Bruins sign Mitchell Miller to an ELC - now "parting ways"
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
We'll see. I don't think this will die away. Miller's is still under contract and being paid by the Bruins. At some point they have to make some kind of move with it. Either carrying it through the season and then buying him out (and thus carrying a dead cap charge) or in the coming days or weeks he'll hit the waiver wire in advance of a contract termination, with a bonus round of a union grievance if the termination isn't mutual. Whichever they decide, it won't go unoticed. They aren't going to slip that one quietly through a news cylce.
The media is probably going to have to hound the front office to keep them accountable. They don't do media often, usually only Don when there's a trade or some important NHL transaction date coming up (deadline, draft, free agency, etc). It's going to be on the media to keep flooding media relations for FO availability.
The media is probably going to have to hound the front office to keep them accountable. They don't do media often, usually only Don when there's a trade or some important NHL transaction date coming up (deadline, draft, free agency, etc). It's going to be on the media to keep flooding media relations for FO availability.
"The team will make an expensive show of caring, but ultimately, we will get exactly the answers we want, no more, no less."
Yeah, 100% paying a lot of money for a coverup. Things were missed, we've updated our processes to ensure it doesn't happen again, yada yada yada.
The more I think about it, the more I think Neely should be the one held responsible. He can deflect and blame the vetting process all he wants but at the end of the day he's on record as stating he interviewed Miller and found Miller remorseful lus admitting they expected backlash but not to the extent of what they got. He's ultiamtely the one responsible for hockey operations and in this particular case he was a central figure in the vetting process. Sweeney could've nipped this in the bud and should face some sort of reprecussions but at the end of the day Neely is responsible for hockey operations and this is a case where he wasn't just rubber stamping a recommendation.
If you need an investigation to figure out why your process sucks, you need a leadership change either way. Fire the head of the department and whoever pushed for the move. Save the money on the investigation and donate it to anti-bullying causes.
View: https://twitter.com/freetastesgood/status/1597083710763184130
Some news of positive work on this subject. Good on Wayne for this.
Some news of positive work on this subject. Good on Wayne for this.
View: https://twitter.com/NHLBruins/status/1606043287550193665?t=cLZxcxfNKv_3AjPm6UqGRg&s=19
The Paul, Weiss review determined that, while the Bruins did have an existing process for vetting players and there was no misconduct by Bruins employees during the Miller vetting process, there were gaps in the club's vetting procedures, which created challenges when faced, as here, with a recruit with significant red flags.
...
The following specific recommendations were identified:
So, like, nothing will change. Got it.
The Paul, Weiss review determined that, while the Bruins did have an existing process for vetting players and there was no misconduct by Bruins employees during the Miller vetting process, there were gaps in the club's vetting procedures, which created challenges when faced, as here, with a recruit with significant red flags.
...
The following specific recommendations were identified:
The following specific recommendations were identified:
• Establish clear written policies for vetting off-ice conduct, including identifying red flags requiring detailed vetting and documented resolution
• Establish clear timetables and responsibilities within the organization to investigate prospects' community or other off-ice commitments
• 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
• Establish tracking system to ensure responsibilities for all vetting tasks are clearly assigned and tracked.
• Utilize independent third-party resources to investigate and resolve factual issues when reviewing red flags
• Determine whether there are specific training or rehabilitation programs the prospect should participate in depending on the nature of the red flags
• Establish clear written policies for vetting off-ice conduct, including identifying red flags requiring detailed vetting and documented resolution
• Establish clear timetables and responsibilities within the organization to investigate prospects' community or other off-ice commitments
• 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
• Establish tracking system to ensure responsibilities for all vetting tasks are clearly assigned and tracked.
• Utilize independent third-party resources to investigate and resolve factual issues when reviewing red flags
• Determine whether there are specific training or rehabilitation programs the prospect should participate in depending on the nature of the red flags
So, like, nothing will change. Got it.
