Joe Jackson and Pete Rose Should Be HOFers Because...

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

One other thought that I don't think has been mentioned yet in Jackson's defense: Gamblers back then were dangerous and the people who got involved with them knew it. Lefty Williams and his wife were threatened if he didn't lose that final game for instance. So if Jackson took money, or, if under Comiskey's attorneys' advice, said he took money, Jackson might have been afraid to then say he essentially double-crossed the gamblers by playing to win.

Very good point. Also a supporting narrative to Jackson's claim that Williams literally threw the money at him. Would make sense that Williams would be so concerned in trying to get Jackson on board with the fix, to better assure it would actually happen. And also makes sense that Jackson wouldn't say anything to possibly protect one of his teammates, and their family, from potential harm. And interestingly, with all that was going on, I've never heard of any of the gamblers involved suffering any consequences from all this.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Very good point. Also a supporting narrative to Jackson's claim that Williams literally threw the money at him. Would make sense that Williams would be so concerned in trying to get Jackson on board with the fix, to better assure it would actually happen. And also makes sense that Jackson wouldn't say anything to possibly protect one of his teammates, and their family, from potential harm. And interestingly, with all that was going on, I've never heard of any of the gamblers involved suffering any consequences from all this.

Arnold Rothstein was shot to death 9 years later.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Arnold Rothstein was shot to death 9 years later.

Yes, but that was unrelated (he didn’t pay his debts in a poker game he thought was rigged) and a number of mobsters he mentored held high positions in organized crime into the middle of the century.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by egri

Yes, but that was unrelated (he didn’t pay his debts in a poker game he thought was rigged) and a number of mobsters he mentored held high positions in organized crime into the middle of the century.

And if that is true, isn't that an ironic coincidence. He creates a gambling scandal to cheat others betting on the world series, and then he gets shot for refusing to pay off a gambling debt to someone he thinks cheated him. Got what he deserved it sounds like!!!

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by BobC

Very good point. Also a supporting narrative to Jackson's claim that Williams literally threw the money at him. Would make sense that Williams would be so concerned in trying to get Jackson on board with the fix, to better assure it would actually happen. And also makes sense that Jackson wouldn't say anything to possibly protect one of his teammates, and their family, from potential harm. And interestingly, with all that was going on, I've never heard of any of the gamblers involved suffering any consequences from all this.

Jackson said this both in 1920 and 1924. In 1920 the attorney did not follow up and ask what he meant by "...brought it in my room and threw it down" and 1924 Jackson and Williams both basically claimed that Williams paid Jackson part of his (Williams) payoff bc Williams used Jackson's name in the meeting with the Gamblers...meeting Jackson never attended. Basically putting up the idea that Williams used Jackson's name to help sell the fix to gamblers then felt bad about it later. Who knows if this is true, maybe, but Jackson still knew about it per Gandil running it by him.

Several of the problems with Jackson's 1920 testimony could be laid to the fact that the attorney didnt follow up with proper questions after Jackson's responses...which might have helped Jackson's case but again the players interest was not at all in consideration...and this is probably one of the chief differences in the 2 testimonies as in 1924 Jackson was representing himself and had proper council and chances to clarify.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Jackson said this both in 1920 and 1924. In 1920 the attorney did not follow up and ask what he meant by "...brought it in my room and threw it down" and 1924 Jackson and Williams both basically claimed that Williams paid Jackson part of his (Williams) payoff bc Williams used Jackson's name in the meeting with the Gamblers...meeting Jackson never attended. Basically putting up the idea that Williams used Jackson's name to help sell the fix to gamblers then felt bad about it later. Who knows if this is true, maybe, but Jackson still knew about it per Gandil running it by him.

Several of the problems with Jackson's 1920 testimony could be laid to the fact that the attorney didnt follow up with proper questions after Jackson's responses...which might have helped Jackson's case but again the players interest was not at all in consideration...and this is probably one of the chief differences in the 2 testimonies as in 1924 Jackson was representing himself and had proper council and chances to clarify.

So true. Think about what would have happened had Jackson gone to the AL President, Ban Johnson, with the money and the story about the scandal instead of going to Comiskey. Chances are Jackson would be in the HOF today, but probably nowhere near as well known and as popular (and expensive) as his cards are today.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by BobC

So true. Think about what would have happened had Jackson gone to the AL President, Ban Johnson, with the money and the story about the scandal instead of going to Comiskey. Chances are Jackson would be in the HOF today, but probably nowhere near as well known and as popular (and expensive) as his cards are today.

Very true.

And to the point about his baseball cards (and really all the Black Sox cards bc lets be honest if the scandal never happened that 1915 Zeenut McMullin aint no $5k card)...

My first baseball collecting book was Robert Obojski's "Baseball Memorabilia" printed in 1991 and he has a mini section titled "Joe Jackson Reinstatement Unlikely Despite Petitions, So Cards Suffer"...this did not age well

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Very true.

And to the point about his baseball cards (and really all the Black Sox cards bc lets be honest if the scandal never happened that 1915 Zeenut McMullin aint no $5k card)...

My first baseball collecting book was Robert Obojski's "Baseball Memorabilia" printed in 1991 and he has a mini section titled "Joe Jackson Reinstatement Unlikely Despite Petitions, So Cards Suffer"...this did not age well

LOL

So very true.

Think about it like the Gretzky-T206 Wagner card, which up until this pandemic had previously been the most expensive baseball card ever sold. But that sale came before the Mastro trial and Bill Mastro's admission in front of an open court that it had been cut off a strip of T206 cards found back in the 80's I believe, which means PSA completely mis-graded the very first card they ever looked at. And instead of an "8" grade, it should have gotten no better than an "A". Well, I remember hearing some speculation on what that admission by Mastro would do to the value of that card. There was even some speculation that the card's current owner should go back to PSA and demand they make good on their guarantee and buy the card from them for what they had paid for it. But then I remember someone else saying they would never do that, and that PSA probably wouldn't pay out for it anyway. And not because PSA wouldn't stand behind their guarantee, but because the card had gone from simply being famous to having now become infamous, and in all likelihood was now worth even more than it was before. And oddly enough, I can't disagree. So it isn't just the ladies that apparently have a thing for the bad boys! LOL