The union will find someone to oppose this suspension because that is what unions do. If the union is smart, they'll just let it slide. This is going to come back to Capitol Hill and if the union tries to loophole their way through the language, Fehr's just going to get smacked down again by politicians who, by the way, shouldn't be involved in this in the first place, but had their hand forced.

I'm more interested in the rest of Grimsley's salary. He asked for his release. Why would he in a million years think he's entitled to the rest of his money. I guess he thinks he can't look any worse than he already does.

I'm not sure the union will appeal. After all he may have thrown fellow members of the union under the bus. And if that's so, why would the MLBPA want to endorse that?

The union will appeal because that's what they reflexively do. A batter can charge the mound and punch a pitcher after an inside pitch all recorded on TV and the union will appeal the resulting punishment. The merits of the case of the appropriateness of the punishment has nothing to do with the decision to appeal.

The union will appeal, and I hope they win. This is a terrible mistake by MLB. Are they truly intending to punish squealers? Let's say that the Grimsley affair struck a chord with a player, and that player wanted to rat out his colleagues -- for the sake of the game. But in doing so, he also had to fess up to his recent drug use. Would he be willing to do so now, given that a 50 game suspension could mean millions of dollars lost?

So just for arguments' sake: if no one picks Grimsley up, does he still (ever?) have to serve his "suspension"?

Doesn't Grimsley have to ask the union to appeal? I know with A-Rod, the union itself said it wouldn't allow him to lower his salary, but that was a specific clause in the CBA. Does the drug testing section have the same type of clause?

The one aspect of this I'm concerned about is the idea that Grimsley is somehow worse because he named names. Folks, that's the sort of attitude that lets this sort of thing run rampant. It's like corruption in a police department. Whistle-blowers, that is, people willing to buck peer pressure and fess up to the crime they see around them, are to be commended for making the world a cleaner place. Obviously there are different degrees of this--- somebody (like Grimsley) who was part of the problem to begin with and only named names to save his own rear end are a different breed than people genuinely shocked by the actions of those around them. But even if his motives were base, if it helps bring the truth to light, that's a good thing.