Fire the person responsible for implementing the existing system, which was woefully inadequate, such that it led to this easily avoidable situation for a directly publicly facing organization.
Reading between the lines, the outside investigation revealed that the Bruins didn’t have a process to conduct adequate diligence for this sort of thing, and no one knew whose responsibility it was to implement one.
It’s such bullshit. There is no way they had less information than people were immediately able to cite here. It wasn’t the vetting process that failed, it was the decision to sign him even if it was just based on the info out in the public
edit: But sure, let’s blame it on a failed vetting process and not hold the decision makers accountable
Paul Weiss was the same firm hired by the NFL in DeflateGate. Their job is to do the owners' work; mission accomplished.
The whole thing wasn’t that they didn’t know about Miller it was that they misjudged the public reaction. They just paid Paul Weiss a lot of money to sweep it under the rug.
Arguably this just puts it back in the news. Should have fired someone and taken accountability from the start.
If anyone should have been fired, it is Neely. I don't think anyone else should have been, because this looks like his baby. Don Sweeney never seemed in favor of this move even when he announced it.
I think the reason they didn't do full due diligence is because the minimal amount of homework they did do on this guy was enough for them to decide to steer clear... until they were overruled from above (presumably by Neely). I guess you can say that someone should have done full due diligence in order to push back on Neely, but for me the primary problem is still Neely.
If this guy had strong advocates within the Bruins' organization, people who either did not do their homseowkr or ignored it, they can be fired. But my guess was that this was a Cam show.
I think the reason they didn't do full due diligence is because the minimal amount of homework they did do on this guy was enough for them to decide to steer clear... until they were overruled from above (presumably by Neely). I guess you can say that someone should have done full due diligence in order to push back on Neely, but for me the primary problem is still Neely.
If this guy had strong advocates within the Bruins' organization, people who either did not do their homseowkr or ignored it, they can be fired. But my guess was that this was a Cam show.
Many many options depending on where things broke down.
Due diligence was not done because there is no process to do due diligence. The person who was in charge of setting up the process to do due diligence of new signees should be fired.
Someone did due diligence, got a pr statement from the agent, and believed what he was told without checking with the family or any of the organizations Miller was supposedly working with. That person should be fired.
Someone did due diligence, got a pr statement from the agent, reached out to the family and organizations he was supposedly working with, and decided it was a good idea to sign him anyway. That person should be fired.
Someone did due diligence on this kid and told people not to sign him and he was signed anyway. Whoever overruled him should be fired.
For what it’s worth - I also don’t think this was a due diligence issue.
The team knew exactly who Miller was. Someone, with approval authority, didn’t care. It’s an issue of organizational character, not organizational process.
The person who gave the ultimate approval, despite the evidence of who Miller is, is the problem point.
The team knew exactly who Miller was. Someone, with approval authority, didn’t care. It’s an issue of organizational character, not organizational process.
The person who gave the ultimate approval, despite the evidence of who Miller is, is the problem point.
I agree with the idea that if it was anyone but Neely pushing for the signing, someone would be disciplined or fired. The lawyer investigation was just an expensive way to tell the fans that he'll be more careful in the future.
Bingo. This is what happened.
Arizona drafting Miller was a major NHL story to the point where fans knew all the details of Miller's abuse of Meyer Crothers. There's no scenario where the front office of an NHL team did not know. They knew he was bad enough that Cam told Don or whomever back in August that they had to vet it thoroughly. I'm not sure of their normal process but they took the step of bringing Miller and his mother to Boston for executive level interviews because they knew. The front office met with the players because they knew. They alerted the NHL they were going to sign him ahead of time, because they knew.
They had all the information they needed all along. There was no failure in process or vetting. The failure was the decision making. They decided the hockey player was worth it. They said they expected public backlash because they knew. They figured they'd drop the signing on the Friday afternoon and they'd take a few immediate lumps but everyone would move on by the next news cycle. They only reason they reversed course is because the blacklash continued into Sunday and reached a critical mass where they decided the reputational harm was too much to continue with Miller part of the organization (which they haven't actually done yet- he's been paid ~$116,000 so far).
