Here’s how the media responded to the Bruins’ Mitchell Miller fiasco

The Bruins remain under fire for their signing of Miller, who was who was convicted of racist bullying as a juvenile.

Bruins president Cam Neely speaks with the media regarding the team's late Sunday announcement it has cut ties with player Mitchell Miller. Jessica Rinaldi/Globe Staff

By AJ Nelson

November 9, 2022

2 minutes to read

After drawing significant criticism from across the hockey community, the Bruins cut ties with Mitchell Miller – who was convicted of racist bullying as a juvenile – on Sunday, just days after signing him.

Bruins president Cam Neely apologized Monday, saying that the organization “dropped the ball” in signing Miller, and that the move was his “biggest regret” as an executive.

The fiasco did not end with Neely’s apology, however, as the organization is still under fire from the media, both locally and nationally.

Neely’s assertion that the decision to part ways with Miller was based on “new information” has garnered much attention, with many pointing out that the organization did not do its due diligence before signing Miller if that is the case.

“The so-called “new” information is six years old and can be found by punching a few keywords into an internet search engine,” Luke Fox of Canada’s SportsNet wrote. “Suggesting otherwise insults the intelligence of the fan base. More seriously, it delivers one more slap in the face to the bullied.”

The Boston Globe’s Dan Shaughnessy echoed a similar sentiment.

“Clearly, the Bruins did not do their homework. Not even close,” Shaughnessy wrote on Tuesday. “They allowed Miller in a statement to apologize for a single ‘incident’ rather than a pattern and years of abuse. They never reached out to the victim’s family to hear their side of the issue.”

Yahoo! Sports’ Shalise Manza Young pointed out that reaching out to the family of the victim, Isaiah Meyer-Crothers, could have allowed the Bruins to “avoid this mess.”

Instead, as Young notes, Boston still has a number of questions to answer, including why the organization made the decision to sign Miller.

Shaughnessy argued that there was “no good reason” for the Bruins to have signed Miller and to have tarnished their brand in the process.

“It was never worth it. This was totally unnecessary,” he wrote of the signing. “The Black and Gold tarnished themselves for no good reason, and the man doing the explaining was one who did much to build the brand.”

Cathal Kelly of Canada’s The Globe and Mail contended that the Bruins knew what they were doing all along in deciding to sign Miller, but had hoped that the criticism would be minor.

“The Bruins wanted to pick up a high-end, low-character hockey player for next to nothing. All it was going to cost them was some blowback,” Kelly said. “How much blowback? They weren’t sure. But the organization was willing to take a chance. Best case for the hockey team? Everyone’s moved on. Worst case? What we just saw.”

Thechance that the Bruins were willing to take on Miller could have severe consequences, as noted by the Athletic’s Fluto Shinzawa, who raised the question “Will the Bruins fire anyone because of Mitchell Miller?” in an article on Tuesday.

Shaughnessy also looked to the long-term consequences of the situation, writing, “One has to wonder whether this is over for the Bruins. Would owner Jeremy Jacobs sanction Neely or general manager Don Sweeney? Will Neely punish Sweeney or anyone in his hockey operations department?”

As the Bruins look to move forward and turn the focus back on their 11-2 start, it is clear that the media, both locally and nationally, believes there is still significant work to be done.