The Tank Megathread | 8 | The Tank Awakens

[CpatainCanuck]

Then don't suck at rebuilding.

Then don't waste the 4 or 5 1st round picks/equivalent prospects you could/should get from trading away unwanted vets. Or the extra 2nd, 3rd etc picks.

Then don't waste picks on veterans.

Then don't waste money on bad contacts.

Good point. Vrbata and Hamhuis should be traded if they can get value regardless of whether the canucks go for a complete rebuild or a retool.

 

[dwarf]

you want 10 years of **** ? Edmonton is not the the model to follow here

No they are not, they are the extreme comparison.

Their drafting was atrocious, and you only have to watch Nail Yakupov to really see their bad luck in the past.

Draisaitl and McDavid are the turning points. Hall is going to be good as well.

They are starting to get the players to build a GREAT team. They will win CUPS.

Something our franchise has never had, and never will, until they decide to build from the ground up.

 

[Love]

I have no problem with acquiring Stamkos in free agency.

Or Luoi Eriksson for that matter.

I agree with having no problem signing Stamkos, but I would prefer if we didn't overpay for Eriksson.

But all this hinges on us drafting an elite prospect, like you said in the rest of your post.

 

[banme*]

Then don't suck at rebuilding.

Then don't waste the 4 or 5 1st round picks/equivalent prospects you could/should get from trading away unwanted vets. Or the extra 2nd, 3rd etc picks.

Then don't waste picks on veterans.

Then don't waste money on bad contacts.

Just to clarify you're not talking about our team right?

 

[JA]

In a perfect world, Buffalo picks Matthews and Vancouver picks Laine.





Hopefully it wouldn't be as lopsided as 1970.



We can make the playoffs next year, but this year we need to fortify the talent pool by drafting a potential star.

 

[y2kcanucks]

In a perfect world, Buffalo picks Matthews and Vancouver picks Laine.

Why is that perfect? I'd be perfectly happy with Matthews.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Young players need to grow up in a competitive environment. Wanting to make the playoffs while rebuilding is a philosophy I fully support. It's either that or become Edmonton.

But that shouldn't mean pending UFA's should be let go for free. Hammer and Vrbata need to be traded for future's asap

It's not either that or become Edmonton. Clearly you haven't paid attention to the successful rebuilds around the league.

 

[y2kcanucks]

some saltiness is emerging in that anti tank thread after tonights results

calgary is 3 points back with a game in hand

This pro-tank and anti-tank has turned HFCanucks into an all out civil war.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Yes because teams like LA, Chicago, Washington, and Tampa Bay don't have any high end players they received via tanking and having extremely high draft selections. It's either what we're doing now, or Edmonton (which is still better than what we're doing now)! Great observation!

But seriously can we just delete posts that include this tired argument about "Turning into Edmonton"? This has been re-hashed over, and over, and over, and over again in these tank threads.

I do love how everyone seemingly neglects what actually happened with the 'successful' tanking teams. Allow us to review, hmm?

Chicago was perpetually awful not only due to a dearth of quality NHL, but an owner who became so infamous in his frugality, fans booed his eulogy. They faced numerous seasons where merely 10,000 fans showing up was considered a positive. Even finishing dead last repeatedly did not provide immediate success-- rather it took a decade of development, trading and an overhaul of management from the top down before they finally began to turn the corner. Chicago, in fact, looks worse than Edmonton come the early 2000s. Few pay attention to their sordid past now that they have won three Stanley cup, however the Blackhawks were little more than a laughing stock once upon a time.

Tampa is an odd example, considering they may lose their tank acquired asset for nothing, and are primarily winning on talented drafted in later rounds. They, essentially, prove the precise opposite that the only path to success is through being dreadful for a decade.

LA faced threats of relocation prior to Gretzky's influence, and even thereafter struggled for years at any sort of relevancy. They lucked into Kopitar through the Crosby lottery sweepstakes, along with Montreal opting to draft a goaltender in lieu of their much needed center.

So, yes. Let's be Chicago! We can perpetually fail for the reminder of the 2010s, ruin our youth until we replace them with a multitude of 1st overall selections and have an arena of 13,000 again! Or perhaps we try a better solution and development our young prospects in a winning environment..

