Around the League 36-But Who's Counting...

[AhosDatsyukian]

Unless we or some other team signs him I don't really see the point in discussing this much further... Everything has already pretty much been said and those on either side aren't changing positions.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Unless we or some other team signs him I don't really see the point in discussing this much further... Everything has already pretty much been said and those on either side aren't changing positions.

I think the issue around his ineligibility is still worth exploring. We've never seen the Commissioner make a statement of that nature before, and it's a bit of a mystery how it can be justified.

 

[chaz4hockey]

Some musings from a still feverish Covid guy after 4 days of miserable illness.

Sadly, social media these days harkens back 150 years ago to the West with mobs of vengeance often substituting for proper justice.

None of us know this young man to say whether he has grown up and is repentant for his actions (btw: if there was a restraining order then that could explain the non contact). Regardless if he was repentent, you could still take a view that no matter what, he should be tarred forever given his brutal youthful actions.

However, I will say that there is a trend in a number of cities and States in the US whereby crimes are not prosecuted as vigilantly (cough NY State). The viewpoint is that society should be tolerant and not paint young men/women with records that carry on forever. If you have that view, than the actions of the social media mob & the NHL sure flies against that trend.

FWIW: I’d add: middle school years are where kids are downright the meanest and typically the young men/women outgrow those tendencies by high school.

 

[Svechhammer]

Some musings from a still feverish Covid guy after 4 days of miserable illness.

Sadly, social media these days harkens back 150 years ago to the West with mobs of vengeance often substituting for proper justice.

None of us know this young man to say whether he has grown up and is repentant for his actions (btw: if there was a restraining order then that could explain the non contact). Regardless if he was repentent, you could still take a view that no matter what, he should be tarred forever given his brutal youthful actions.

However, I will say that there is a trend in a number of cities and States in the US whereby crimes are not prosecuted as vigilantly (cough NY State). The viewpoint is that society should be tolerant and not paint young men/women with records that carry on forever. If you have that view, than the actions of the social media mob & the NHL sure flies against that trend.

FWIW: I’d add: middle school years are where kids are downright the meanest and typically the young men/women outgrow those tendencies by high school.

I mean yes, middle school bullying is pretty bad overall, but it takes a certain level of sociopathy to feed a disabled kid candy knowingly soaked in a urinal after earlier telling him "you only have white parents because your n---- parents didn't love you"

 

[Blueline Bomber]

I think the issue around his ineligibility is still worth exploring. We've never seen the Commissioner make a statement of that nature before, and it's a bit of a mystery how it can be justified.

Honestly, I think the fallout from this re: the Bruins organization is going to be an interesting part as well. Neely and Sweeney are both trying to shift the blame on the other. If you took everything they've said recently at face value, no one in the organization wanted him signed, yet there he was. SIGNED. George Costanza has to be involved somehow.

 

[Svechhammer]

Grab some popcorn, this is about to get spicy

 

[Lempo]

Possibly, and if that's the case it would change my opinion on that aspect of the situation.

That being said, the Commissioner's ability to impose discipline for off-ice conduct is pretty clearly enumerated in the CBA and specifically includes a right to a hearing. If this is a discipline related decision, it seems entirely extrajudicial on Bettman's part. He simply doesn't have the authority to declare a player ineligible by fiat. The hearing/appeal process is mandatory.

That leaves one other possibility, which is that Bettman in his typical fashion has discovered an eligibility issue and is using weasel-words ('I can't tell you that he'll ever be eligible') to give a particular impression to the public for PR purposes. Perhaps he's saying Miller is still draft-eligible and therefore cannot sign a contract, I dunno. @Lempo probably knows the CBA better than anyone else here, maybe he knows of some manner in which Miller could be ineligible to play.

