a plain question

lucky   Friday, October 29, 2004, 11:44 GMT
"Trump also said that John Willenborg, the latest "Apprentice" to be fired from the second season of the NBC reality show, deserved to get the boot"

I have a question about the <the latest "Apprentice" to be fired from...'> part in the sentence.
it seems that To-infinitive represents and shorten many usage of other verbs such as will, can, may and etc.. in every sentence.
I wonder what's the nuance of the 'to be fired' in the sentence above instead of just 'fired' or 'who has been fired'. Any differences?
I feel just 'fired' or 'who has been fired' would be better for me. furthermore, I can't see what's the nuance of 'to be fired'

kind and detailed answer will be very appreciated.
lucky   Friday, October 29, 2004, 11:48 GMT
actually, to-infiitive tends to give me future-nuance(70%), and present-nuance(30%) so, that's why I deal with this 'to be fired' question.

would you describe your opinion for me?
Easterner   Friday, October 29, 2004, 12:32 GMT
"To be fired" is short for "who has been fired" here, so your guess is partly right. The "to be" construction, along with the "-ing" form is often used for shortening relative clauses. It can also stand in the past, not just in the future, but not normally in the present. What time it refers to depends on the tense of the other verb(s) in the sentence. If your example started with "J. W. will be the last Apprentice...", it would stand for "who will be fired". I think using just "fired" would also be possible, but I feel it lacks information included in "to be fired". The latter construction accounts for both the relative clause and the passive voice, and thus makes the sentence more compact.
Ali   Monday, November 01, 2004, 21:16 GMT
I agree with all that Easterner says here. However, I wonder if there is also a distancing effect of 'to be fired'? To me, it smacks of somebody official and unfeeling doing the firing. I can't pinpoint where this feeling comes from. Any thoughts?