People also need to appreciate this is a business venture. No owner will intentionally tank and risk losing revenue. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of fans do not actually care about draft picks or obscure prospects suddenly performing. Ben Hutton? I guarantee not a single knew of his existence, let alone were excitedly awaiting his arrival. Hell, it took a full season before people recognized Horvat. Not to mention his struggles this season are entirely why I prefer our current development philosophy. Imagine the difficulty he would face were he relied upon as our de facto leader because the Sedins and everyone else were traded for picks.

As it stands, we might actually turn the corner while the Sedins are still premium players. I'd rather that than loiter in the basement for only a 20% shot at Matthews.

 

[DS7]

This pro-tank and anti-tank has turned HFCanucks into an all out civil war.

Can we be Iron Man's side? Lol someone with good photoshop skills make this happen!

 

[JA]

Why is that perfect? I'd be perfectly happy with Matthews.

From everything that I have seen, I like Laine more as a player. He has incredible hands, size, speed, and individual skill. His shot is very good. He isn't quite as cerebral and complete as Matthews, but he appears to be the draft's purest goal scorer. Vancouver has lacked a pure goal scorer for over a decade.

He has fantastic puck skills. He would be a treat to watch. The kid's also 6'4''.



The entertainment factor appeals to me in addition to his sheer goal scoring ability.

Laine is somebody who I think can make the Canucks must-watch television in Vancouver again with the excitement that he brings when he has the puck. He's very marketable; he could end up being the next star goal scorer that we've waited so long for.



Check out those moves and that skating ability.

 

[Powder]

In order to keep my sanity, I have convinced myself that regardless of where we finish, we will end with one of the top 3 picks through the lottery. Hoping we're able to build a good team in spite of our management trying to screw it all up.

This way I can still enjoy wins and the team scoring. If they beat the odds and make the playoffs though... I won't have a choice but to hope for a Cinderella run, just like I do every year. Sigh.

 

[Love]

I do love how everyone seemingly neglects what actually happened with the 'successful' tanking teams. Allow us to review, hmm?

Chicago was perpetually awful not only due to a dearth of quality NHL, but an owner who became so infamous in his frugality, fans booed his eulogy. They faced numerous seasons where merely 10,000 fans showing up was considered a positive. Even finishing dead last repeatedly did not provide immediate success-- rather it took a decade of development, trading and an overhaul of management from the top down before they finally began to turn the corner. Chicago, in fact, looks worse than Edmonton come the early 2000s. Few pay attention to their sordid past now that they have won three Stanley cup, however the Blackhawks were little more than a laughing stock once upon a time.

Tampa is an odd example, considering they may lose their tank acquired asset for nothing, and are primarily winning on talented drafted in later rounds. They, essentially, prove the precise opposite that the only path to success is through being dreadful for a decade.

LA faced threats of relocation prior to Gretzky's influence, and even thereafter struggled for years at any sort of relevancy. They lucked into Kopitar through the Crosby lottery sweepstakes, along with Montreal opting to draft a goaltender in lieu of their much needed center.

So, yes. Let's be Chicago! We can perpetually fail for the reminder of the 2010s, ruin our youth until we replace them with a multitude of 1st overall selections and have an arena of 13,000 again! Or perhaps we try a better solution and development our young prospects in a winning environment..

People also need to appreciate this is a business venture. No owner will intentionally tank and risk losing revenue. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of fans do not actually care about draft picks or obscure prospects suddenly performing. Ben Hutton? I guarantee not a single knew of his existence, let alone were excitedly awaiting his arrival. Hell, it took a full season before people recognized Horvat. Not to mention his struggles this season are entirely why I prefer our current development philosophy. Imagine the difficulty he would face were he relied upon as our de facto leader because the Sedins and everyone else were traded for picks.

As it stands, we might actually turn the corner while the Sedins are still premium players. I'd rather that than loiter in the basement for only a 20% shot at Matthews.

Good post. I get what you're saying and I remember those teams and where they were at prior to being as successful as they are. Especially Chicago, I find it funny how their fanbase is considered to be so amazing when the reality is that pre 2010 nobody gave a flying **** about the Chicago Blackhawks.

But my post was strictly to refute the idea that using high end draft picks to build a Stanley Cup calibre team doesn't work. Of course it works, thats literally how every team does it except for maybe the Red Wings.