I don't think there's anything in the CBA and I find it quite far-fetched that SPC Paragraph 2(e)could be streched to apply into the past:

The Player agrees to give his services and to play hockey in all NHL Games, All Star Games, International Hockey Games and Exhibition Games to the best of his ability under the direction and control of the Club in accordance with the provisions hereof. The Player further agrees, (a) to report to his Club's Training Camp at the time and place fixed by the Club, in good physical condition, (b) (c) to keep himself in good physical condition at all times during the season, to give his best services to the Club and to play hockey only for the Club unless his SPC is Assigned, Loaned or terminated by the Club, (d) to co-operate with the Club and participate in any and all reasonable promotional activities of the Club which will in the opinion of the Club promote the welfare of the Club and to cooperate in the promotion of the League and professional hockey generally, (e) to conduct himself on and off the rink according to the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interest of the Club, the League or professional hockey generally.

My guess is, either the contract between the League and the Teams or the NHL by-laws have some clausule about the teams not signing sportsmen whose past conduct has been so clearly below the requirement of SPC Paragraph 2(e) that the signing would be in detriment to the League.

I would further guess that the Commissioner is agreed to be the sole primary authority on the subject.

 

[tarheelhockey]

My guess is, either the contract between the League and the Teams or the NHL by-laws have some clausule about the teams not signing sportsmen whose past conduct has been so clearly below the requirement of SPC Paragraph 2(e) that the signing would be in detriment to the League.

I would further guess that the Commissioner is agreed to be the sole primary authority on the subject.

I just can't imagine that sort of double-secret rule standing up in the context of having a CBA in place. One of the key purposes of the CBA is to prevent the Commissioner from having fiat authority, or the teams from acting like a syndicate which can blacklist a player without due process.

18-A.2 (a) and (b) already give the Commissioner the authority to effectively kick a player out of the league, but that power is bound by the due process laid out in 18-A(3). For the Commish to have that same power via NHL bylaws would amount to a circumvention of the CBA.

 

[Lempo]

And to guess even further... the NHL SPC is in effect only after it has been registered in the NHL Central Registry.

Maybe the by-laws on the SPC registration say the CR needs to refer to the Commissioner before registering a SPC for a player on the Questionables List*.

Miller was added to the Questionables List on then minute he was drafted, at the very latest.

* I made up the Questionables List, but there is some measure like this in existence and Bettman activated it.

 

[Lempo]

I just can't imagine that sort of double-secret rule standing up in the context of having a CBA in place. One of the key purposes of the CBA is to prevent the Commissioner from having fiat authority, or the teams from acting like a syndicate which can blacklist a player without due process.

18-A.2 (a) and (b) already give the Commissioner the authority to effectively kick a player out of the league, but that power is bound by the due process laid out in 18-A(3). For the Commish to have that same power via NHL bylaws would amount to a circumvention of the CBA.

The public Collectively Bargained Agreement is between the player association and the League. There are binding rules for the Clubs, yes, but not the whole of the deal is set up in the CBA.

The existence of the non-public NHL bylaws is a fact, and they contain rules about f.ex. tampering and whatelse. The stuff that's just too sensitive to be public and where the players and their association maybe aren't so much a party.

And it being a business there certainly has to be a shitload of legal contracts by which the NHL is set up, where the League entity is one signer and the individual teams another signer.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

I think the issue around his ineligibility is still worth exploring. We've never seen the Commissioner make a statement of that nature before, and it's a bit of a mystery how it can be justified.

Not to him, I'd bet.

 

[Svechhammer]

I'm not gonna lie, given the superiority complex that the Bruins organization and fanbase have projected in the past, I'm taking a bit of joy in watching their entire reputation ignite in flames right now.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The public Collectively Bargained Agreement is between the player association and the League. There are binding rules for the Clubs, yes, but not the whole of the deal is set up in the CBA.

The existence of the non-public NHL bylaws is a fact, and they contain rules about f.ex. tampering and whatelse. The stuff that's just too sensitive to be public and where the players and their association maybe aren't so much a party.

And it being a business there certainly has to be a shitload of legal contracts by which the NHL is set up, where the League entity is one signer and the individual teams another signer.

In this case, an extrajudicial decision by the Commissioner blocks a player from entering into NHLPA membership.

I can't imagine that standing up in court if it were to be challenged, and if you're the NHLPA you'd be kind of foolish to stand by and allow such a precedent to be established.

