If AZ continues to be this dysfunctional, I could see a scenario where the league just gives up on a team in Phoenix. I don't know their financial situation, but imagine it's not great and probably hasn't been in a while.
- Sublime55

I haven't seen their books but I'll guess that when a team acquires contracts of players who will never play again just so they can reach the cap floor things probably aren't looking good.

So the Coyotes forfeited their second round draft pick # 49 due to predraft scouting violations, now today they are renouncing their 4th round draft pick Mitchell Miller because he bullied a disabled kid. Good lord, not exactly a strong draft.
- PLindbergh31

Whoa, 'bullied' is one thing.

Pissing on candy, making someone eat it, hurting, and tormenting, act racist as ****.....

Getting caught ON CAMERA, making a plea because of it, never approaching the family other than the court enforced letter, then CONTINUING to harass the kid....

Is the other

Screw this creep. Let him do time on a leper colony for a few years to give penance..... Oh wait! He has a college scholarship! The world is right again.

EDIT: Even better! The kid was I.D.

Parents have a hard enough time raising kids that are disabled without sadistic freaks like this taking time out to make their lives all the more difficult.

It is true that he is now an UFA. But, its also true that others teams have finished doing their drafting. Their rosters are now almost complete. By the Coyotes drafting him then with full information and then precluding other teams from doing so, did they impinge on his chances of being drafted by another team which might have acted differently?



- PT21

He's an 18 year old 4th round pick and isn't a candidate to make an NHL roster so teams rosters almost being complete is not a factor. All a team needs is an open contract slot to sign him.

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/30218487/arizona-coyotes-renounce-rights-draft-pick-mitchell-miller-history-assault-racism-surface

There is a lot he could've done in the last four years to make this situation right.
- Scoob

Hell yes. Yet nothing, from the guy OR his family.

I am thinking of "good faith" issues, not breach of contract issues.

I don't know if it applies.
- PT21

so much of it would realistically be based on the inner workings of the contract driven law of the CBA, and I wont act like I know the ins and outs of what that contains.

But the double jeopardy argument really must be limited to hyperbole for your analogy i assume? You do not have a civil right codified anywhere in any form of state/political subdivision to be given employment in the NHL. Hell, most things employment driven given the "at will" nature of things today, unless you are a protected class, its awfully tough to have some sort of standing.

Lets say the following happened.

A team drafts a player. Then, releases him. Reason: they don't like his haircut.

An employer calls a student and says they will give him an offer. No offer yet in writing. Student stops interviewing with others. Employer says - gee, we changed our mind. By that time, recruiting season is over and others have been hired.

Do these individuals have a right to sue? If no, fine. But if yes, I would think this guy will have some of the same standing.
- PT21

These are silly questions. There is no case in either hypothetical. You're not thinking logically.

He's an 18 year old 4th round pick and isn't a candidate to make an NHL roster so teams rosters almost being complete is not a factor. All a team needs is an open contract slot to sign him.
- MJL

Signing a contract now would negate his NCAA status which I’m pretty sure he does not want to do. So all of this UFA contract talk is moot at this point anyway.

Thing is, there is a process for making amends: its called a legal trial. He did that, and did the punishment.

Now suddenly, he is being tried all over again for the same offense. Even in law that would not be possible because of legal jeopardy and the 5th.

And not even by a "jury of his peers." By the kangaroo court of public opinion.

It seems to be getting close to a lynching to me.
- PT21

You're being absolutely absurd.

Hell yes. Yet nothing, from the guy OR his family.
- DrMidnite

Pretty much tells you all you need to know.

Actually I should say it pretty much tells me all I need to know.

Signing a contract now would negate his NCAA status which I’m pretty sure he does not want to do. So all of this UFA contract talk is moot at this point anyway.
- Djapana

Honestly, I don't know much about the kid but to your point it makes PT21's point even less relevant.

so much of it would realistically be based on the inner workings of the contract driven law of the CBA, and I wont act like I know the ins and outs of what that contains.

But the double jeopardy argument really must be limited to hyperbole for your analogy i assume? You do not have a civil right codified anywhere in any form of state/political subdivision to be given employment in the NHL. Hell, most things employment driven given the "at will" nature of things today, unless you are a protected class, its awfully tough to have some sort of standing.
- stayinthefnnet

The double jeopardy I was referring to is trial by law, and then trial again for the same crime by the NHL/Coyotes. Moral double jeopardy, not legal.

The issue I was getting at is not the "at will" part. It is based on two things:

1. That by selecting him and effectively taking him out of the running and then not giving him an ELC, Coyotes spoilt his chance of alternative employment elsewhere.
2. That they based his release on information they already had.

Assuming it is the indeed same crime, and that he did reveal everything truthfully and completely in his disclosures. If not, then of course he has no case.

There is a legal point to this to, which WOULD have been argued during the trial. Judges take into account recognizing and accounting for your actions.

Apparently there has been further harassment AFTER the original court proceeding.

Which means, dude doesn't care, wrote a letter glossing over the 'specifics' of his harassment and continued harassment.....

Then the investigative story exposed him.

Boo f*****g hoo.
- DrMidnite

If this is true, that's a different story altogether. Then its not an isolated crime, and continued past the age of 14, and was not revealed in full.

I wonder if his college scholarship will stay in that case.

The double jeopardy I was referring to is trial by law, and then trial again for the same crime by the NHL/Coyotes. Moral double jeopardy, not legal.

The issue I was getting at is not the "at will" part. It is based on two things:

1. That by selecting him and effectively taking him out of the running and then not giving him an ELC, Coyotes spoilt his chance of alternative employment elsewhere.


- PT21

That's not correct. Would he have grounds to sue if no team drafted him. Do other players who were drafted and not offered an ELC have a right to sue. He is free to pursue an alternate career. The Yotes giving up his rights does not block him in any way from a chance of alternative employment.

If this is true, that's a different story altogether. Then its not an isolated crime, and continued past the age of 14, and was not revealed in full.

I wonder if his college scholarship will stay in that case.
- PT21

I am mistaken in the continued attack, I thought I saw that, but will own the error.

I still think the whole thing is egregious and AZ was within their right to not want to draft a marginal player with baggage.

They will win in court if they can show he never disclosed specifics of his history, and my guess is they can.

I am mistaken in the continued attack, I thought I saw that, but will own the error.

I still think the whole thing is egregious and AZ was within their right to not want to draft a marginal player with baggage.

They will win in court if they can show he never disclosed specifics of his history, and my guess is they can.
- DrMidnite

Its fine.

I am arguing my case on the basis of my assumption that no significant new information came to light above and beyond what was disclosed in his letter.

The issue that Djapana brought up is relevant too. If damages are to be awarded on the basis of alternative bridges burnt, and the truth is there were no alternative bridges, then the case for damages is weakened.

I would just exercise some caution in crucifying this bumhole who is also a young man. Often things that come to light are the most sensational things. That's why we have courts of law, after all.

I would hate to find out that the reason for the guy's release was not the actual crime, but the adverse publicity in the case and corporate political correctness.

Here is a link to whiteys world scrimmage with Nolan Patrick (#19 white).

He gets a nice goal and an assist.

https://www.instagram.com...Azml/?igshid=twx5k1iyh4je

You can sue for anything.
Whether you can win is a different story.
- Scoob

that is true. I more meant is it a lawsuit that could be won. But that's a good point.