Management Management Review in - Mitchell Miller

[Dr Quincy]

ane Barzal and Connor are relevant to this in what way? you just want to villainize the organization. If Sweeny and Neely had bad intent here the investigation would have said that

Can you name a signing that has been made in the world of the big 4 sports that was made with "bad intent"? I'm sure any signing could be framed as being done with "Good intent".

They intended to sign a racist bully because they thought it would help their prospect pool. You can look at the 2nd half of that sentence as absolving them from the first part of the sentence... if you want. Others might say it only makes it worse.

 

[Dr Quincy]

I dont see why a law firm would protect Sweeney and Neely and put their law firms reputation at stake

The job of all attorneys is explicitly to protect their clients. It's in their code of ethics. It's the reason there are attorneys. It's the reason they get paid.

 

[EverettMike]

Bruins make new policies in wake of Miller signing

The Bruins revealed findings and subsequent procedural changes from an independent review conducted on their signing of Mitchell Miller.

www.espn.com

That investigation, led by former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch of the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, parsed through thousands of documents related to Boston's signing of Miller on Nov. 4 before the club cut ties with him days later.


Im sure Loretta Lynch is covering up for Sweeney and Neely, right

Yes, exactly. The team hired her. She is the team's client. And we see this over and over again with big businesses, especially sports teams. It's a dog and pony show.

 

[Ludwig Fell Down]

Yes, exactly. The team hired her. She is the team's client. And we see this over and I've again with big businesses, especially sports teams. It's a dog and pony show.

That sums it up, and confirms what many of us suspected.

Christmas week news dump, no significance in the law firm's findings, and no one in the organization has the stones to admit that they made the final decision on the signing and screwed up.

NHL will be all about the Winter Classic next week, and this will be old news.

This is both completely predictable and incredibly disappointing.

 

[LouJersey]

Yes, exactly. The team hired her. She is the team's client. And we see this over and I've again with big businesses, especially sports teams. It's a dog and pony show.

Saul Goodman could have done a better job to make them look better than giving zero shits

Aren’t we posed to be able to read the report?

 

[bb74]

It's always interesting to read what "wasn't" said and I'm looking forward to reading the whole report as they stated would be made available.

To net this out:

• Establish clear written policies for vetting off-ice conduct, including identifying red flags requiring detailed vetting and documented resolution = Bruins front office has poorly defined (on nonexistant) written policies on background checks of critical hires.

• Establish clear timetables and responsibilities within the organization to investigate prospects' community or other off-ice commitments = Bruins front office has poorly defined responsibilities for the poorly defined vetting process noted above.

• Establish centralized documentation of vetting to include reporting on red flags and off-ice issues and ensure such documentation is available to all stakeholders involved in the process = Bruins front office has poor (or nonexistant) document and case management for the vetting process and indirectly (or directly) withholds information from stakeholders responsible for hiring procedures.

• Establish tracking system to ensure responsibilities for all vetting tasks are clearly assigned and tracked. = Bruins front office has poor (or nonexistant) compliance reporting for vetting tasks critical to hiring policy.

• Utilize independent third-party resources to investigate and resolve factual issues when reviewing red flags = Bruins front office have poor diligence expertise and are unable to conduct this effectively without the help of 3rd parties.

• Determine whether there are specific training or rehabilitation programs the prospect should participate in depending on the nature of the red flags = Bruins front office have poor non-hockey development programs for prospects.

So... taking the BS out of their PR stunt, we have a family owned, for profit organisation, whose employees and brand are the most valuable asset on the books, and which there can only be the contract limit of 50 (or so.). Meaning 50 employees are all the B's have to stay in business. ....And despite that, their Mgmt and policies to vet the most essential asset of the business , as well as that most essential to the billion dollar brand, looks to operate like a drunken bartender who lets the busboy and waitress mix drinks. Stupid and shameful at the least.

The league really is a good 'ol boys club to let this type of crap go over with people still employed. Their failings are textbook definition of incompetence given the assets and money they are provided and that they throw around for those 50 odd contracts. Background checks and vetting for any critical role is done to avoid stupid doing stupid things like this and the ramifications that follow. Most likely, this incompetent level of vetting that goes on around the NHL is an accepted norm because they don't need to comply with standard labor law or hiring practices. I know in my business if you are stupid enough to funnel a hire like that thru and play the system, there are 2 people's asses on the sidewalk when the spotlight is turned on. You can't have pop hire an ex DA and bail your stupid ass out of the hot water pot...

The B's front office being as arrogant and obtuse as Don and Cam just shot themselves in the right foot again on this PR stunt on the 23rd December. It's like a Morgul blade wound, it will never fully heal the reputational damage they have done to themselves as the front office, and the B's Brand.

PS: I can still appreciate the guys on the ice and the job the front office and staff have done, while at the same time say the front office are incompetent, arrogant noobs for not doing the job the right way on the operating policies of running a business and the hiring here, and then shirking their responsibility like a bunch of privileged rich kids with daddy paying off the town cops for their stupidity and breaking/bending the law.

