Tom Hendricks wrote:
Does his firing really upset you that much, did you even know his name before the story hit?
Yes, and yes.
MLB has decided that they didn't like some of the decisions he was making, so they decided to make a change. No big deal, happens all the time.
What a ridiculous assertion. This isn't the first time MLB has sacked an arbitrator (Peter Seitz was fired after he effectively nullified the reserve clause in 1975; Thomas Roberts lost his job after ruling against owners in the 1985 - 86 collusion case), and it sends a chilling message each time it happens. The whole point of including binding arbitration as part of the collective bargaining agreement is to have an impartial third party as the ultimate decision-maker in the event that a dispute can't be settled. MLB's pettiness essentially says, "Issue a ruling we don't like, and we will replace you."
MLB has been livid ever since the Braun decision came down (Rob Manfred said on more than one occasion that the league was exploring "all options" in response to the ruling), so the firing isn't surprising -- just absurd. I think it's pretty clear that Braun didn't make an actual innocence defense, only a non-malicious procedural flaw, which is fine, that's how the system is supposed to work since both parties collectively bargained it to work that way, but it only works that way because neither side actually gives a shit about eradicating PED usage.