I want to be clear that I don't think we should sell off everyone, **** the bed for 5 years, and then all of the sudden expect to be a contender. I think if we tank and nab a top 5 pick this year we should be looking to add (not tank) and shooting for a Cup within 4-7 years.

But that all hinges on us acquiring elite talent via the draft. We got Horvat and Virtanen with top 10 picks, lets add one more and then go for it. We've been seemingly very fortunate (although its still early) with Boeser, Demko, McCann, Subban, and Shinkaruk. What if we could add Chychrun, Tkachuk, Dubois, Juollevi, or McLeod or someone like that to the mix - It would be a game changer. We don't even necessarily need Matthews or Laine (although they would be ideal) for this rebuild to work.

 

[Love]

Why is that perfect? I'd be perfectly happy with Matthews.

From everything that I have seen, I like Laine more as a player. He has incredible hands, size, speed, and individual skill. His shot is very good. He isn't quite as cerebral and complete as Matthews, but he appears to be the draft's purest goal scorer. Vancouver has lacked a pure goal scorer for over a decade.

He has fantastic puck skills. He would be a treat to watch. The kid's also 6'4''.



The entertainment factor appeals to me in addition to his sheer goal scoring ability.

I agree. If I were picking 1st overall, I'd take Matthews, but I would be equally ecstatic about getting Laine.

 

[Alan Jackson]

I do love how everyone seemingly neglects what actually happened with the 'successful' tanking teams. Allow us to review, hmm?

Chicago was perpetually awful not only due to a dearth of quality NHL, but an owner who became so infamous in his frugality, fans booed his eulogy. They faced numerous seasons where merely 10,000 fans showing up was considered a positive. Even finishing dead last repeatedly did not provide immediate success-- rather it took a decade of development, trading and an overhaul of management from the top down before they finally began to turn the corner. Chicago, in fact, looks worse than Edmonton come the early 2000s. Few pay attention to their sordid past now that they have won three Stanley cup, however the Blackhawks were little more than a laughing stock once upon a time.

Tampa is an odd example, considering they may lose their tank acquired asset for nothing, and are primarily winning on talented drafted in later rounds. They, essentially, prove the precise opposite that the only path to success is through being dreadful for a decade.

LA faced threats of relocation prior to Gretzky's influence, and even thereafter struggled for years at any sort of relevancy. They lucked into Kopitar through the Crosby lottery sweepstakes, along with Montreal opting to draft a goaltender in lieu of their much needed center.

So, yes. Let's be Chicago! We can perpetually fail for the reminder of the 2010s, ruin our youth until we replace them with a multitude of 1st overall selections and have an arena of 13,000 again! Or perhaps we try a better solution and development our young prospects in a winning environment..

People also need to appreciate this is a business venture. No owner will intentionally tank and risk losing revenue. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of fans do not actually care about draft picks or obscure prospects suddenly performing. Ben Hutton? I guarantee not a single knew of his existence, let alone were excitedly awaiting his arrival. Hell, it took a full season before people recognized Horvat. Not to mention his struggles this season are entirely why I prefer our current development philosophy. Imagine the difficulty he would face were he relied upon as our de facto leader because the Sedins and everyone else were traded for picks.

As it stands, we might actually turn the corner while the Sedins are still premium players. I'd rather that than loiter in the basement for only a 20% shot at Matthews.

Exactly correct.

I mean, I have no issue with trading Hamhuis or Vrbata for picks at the deadline, because the season will have more or less been played out. If those players have value (I doubt Vrbata has much, to be honest), than it makes sense to get something rather than lose them for nothing.

But look at the roster the Leafs are bringing to town tomorrow. Does anybody want to support a team that looks like that? A glorified AHL team? The Leafs, if they stay the course, will be awful for YEARS, Austin Matthews or not.

Building an intentionally bad roster will result in just that - being bad.

You should go into every season with the intention of making the playoffs, in my opinion. If it doesn't work out, then you reassess as the season goes along, and maybe move your UFAs for something if you can.

As far as the Canucks go, I would like to see Hamhuis re-signed to a reasonable contract. If that can't or won't happen, and he agrees to be moved, you get what you can. Assuming of course, you're not in a playoff spot.