 

[Jorah Marshmont]

Mr.Garvey says it best

 

[Ludwig Fell Down]

Saul Goodman could have done a better job to make them look better than giving zero shits

Aren’t we posed to be able to read the report?

The team's statement in November was cleverly (and purposefully, IMO) worded:

"The Bruins organization will fully cooperate with the independent review team and will publicly disclose the results of the review upon its completion.”

Bruins hire ex-AG Loretta Lynch to investigate Mitchell Miller vetting

Looks like this is forever dead and buried.

 

[LouJersey]

The team's statement in November was cleverly (and purposefully, IMO) worded:

"The Bruins organization will fully cooperate with the independent review team and will publicly disclose the results of the review upon its completion.”

Bruins hire ex-AG Loretta Lynch to investigate Mitchell Miller vetting

Looks like this is forever dead and buried.

Ah ok, will not make the report visible for public consumption. Figures. What a charade.

 

[HustleB]

The team's statement in November was cleverly (and purposefully, IMO) worded:

"The Bruins organization will fully cooperate with the independent review team and will publicly disclose the results of the review upon its completion.”

Bruins hire ex-AG Loretta Lynch to investigate Mitchell Miller vetting

Looks like this is forever dead and buried.

This really is the most heinous part for me. It reads as an intent to be transparent. Yet, here we are the furthest thing from transparency on the failure possible. At this point, I have no clue how this error ocurred, but I have confidence that if we try to sign another prominently known racist bully, that at that point we will have a third party agency who is more accountable to provide a report prior to the signing.

I am 100% completely underwhelmed by this result. I think it shows a real callousness, but in the end it appears to be the best financial path and at the end of the day I should have expected nothing different. As you said, this "forever dead and buried."

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Ah ok, will not make the report visible for public consumption. Figures. What a charade.

Yeah I bit on that bad bit of wording too.

That’s why they didn’t feel they needed to disclose one single solitary piece of information from that report. Not one.

“The result” is the changes in process. What a joke.

 

[TCB]

Bruins’ divorce of disgraced Mitchell Miller was finalized in February settlement

It didn’t go so well for the Bruins when on Nov. 4 they announced they had signed Mitchell Miller to a three-year, entry-level contract.

nypost.com

Slap Shots learned from an NHL official on Friday that, “He and the Bruins have parted ways.” A Bruins spokesman then told us via email, “Can confirm Mitch Miller is not under contract with the team. Cannot comment further.”

What happened?

Slap Shots has been told the Bruins immediately terminated Miller’s contract in conjunction with their disassociation from him. There is, however, no record of the team placing him on unconditional waivers for the purpose of termination as required by the CBA. Then too, that regulation applies to mutually agreed termination, which this was not.

The NHLPA, in turn, filed a grievance.

We have learned that in lieu of a hearing, the parties reached a settlement under which Boston was released from its obligation while Miller received an unknown sum and was granted free agency.

The agreement was reached in February under the imposition of confidentiality. Its existence was not publicly known until now. Indeed, as of Saturday, Miller was listed on the Bruins’ minor league roster on both CapFriendly and PuckPedia.

 

[Babajingo]

Bruins’ divorce of disgraced Mitchell Miller was finalized in February settlement

It didn’t go so well for the Bruins when on Nov. 4 they announced they had signed Mitchell Miller to a three-year, entry-level contract.

nypost.com

Slap Shots learned from an NHL official on Friday that, “He and the Bruins have parted ways.” A Bruins spokesman then told us via email, “Can confirm Mitch Miller is not under contract with the team. Cannot comment further.”

What happened?

Slap Shots has been told the Bruins immediately terminated Miller’s contract in conjunction with their disassociation from him. There is, however, no record of the team placing him on unconditional waivers for the purpose of termination as required by the CBA. Then too, that regulation applies to mutually agreed termination, which this was not.

The NHLPA, in turn, filed a grievance.

We have learned that in lieu of a hearing, the parties reached a settlement under which Boston was released from its obligation while Miller received an unknown sum and was granted free agency.

The agreement was reached in February under the imposition of confidentiality. Its existence was not publicly known until now. Indeed, as of Saturday, Miller was listed on the Bruins’ minor league roster on both CapFriendly and PuckPedia.

I seem to have missed the Sweeney presser.

 

[Dr Quincy]

I seem to have missed the Sweeney presser.

They had to get the video of Looch walking around the North End out on social media first.

Priorities.

 

[Ludwig Fell Down]

According to Larry Brooks, the B's terminated Miller's contract in February. It looks like the NHL and the team were in agreement to sweep this under the rug and keep it off the waiver wire.

Bruins’ divorce of disgraced Mitchell Miller was finalized in February settlement

It didn’t go so well for the Bruins when on Nov. 4 they announced they had signed Mitchell Miller to a three-year, entry-level contract.

nypost.com

 

[Mione134]

We knew he was gone. Its good he's gone. Close the thread. Let's rid ourselves completely of ever talking about this absolutely loser of a person.