I have not heard that someone was overruled, is that common knowledge?
I just don't know what firing a bunch of people is going to accomplish. It's fine as a consequence, but what does it change?
Personally, I mentioned it before, but I would have liked to have seen the Bruins setup an anti-bullying campaign. Make some positive impact in the community instead of just firing people and moving on.
We know something happened, those are 4 hypotheticals of what happened.
The point is that someone in the organization at some point either came up with a process that was not good enough to avoid this or ignored the plan and it led to this. Someone made a decision. I don't want that person involved with making decisions in the organization any longer. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand.
The point is that someone in the organization at some point either came up with a process that was not good enough to avoid this or ignored the plan and it led to this. Someone made a decision. I don't want that person involved with making decisions in the organization any longer. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand.
The same thing it always changes: it prevents people who demonstrated a propensity for being bad at their jobs from continuing to be bad at their jobs. Plus, it signals to the aggrieved party and the public that the organization takes such failures seriously.
Exactly.
One person made the call to sign Miller. That person should be gone whether he is named Sweeney, Neely, or Jacobs
Sweeney was distancing himself from the signing in the introductory press conference.
The way the bruins are spinning this we aren’t that far off from the immaculate signing. The Miller contract just kind of appeared on its own and no one was responsible for it.
The way the bruins are spinning this we aren’t that far off from the immaculate signing. The Miller contract just kind of appeared on its own and no one was responsible for it.
I completely agree….and based off of what we know from the Bruins organization, doesn’t the person who made this decision have to be Neely? It’s always felt that way to me (Sweeney pretty much distancing himself from it immediately and we all know that Neely is the one who carries the big stick).
If it was Sweeney who did it, don’t you think Neely would have fired him? This seems to me like the organization (basically Neely) paying a lot of money to point fingers in a bunch of directions to get the heat off of him
There's no one person to blame here, this was a collective failure by the entire organization. Cam's responsible for hockey ops so I guess if you want to ax somebody it's him, but it's really the whole group.
This probably started with an amateur scout making a recommendation that they take a look at Miller. It could've been shut down then and there but instead they collectively decided to go down the path of trying to sign him. The scout could've ignored, his superior could've put an end to it, Sweeney could've put an end ot it, and Cam could've put an end to. Nobody did.
This probably started with an amateur scout making a recommendation that they take a look at Miller. It could've been shut down then and there but instead they collectively decided to go down the path of trying to sign him. The scout could've ignored, his superior could've put an end to it, Sweeney could've put an end ot it, and Cam could've put an end to. Nobody did.
They thought the public had forgotten and moved on from what was widely reported when Arizona drafted him, and could sneak his signing by. The report is just a white wash, hidden in a word salad of corporate speak/legalize. I agree with others that it was likely Cam, and if anybody should be fired, it’s him. However, with the season they’re having, and just with the way these things generally go, that’s not happening. This will be the last “news” regarding the whole mess. And it will now fade away in most fans minds.
Wouldn’t everyone have felt better if they just donated whatever they paid for the report to a charity related to bullying? Have the Bruins done anything like that or for the victim’s family?
I don’t believe they’ve done anything of the sort.
and yeah. I’d be happy with that. It Reeks of the old Idea of buying “indulgences” without actually fixing the core problem, but it would be preferable to this, which is nothing.
Why would a Boston team, of all places, think that a Paul Weiss report would have any credibility whatsoever with the fanbase?
This, exactly.
The Weiss report tried to sanitize the issue by focusing on errors made. An appropriate process was not followed, leading to a signing that should not have happened. But I think that what happened was that someone very senior in the organization, who may or may not have once scored 50 goals in 50 games, was either fully or partly aware of Miller's issues and said "Fuck it! Sign him anyway." I think they are trying to hide bad behavior behind process deficiencies.