I would move Vrbata regardless, if you can. I don't think they lose much there, even if they do make the playoffs. I really don't see why a contending team is giving up much for Vrbata at this point though.

If you can move Prust, Higgins or Weber, obviously you get what you can, although I doubt there's any interest. If some team comes calling for Bartowski, sure, move him. Seems unlikely.

I would like to get out from under the contract of Alex Burrows, but that seems unlikely.

As far as "adding" at the deadline, I would be extremely angry if Benning trades picks or prospects for a rental, but that simply isn't going to happen. When Benning talks about "adding" at the deadline, he's talking about a hockey trade that could improve the team going forward. I'm on board with that.

As far as cheering for losses, I can't quite get on board with that. Ultimately, when if becomes clear that the playoffs aren't happening, I certainly don't get as upset with the losses. In a practical sense, if you don't make the playoffs, sure, it's better to finish as low as possible. I do get the lure of a high pick, and I get where you guys are coming from. But I think you kind of need to let that happen organically, and if it happens it happens.

 

[racerjoe]

I do love how everyone seemingly neglects what actually happened with the 'successful' tanking teams. Allow us to review, hmm?

Chicago was perpetually awful not only due to a dearth of quality NHL, but an owner who became so infamous in his frugality, fans booed his eulogy. They faced numerous seasons where merely 10,000 fans showing up was considered a positive. Even finishing dead last repeatedly did not provide immediate success-- rather it took a decade of development, trading and an overhaul of management from the top down before they finally began to turn the corner. Chicago, in fact, looks worse than Edmonton come the early 2000s. Few pay attention to their sordid past now that they have won three Stanley cup, however the Blackhawks were little more than a laughing stock once upon a time.

Tampa is an odd example, considering they may lose their tank acquired asset for nothing, and are primarily winning on talented drafted in later rounds. They, essentially, prove the precise opposite that the only path to success is through being dreadful for a decade.

LA faced threats of relocation prior to Gretzky's influence, and even thereafter struggled for years at any sort of relevancy. They lucked into Kopitar through the Crosby lottery sweepstakes, along with Montreal opting to draft a goaltender in lieu of their much needed center.

So, yes. Let's be Chicago! We can perpetually fail for the reminder of the 2010s, ruin our youth until we replace them with a multitude of 1st overall selections and have an arena of 13,000 again! Or perhaps we try a better solution and development our young prospects in a winning environment..

People also need to appreciate this is a business venture. No owner will intentionally tank and risk losing revenue. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of fans do not actually care about draft picks or obscure prospects suddenly performing. Ben Hutton? I guarantee not a single knew of his existence, let alone were excitedly awaiting his arrival. Hell, it took a full season before people recognized Horvat. Not to mention his struggles this season are entirely why I prefer our current development philosophy. Imagine the difficulty he would face were he relied upon as our de facto leader because the Sedins and everyone else were traded for picks.

As it stands, we might actually turn the corner while the Sedins are still premium players. I'd rather that than loiter in the basement for only a 20% shot at Matthews.

You deceided to focus on periods of time that have nothing to do with the teams becoming good. You missed Hedman with Tampa, or lecavalier when the team actually won.

Chicago was bad because of terrible ownership and management. It wasn't until these things change that the team became better, sound familar? Like Edm? or Buffalo? Neither of those teams are good yet, but both look close, and both have gone through huge management change lately.

LA was similar, but you focussed on Gretzky era? He retired in 99 after a few years with a few other teams, I think it was 96? Thats 20 years ago. It would be like me saying the Canucks suck because of Bure...

You have to have good management. This stems from good owners. If you don't have those two things nothing matters. You can tank, you can make trades whatever, you are sunk and will be bad. Right now we look to be more headed towards bad sad days in Edm than now when they have a chance (I am not convinced the have good management yet) to become a good team.

 

[CanaFan]

Can we be Iron Man's side? Lol someone with good photoshop skills make this happen!

Hell nah, Stark's side was about upholding the status quo of invasive government legislation, so that sounds like the anti-tank faction to me. Aquillini wants playoffs, tanking is against the "rules", etc.

We're Cap and Spidey's side 100% :grin:

 

[JA]

I added this video to the other post, but I'll re-post it again.



I think that he would have a tremendous effect on the on-ice product.

