Peter Chiarelli Needs to Toughen Up to Win a Cup!
It looks as though Boston Bruins GM Peter Chiarelli is feeling bad about Glen Murray's buyout. He has been in the media twice in two days saying how bad he feels for having to do it.
He goes on to say "he was one of our captains, when the management had to speak with the leadership players, he was always in on it. He was a good foil for the players in the room."
Look, I am a fan of the Bruins organization and have been very pleased with how the new regime and Chiarelli have been doing. I know you feel bad about having to let him go, but please—it’s business.
You are making the right move as a GM and for the team. Murray's playing days were numbered about half way through last season and the last GM left you holding the bag on his big contract.
This should not come as a shock to Murray, who by the way is reported as being beyond disappointed about how the Bruins have treated him in the bleak way that they have. Again, what? He should have been speaking to his agent. This has been coming for a long time. Could no one see it?
Anyway, the point is Chiarelli as GM can't feel bad about having to buy out the contract. It is the right move for the team, it is the right move to make as a GM, but now because he has been in the media saying how bad he feels, he looks like the weakest GM in New England.
My confidence in Chiarelli has slipped. He isn't as hard-nosed as I’d thought.
Mr. Chiarelli needs to take the business-comes-first approach to the game. Players are going to come and go. Do what is best for the team. You should take a few notes from Belichick/Pioli and Epstein. These are successful GMs who are business-first guys, and they win!
And for the love of Boston hockey fans, you are GM of the Boston Bruins—the team that has a legacy of being tough SOBs. Toughen up and run the Bruins like you will do anything to win the Stanley Cup and don't feel bad about it.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?