the idea of just deciding not to take a pitcher. Maybe it is because they rank some of the underslot guys higher, but if the strategy is just not take a pitcher generally I think it's unwise.
You are oversimplifying and you are under the false assumption that owners can unilaterally shorten the season.
The owners don't get to decide whether it is cheaper to not play than to play. They have to open the books and prove to the players that they would lose more money not playing than by playing without fans. Only then can the owners cancel the season. Presumably, if the owners were to open the books and convince the players that they would lose more money playing without fans than they would in canceling the season, thereby permitting them the option of canceling the season, players might be interested in sacrificing additional money to have a season, but the owners have not yet done that.
The players and owners have a mutual obligation to start the season as soon as possible and to play as many games as possible. That obligation is not discharged by the owners losing money for the season, it is only discharged by the owners proving they would lose more money playing without fans than they would lose if they didn't play at all.
The owners almost certain WOULD lose less money with a shorter season (say 40 games vs. 82) and an expanded playoffs, but that would also violate the March agreement, just as trying to renegotiate salary without proving playing without fans is more fiscally damaging than not playing violates the March agreement.