I could absolutely imagine Bettman being pissed enough at the Bruins organization and firing from the hip (by his standards) because there was an agreed-upon secret agreement between the franchises not to give this specific individual a contract. That just sounds like a hell of a thing to try and defend in context of labor law.

 

[AhosDatsyukian]

I'm not gonna lie, given the superiority complex that the Bruins organization and fanbase have projected in the past, I'm taking a bit of joy in watching their entire reputation ignite in flames right now.

To be fair it does seem like most of their fanbase hated this signing from the second it was announced.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

I'm not gonna lie, given the superiority complex that the Bruins organization and fanbase have projected in the past, I'm taking a bit of joy in watching their entire reputation ignite in flames right now.

To be fair, it's really just the organization that took a hit. The fan base and the players were, by and large, vehemently against it from the get-go

 

[Svechhammer]

To be fair, it's really just the organization that took a hit. The fan base and the players were, by and large, vehemently against it from the get-go

I prefer this, to be honest.

Boston fans have that 'our teams are the pinnacle of doing things the right way' attitude, so watching that entire argument burst into flames like it was thrown into the fire pits of Mount Doom is quite a sight to see.

 

[WreckingCrew]

Some musings from a still feverish Covid guy after 4 days of miserable illness.

Sadly, social media these days harkens back 150 years ago to the West with mobs of vengeance often substituting for proper justice.

None of us know this young man to say whether he has grown up and is repentant for his actions (btw: if there was a restraining order then that could explain the non contact). Regardless if he was repentent, you could still take a view that no matter what, he should be tarred forever given his brutal youthful actions.

However, I will say that there is a trend in a number of cities and States in the US whereby crimes are not prosecuted as vigilantly (cough NY State). The viewpoint is that society should be tolerant and not paint young men/women with records that carry on forever. If you have that view, than the actions of the social media mob & the NHL sure flies against that trend.

FWIW: I’d add: middle school years are where kids are downright the meanest and typically the young men/women outgrow those tendencies by high school.

That's where the biggest disconnect occurs between the viewpoints on here. If you burglarize or vandalize, you pay for it (either money, community service, prison time, etc), if you assault you get prison time...but when it comes to things that cause psychological harm as well (i.e. rape or bullying), how do you punish that or at what point are reparations "complete"? I wouldn't go by the courts ruling, they're notorious for giving the "affluent" a much lighter sentence. Monetary reparations don't really solve anything to make you forget, you can't take back the damage done, who determines the prison time that works? Maybe extensive community service is better? Some folks will get over the psychological damage better/quicker than others, some may never get over it, hell people have killed themselves from it. Let the victim decide? That can be dangerous too. Again, no matter where that line is drawn, guarantee 50% will think it's too lenient, 50% will think it's too harsh.

 

[SoupNazi]

Grab some popcorn, this is about to get spicy

Those statements indicate he's getting ready to throw someone else under the bus for this snafu.

 

[cptjeff]

I've seen people trying to work out the cap situation of Patrick Kane who beat and robbed a 60 year old cabbie over 20 cents while drunk at 20.

If the league wants to be the morality police, that's fine, I guess. But arbitrarily applying punishments based on how viral the story is is dumb.

You do realize that the Kane cabbie story was actually proven to be near complete bullshit, yes? Cabbie illegally refused to let Kane pay via credit card (because cabbies hate having transactions recorded and taxed, and like charging well over the legal fare when they can get away with it), locked Kane and co in the car when they told him they didn't have cash, and Kane and co, being illegally detained, tried to force their way past the driver to unlock the car.

There is very much a reason nothing ever came of it. Kane and co weren't entirely hands off, but any force they used was very much considered to be proportional and legally acceptable considering that the cabbie was illegally detaining them. You're allowed to use force to resist illegal restraint- even lethal force in many cases. The cabbie tried to pull a fast one to get an illegally large and untaxed fare from a celeb, celeb didn't carry cash, cabbie then tried to extort celebrity in court of public opinion to try and get a settlement.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Alright, remember that thing I said about not getting why they'd try to do this over a C-level prospect? Now I get it. He's probably an A-level prospect. Not a lot a team won't risk for a chance at a good player.