 

[Ladyfan]

We knew he was gone. Its good he's gone. Close the thread. Let's rid ourselves completely of ever talking about this absolutely loser of a person.

yes please. Time to move on

 

[Gonzothe7thDman]

There's an ignore thread button for those that don't like how uncomfortable this is for them personally.

The rest of us can continue to discuss this.

 

[Dr Quincy]

We knew he was gone. Its good he's gone. Close the thread. Let's rid ourselves completely of ever talking about this absolutely loser of a person.

I for one am interested in:

1) Why the team thought it was a good idea.
2) Did they either make zero effort to find out the story (such as just reading a single Athletic article) or did they have the information that the general public have, but decided to ignore it?
3) They paid a decent chunk of change to hire an outside firm to look at their vetting process. What has changed in their process based on that?
4) Why did they feel it was necessary to hide the termination from their fans? They have no problem letting fans know when they make a signing, why did they not want to informt the public of this?
5) What member of the organization was the driving force in the signing, and who had final authority?

In the end... what's more problematic: A loser person who did something as a teenager and showed zero remorse for it OR a professional organization that talks about culture and community deciding that this loser person would be good to add and very likely lied about what they knew?

 

[Gonzothe7thDman]

I for one am interested in:

1) Why the team thought it was a good idea.
2) Did they either make zero effort to find out the story (such as just reading a single Athletic article) or did they have the information that the general public have, but decided to ignore it?
3) They paid a decent chunk of change to hire an outside firm to look at their vetting process. What has changed in their process based on that?
4) Why did they feel it was necessary to hide the termination from their fans? They have no problem letting fans know when they make a signing, why did they not want to informt the public of this?
5) What member of the organization was the driving force in the signing, and who had final authority?

In the end... what's more problematic: A loser person who did something as a teenager and showed zero remorse for it OR a professional organization that talks about culture and community deciding that this loser person would be good to add and very likely lied about what they knew?

Yea to me it seems they were eager to keep this under wraps to not bring around this news in the middle of the season. They didn't want to answer any questions and wanted all the focus on their amazing regular season.

Which to me is shitty of them when they make all these statements about transparency, showing accountability, etc.

Shows that all that stuff with Loretta coming in was just another dog and pony show which some of us knew at the time.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

I for one am interested in:

1) Why the team thought it was a good idea.
2) Did they either make zero effort to find out the story (such as just reading a single Athletic article) or did they have the information that the general public have, but decided to ignore it?
3) They paid a decent chunk of change to hire an outside firm to look at their vetting process. What has changed in their process based on that?
4) Why did they feel it was necessary to hide the termination from their fans? They have no problem letting fans know when they make a signing, why did they not want to informt the public of this?
5) What member of the organization was the driving force in the signing, and who had final authority?

In the end... what's more problematic: A loser person who did something as a teenager and showed zero remorse for it OR a professional organization that talks about culture and community deciding that this loser person would be good to add and very likely lied about what they knew?

We're not going to get the answers to any of those unfortunately.

I want to know what happened to Eustace King?

 

[Dr Quincy]

We're not going to get the answers to any of those unfortunately.

I want to know what happened to Eustace King?

Nothing happened to him and he got a bunch of his clients new contracts this summer.

An agent being greasy to get his client signed isn't exactly a novel concept. There have been movies and tv shows with this trope of a character as far back Arli$$ if not before that.

I don't put the responsibility on the decisions that the Boston hockey team makes on teenagers or sports agents. King was doing his job.

Who was doing the job to sign Miller, and why?

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

Nothing happened to him and he got a bunch of his clients new contracts this summer.

An agent being greasy to get his client signed isn't exactly a novel concept. There have been movies and tv shows with this trope of a character as far back Arli$$ if not before that.

I don't put the responsibility on the decisions that the Boston hockey team makes on teenagers or sports agents. King was doing his job.

Who was doing the job to sign Miller, and why?

King was doing his job by misrepresenting Miller's efforts? OK.

Where did I put the responsibility on King for what the Bruins did? There are multiple factors here. You can care about your 5 questions that you'll never get answered. I'll care about mine about the agent because there's something bizarre happening there.

 

[The don godfather]

I was hoping for a storybook ending. Miller did a absolute dumb thing but being 14 is a factor I wished somehow he would have made peace with crothers family but it didn't work out. Sad for everyone involved. I believe in 2nd chances but this was one tough pillow to swallow. Hope they all heal.

 

[Over the volcano]

Yea to me it seems they were eager to keep this under wraps to not bring around this news in the middle of the season. They didn't want to answer any questions and wanted all the focus on their amazing regular season.

Which to me is shitty of them when they make all these statements about transparency, showing accountability, etc.

Shows that all that stuff with Loretta coming in was just another dog and pony show which some of us knew at the time.

Almost like it's a business