Guilt Trip
Active member
Thx Herman. I looked at CapFriendly and the Bruins even gave him signing bonuses. If this was Dubas/Leafs, they'd be calling for his head lol.herman said:
2022-23 NHL Thread
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
L K said:
I imagine the Bruins will try to argue Miller's camp wasn't entirely forthcoming about all the details of what happened both at the time and since then, and that if they were Boston wouldn't have signed him. That'll probably be a tricky argument to make since those details are pretty widely and easily available to anyone with an internet connection.
bustaheims
Active member
Guilt Trip said:
Signing bonuses are pretty standard for ELCs. No reason not to call for changes in management, but not a specific thing to call out.
herman
Well-known member
bustaheims said:
The signing bonuses are standard for winning the bid for the prospect's services. Other teams were in the hunt for this player.
The Leafs had a similar own-goal situation when the Marlies hired Dusty Imoo as their goaltending coach seemingly without a thorough HR vetting. Not to mention Mitchell Miller's USHL coach/president Anthony Noreen was in the Leafs dev system for some time previously and really went to bat for Miller's character, with the standard downplaying the inciting incident, diminishing the impact by stressing how long ago it was, and centering the player's (court-mandated) 'progress'. It's the same disgusting spin that the damage control team always puts on when someone famous/talented abuses another.
What this tells me is these circumstances that are normally red flags almost everywhere else, are still acceptable by hockey culture standards.
herman said:
This was my original assumption but honestly the more I think about it the more I wouldn't be shocked if Boston was forced to pay out almost the entirety of the deal. I won't consider myself an expert on the subject but from a labour law perspective I don't see how the Bruins have a leg to stand on here assuming Miller and his camp decided to challenge this (which I mean regardless of anyone's thoughts on the person they obviously should).
bustaheims
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:
The fact that the league stated he's not eligible to play in the NHL probably helps the Bruins some here. Even if they hadn't rescinded the contract, the NHL payout was not available to Miller.
herman
Well-known member
bustaheims said:
The NHLPA will argue that there is no written policy in the CBA about NHL-eligibility. I appreciate the position and stance Bettman took with this, but you gotta have something down in legalese on paper to prevent these situations from cropping up in the first place, rather than relying on the wisdom of the team front offices. Case by case decision making just makes for bad decisions. The NHL is using it ostensibly for good here (and with Voynov), but a clear policy on conduct qualifications is necessary.
Cynically, I believe they don't have one not because they are incompetent, but because there are too many skeletons in the closet.
bustaheims said:
Maybe but I mean even that statement from Bettman was kinda odd. They allowed Miller to be drafted by a NHL team. They allowed Miller to be signed to a NHL contract (all deals are approved by the league). Now all of a sudden they're going "actually he might be banned for life". Did the league do their own independent investigation into Miller that led them to that? Did they issue him some sort of formal suspension that hasn't been announced? Was this ever communicated to Miller and his representation? Is there any sort of precedent that allows them to strip a players eligibility for something like this?
I'm not in any way trying to defend Miller on a personal level, but from a legal perspective both the Bruins and NHL kinda look like absolute clown shows right now and if this ended up going to court that's not really going to work in their favour.
Kin
New member
CarltonTheBear said:
Does the league really have the authority to tell teams who they can or can't draft? Or sign? Yes they need to approve deals but that's within the context, I'm assuming, of whether or not those deals comply with established rules and regulations in the CBA. I don't think they have any sort of authority to pass moral judgements on players who get signed and overrule the teams on these matters.
herman
Well-known member
The only other case I could think of is Slava Voynov, but that's a league-level suspension scenario.
I guess they could invoke that since he signed a contract and fell under NHL jurisdiction, but his infractions didn't occur while signed with a team, so...
Edit: apparently Logan Mailloux falls under a similar ruling from the NHL. He is (currently) unplayable for Montreal.
https://twitter.com/AndrewBerkshire/status/1590414692304191488
I guess they could invoke that since he signed a contract and fell under NHL jurisdiction, but his infractions didn't occur while signed with a team, so...
Edit: apparently Logan Mailloux falls under a similar ruling from the NHL. He is (currently) unplayable for Montreal.
https://twitter.com/AndrewBerkshire/status/1590414692304191488
Guilt Trip
Active member
Final chance maybe. It's not the coach.Zee said:
Hobbes
New member
Nik said:
I suppose it would fall under the CBA's Article 18A "Commissioner Discipline for Off-Ice Conduct" where it gives pretty broad latitude if the player "has been or is guilty of conduct (whether during or outside the playing season) that is detrimental to or against the welfare of the League or the game of hockey..." The commissioner is able to expel or suspend the player indefinitely, or void his SPC (or impose a fine). There's a bunch of procedures they're supposed to follow to do that, but it pretty much gives Bettman carte blache if he thinks it's merited.