��

TEAM	LEAGUE	GP	G	A	TP	PIM	+/-		POST	GP	G	A	TP	PIM	+/-
2019-20	Tri-City Storm	USHL	44	8	25	33	40	7	|
2020-21	Did not play								|
2021-22	Tri-City Storm	USHL	60	39	44	83	75	43

Lest you think this is "meh" production, this kid is a defenseman... That's actually kinda unreal from a production perspective.

So basically, sounds like the narrative goes: Bruins see the kid, 2 years removed from any of the stuff from the draft, look into it, talk to him, etc., trying to find a diamond in the rough type player. Says all the right things, etc., they sign him. Backlash comes in, they think twice. They talk to the family based on the backlash, learn some stuff that maybe isn't public about the situation, they change their minds. Does make me wonder what it is the family knows that isn't in the public eye that changes the situation so drastically. I might be wrong but I didn't get the sense they reversed this just based on the backlash.

 

[MinJaBen]

Grab some popcorn, this is about to get spicy

I wonder if all this crap will have any effect on whether or not Pasta decides to re-sign with them. So many questions the Bruins need to answer to him already, this is one more set of questions I'm guessing if he is effectively looking to end his career there. I'm hoping he takes this to next summer as I think he would be one of only a few guys that the Canes might open up the wallets for in free agency.

 

[sabremike]

And now to change the subject: GOATS!!!

 

[MinJaBen]

And now to change the subject: GOATS!!!

Did they just put goats in the visitor's locker room to stink it up?

 

[Cardiac Jerks]

Alright, remember that thing I said about not getting why they'd try to do this over a C-level prospect? Now I get it. He's probably an A-level prospect. Not a lot a team won't risk for a chance at a good player.

��

TEAM	LEAGUE	GP	G	A	TP	PIM	+/-		POST	GP	G	A	TP	PIM	+/-
2019-20	Tri-City Storm	USHL	44	8	25	33	40	7	|
2020-21	Did not play								|
2021-22	Tri-City Storm	USHL	60	39	44	83	75	43

Lest you think this is "meh" production, this kid is a defenseman... That's actually kinda unreal from a production perspective.

So basically, sounds like the narrative goes: Bruins see the kid, 2 years removed from any of the stuff from the draft, look into it, talk to him, etc., trying to find a diamond in the rough type player. Says all the right things, etc., they sign him. Backlash comes in, they think twice. They talk to the family based on the backlash, learn some stuff that maybe isn't public about the situation, they change their minds. Does make me wonder what it is the family knows that isn't in the public eye that changes the situation so drastically. I might be wrong but I didn't get the sense they reversed this just based on the backlash.

How many A-level prospects are still in the USHL at 20 years of age?

We know why he was stuck playing at that level but running over inferior competition isn’t as impressive as you’re making it out to be. He’s no A-level prospect, that’s for sure.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Alright, remember that thing I said about not getting why they'd try to do this over a C-level prospect? Now I get it. He's probably an A-level prospect. Not a lot a team won't risk for a chance at a good player.

��

TEAM	LEAGUE	GP	G	A	TP	PIM	+/-		POST	GP	G	A	TP	PIM	+/-
2019-20	Tri-City Storm	USHL	44	8	25	33	40	7	|
2020-21	Did not play								|
2021-22	Tri-City Storm	USHL	60	39	44	83	75	43

Lest you think this is "meh" production, this kid is a defenseman... That's actually kinda unreal from a production perspective.

So basically, sounds like the narrative goes: Bruins see the kid, 2 years removed from any of the stuff from the draft, look into it, talk to him, etc., trying to find a diamond in the rough type player. Says all the right things, etc., they sign him. Backlash comes in, they think twice. They talk to the family based on the backlash, learn some stuff that maybe isn't public about the situation, they change their minds. Does make me wonder what it is the family knows that isn't in the public eye that changes the situation so drastically. I might be wrong but I didn't get the sense they reversed this just based on the backlash.

The family makes it pretty clear that they've got the receipts for some pretty heinous shit that was otherwise sealed in the juvie case.