Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson now eligible for Hall of Fame

[raptorsfan29]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/45115659/pete-rose-shoeless-joe-jackson-players-reinstated-mlb

All i have to say is that it's about time.

[CF DolFan]

It's beyond time to do so although it wouldn't surprise me if the voters don't let him in for a year or so. They like to make their own point as if they are better.  They never really kept Pete out as everyone knows his story but it did keep him from celebrating it. I wonder how his family is taking this news and how they will react when he is put into HOF. They might tell MLB to take a flying leap. Who knows for sure

[Pappy13]

Shoeless Joe Jackson being kept out of the HOF was a bigger injustice than Rose in my humble opinion. At the time there was a widespread problem with players taking bribes to tank games and there's no evidence that Jackson tanked any games, he was a scapegoat in my humble opinion to try to clean up the sport. He should have been put in the HOF decades ago.

[Sibster]

Shoeless Joe Jackson being kept out of the HOF was a bigger injustice than Rose in my humble opinion. At the time there was a widespread problem with players taking bribes to tank games and there's no evidence that Jackson tanked any games, he was a scapegoat in my humble opinion to try to clean up the sport. He should have been put in the HOF decades ago.

Him and Buck Weaver together.   They had nothing to do with the Black Sox scandal.  They only got banned because they knew about it and failed to report it.

Great ruling by the Commish that when a banned player dies, his ban is lifted.

[Pappy13]

Him and Buck Weaver together.   They had nothing to do with the Black Sox scandal.  They only got banned because they knew about it and failed to report it.

Well Jackson did admit to taking $5000 in cash for throwing the World Series but he said he still played to win and his stats from the series seems to back that up to a point. But I honestly don't think banning him from the league and the hall of fame was all about that. He had signed a new contract with Chicago by the time the allegations came out and the White Sox owner pushed to get him banned from the league and I think part of that was because they wanted out of his contract. They never paid him after he was banned. He sued and won and got some of the money he was owed back. I think there were a lot of things in play and he was scapegoated a bit for the whole scandal. Jackson didn't exactly handle it well, but I really don't think he should have been banned from the league as it was clear that it was much bigger than just him and he may have merely taken the money without ever intending to throw any games. Players were not well paid at the time (and Comisky was one of the worst) so $5000 was a LOT of money to him, be hard for anyone to turn that down, doesn't mean he intended to lose games.

[Sunstroke]

Sorry Petey Hustle...sorry Shoeless Joe...

I am very much in the minority on this one. I would make the gambling ban "eternal," rather than just "for life." 

[Sibster]

Well Jackson did admit to taking $5000 in cash for throwing the World Series but he said he still played to win and his stats from the series seems to back that up to a point. But I honestly don't think banning him from the league and the hall of fame was all about that. He had signed a new contract with Chicago by the time the allegations came out and the White Sox owner pushed to get him banned from the league and I think part of that was because they wanted out of his contract. They never paid him after he was banned. He sued and won and got some of the money he was owed back. I think there were a lot of things in play and he was scapegoated a bit for the whole scandal. Jackson didn't exactly handle it well, but I really don't think he should have been banned from the league as it was clear that it was much bigger than just him and he may have merely taken the money without ever intending to throw any games. Players were not well paid at the time (and Comisky was one of the worst) so $5000 was a LOT of money to him, be hard for anyone to turn that down, doesn't mean he intended to lose games.

That we can agree on.   Comiskey was a money grubbing piece of shit.  He signed players for as little as he possibly could.  He charged them for laundry and meals on the road.   And if you saw Eight Men Out, the scene where they won the pennant and were promised a $10k bonus and when they got to the locker room, they had one bottle of champagne waiting for them.... ONE.   And one of Comiskey's goons said, "This is your bonus"  That actually happened

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

That we can agree on.   Comiskey was a money grubbing piece of shit.  He signed players for as little as he possibly could.  He charged them for laundry and meals on the road.   And if you saw Eight Men Out, the scene where they won the pennant and were promised a $10k bonus and when they got to the locker room, they had one bottle of champagne waiting for them.... ONE.   And one of Comiskey's goons said, "This is your bonus"  That actually happened

Don't confused fictionalized movies based on historical events as facts as documentaries. They very frequently change things to be more dramatic.  What you are describing did not happen.  One player was promised a a $30K bonus if he won a 30 games and was benched after winning 29. The others were promised 'a bonus" if they won the pennant but the bonus was never specified.  It  was a case of champagne not a single bottle.     

The owner of the team being an asshole does not justify rigging a game. 

I tend to think that reversing the ban reinforcements the problem we have across athletics of star athletes not being held accountable for their behavior.   

[Sibster]

Don't confused fictionalized movies based on historical events as facts as documentaries. They very frequently change things to be more dramatic.  What you are describing did not happen.  One player was promised a a $30K bonus if he won a 30 games and was benched after winning 29. The others were promised 'a bonus" if they won the pennant but the bonus was never specified.  It  was a case of champagne not a single bottle.     

The owner of the team being an asshole does not justify rigging a game. 

I tend to think that reversing the ban reinforcements the problem we have across athletics of star athletes not being held accountable for their behavior.   

I missed that part about the bonus, but I heard he did that more than once (benched players that were close to meeting their performance incentives).  And he did charge his players for laundry and meals on the road.   No team ever did that.