It's so weird I'm not sure if I believe it. Or at least whether it's 100% accurate.
But let's say it is: in what universe do they negotiate a deal that doesn't include them getting to announce they've parted ways? That would be insane. That would be gross negligence. (Which, yes, this entire affair has been.) The money, the roster spot, the cap hit all pale in comparison to the reputational damage of being associated with him and having listed as being part of the Bruins organization.
This story doesn't pass the smell test, so I'm not really getting worked up either way until we know more.
If though, we find out this a planted story to make them look better because they didn't want to lose the 200k cap space on the main roster then I'm going Defcon -37.
It was 2 or 3 days after the signing, Neely announced that the Bruins were rescinding the contract. That, unfortunately triggers the NHLPA stepping in. Unfortunately (again) the CBA forbids the NHL, the Bruins, the Player and his representatives from discussing it publicly (probably why Brooks got a no further comment from the team representative).
Brooks is also correct in stating that there is no record of the Bruins placing him on unconditional waivers, which the CBA clearly states must happen before the contract can be terminated. There is no cap hit now. I would be surprised if the Bruins didn't pay out the entire $2.5 million owed in the settlement agreement, but we'll never know.
CapFriendly already removed him from their Bruins page and PuckPedia will do the same this morning.
I asked someone with knowledge of the CBA if this was Bettman doing a solid for Jeremy Jacobs and they said "there is nothing in the CBA that says this was in any way allowed." They then added "the NHL makes things up on the way. Look no further than the Evander Kane situation in San Jose. And somehow, they always get the NHLPA to go along."