Management Management Review in - Mitchell Miller

[MarchysNoseKnows]

They are prevented from talking about the settlement. That much we can agree with. I believe I even posted that part of the CBA in here.

However, The CBA explicitly says they can not terminate a contract, even mutually without unconditional waivers. The only time that can happen is when a player has a NMC and the player decides to forego the waivers.

Again, I asked someone in the know and @Gee Wally probably knows who that says "the NHL makes up the rules as they go along."

We can also agree something fishy went on behind the scenes here.

My uneducated guess is: We have a very talented hockey player who probably would have been the Bruins second best prospect that did some atrocious things. Someone drastically underestimated the backlash it would cause. They went ahead and it bit them in the ass and someone had to bail them out.

I generally agree. But something is also weird when Eustace King is promoted by the NHL everywhere included being on panels etc and takes this kid on, then publicly contradicts Neely and it turned out to be untrue per the victim’s family. Not absolving Bruins for ineptitude - all the blame is on them - but the King side of it has never made a lick of sense to me.

 

[Gonzothe7thDman]

we wont ever know all details.

All I can say is read my post about my own experience with grievance arbitration. It was boiler plate in our cba. Could be here too.

Oh I wouldn't expect dollar amounts and intimate details to be announced. Not surprised about that being withheld.

I am just surprised there wasn't just a simple announcement saying they officially cut ties and they wouldn't be taking any questions.

 

[DominicT]

I generally agree. But something is also weird when Eustace King is promoted by the NHL everywhere included being on panels etc and takes this kid on, then publicly contradicts Neely and it turned out to be untrue per the victim’s family. Not absolving Bruins for ineptitude - all the blame is on them - but the King side of it has never made a lick of sense to me.

Unfortunately, there is nothing the NHL can do about King. The NHLPA are the ones that certify player agents and the league is stuck with him. As for panels and such that King is involved in, everyone I know of the NHLPA has a voice in them. But I say that not knowing who put him on any panel.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

They are prevented from talking about the settlement. That much we can agree with. I believe I even posted that part of the CBA in here.

However, The CBA explicitly says they can not terminate a contract, even mutually without unconditional waivers. The only time that can happen is when a player has a NMC and the player decides to forego the waivers.

Again, I asked someone in the know and @Gee Wally probably knows who that says "the NHL makes up the rules as they go along."

We can also agree something fishy went on behind the scenes here.

My uneducated guess is: We have a very talented hockey player who probably would have been the Bruins second best prospect that did some atrocious things. Someone drastically underestimated the backlash it would cause. They went ahead and it bit them in the ass and someone had to bail them out.

If they can bypass because of an NMC... completely taking a guess, the NHL stepped in and already said he can't play in the NHL. Meaning no team could/would make a claim, since he's basically non-playable asset, they didn't need to waive him to further put the spotlight on this whole situation.

Cleanly under the rug, and most people outside of this board, the people involved, or hardcore hockey fans will forget this happened.

Is it wrong that I'm still upset that he most likely got paid because of this whole ordeal? Sure he could have made more money actually playing, but pretty cushy situation for a young adult facing the "consequences" of his actions.

Anyways, regardless of how good he was, glad he's not here. Just should have never happened in the first place.