The kid compares his style of game to Alexander Ovechkin's. I've heard Selanne comparisons for the fact that he is a quick, goal-scoring Finn, Tarasenko comparisons for the goal scoring presence/excitement that he brings, and I'll even throw in a Bure comparison for the chances that he creates from out of nowhere.

http://www.jatkoaika.com/Haastattelu/2016-draft-top-prospect-patrik-laine-on-his-way-to-the-nhl/159393

2016 Draft Top Prospect Patrik Laine on His Way to the NHL
11.07.2014 10:19 | Miika Arponen

...

Laine arrived to the interview wearing a Capitals cap. His favourite team and player is thus not very difficult to guess.

- Capitals has always been my favourite team. If I get drafted, it would be great if it was by the Capitals.

Sniper with a big frame that's not afraid of physical contact. Sounds familiar? Similarities with a certain Russian superstar are not hard to find.

- Alexander Ovechkin has always been my favourite player. I have watched him play a lot. Would be great if I some day got to play with my idol!

Laine describes his playing style as Ovechkin-like.

- When I have the chance I try to put the puck in the net. And I have succeeded in that with quite a good percentage recently. I'm more a sniper than for example a playmaker.

- I also like to play physical. Of course it can't be the main thing because I have to spare energy for scoring too, but I always finish my plays.

...

He is that exciting brand of player that I, as a fan, love to watch. I would take him in a heartbeat.

http://www.jatkoaika.com/Artikkeli/statistical-analysis-from-the-finnish-league-jesse-puljuj%C3%A4rvi-and-patrik-laine/174753

 

[Bobby Digital]

Exactly correct.

I mean, I have no issue with trading Hamhuis or Vrbata for picks at the deadline, because the season will have more or less been played out. If those players have value (I doubt Vrbata has much, to be honest), than it makes sense to get something rather than lose them for nothing.

But look at the roster the Leafs are bringing to town tomorrow. Does anybody want to support a team that looks like that? A glorified AHL team? The Leafs, if they stay the course, will be awful for YEARS, Austin Matthews or not.

Building an intentionally bad roster will result in just that - being bad.

You should go into every season with the intention of making the playoffs, in my opinion. If it doesn't work out, then you reassess as the season goes along, and maybe move your UFAs for something if you can.

As far as the Canucks go, I would like to see Hamhuis re-signed to a reasonable contract. If that can't or won't happen, and he agrees to be moved, you get what you can. Assuming of course, you're not in a playoff spot.

I would move Vrbata regardless, if you can. I don't think they lose much there, even if they do make the playoffs. I really don't see why a contending team is giving up much for Vrbata at this point though.

If you can move Prust, Higgins or Weber, obviously you get what you can, although I doubt there's any interest. If some team comes calling for Bartowski, sure, move him. Seems unlikely.

I would like to get out from under the contract of Alex Burrows, but that seems unlikely.

As far as "adding" at the deadline, I would be extremely angry if Benning trades picks or prospects for a rental, but that simply isn't going to happen. When Benning talks about "adding" at the deadline, he's talking about a hockey trade that could improve the team going forward. I'm on board with that.

As far as cheering for losses, I can't quite get on board with that. Ultimately, when if becomes clear that the playoffs aren't happening, I certainly don't get as upset with the losses. In a practical sense, if you don't make the playoffs, sure, it's better to finish as low as possible. I do get the lure of a high pick, and I get where you guys are coming from. But I think you kind of need to let that happen organically, and if it happens it happens.

I'd bet you anything that the Leafs are going to be relevant before we are and it won't even be close. What's the difference between the current Leafs and Canucks team? There both boring as hell to watch. At least one team has a plan to accumulate assets and is setting themselves up to land another top prospect. I've been hearing the same thing since 2013 in regards as to why we shouldn't rebuild. I don't know about you guys but ever since we were eliminated by the Sharks this team has been incredibly boring to watch. I'd trade in the last 3 years for a couple top 10 picks. No question. We've had ample opportunity to sell high on guys like Bieska, Hamhius, Vrbata, Burrows, Kesler etc but instead we held onto them for whatever reason which in essence means we squandered away multiple first round picks. As for bringing up how some teams stay bad when tanking. Noone is saying a top pick will guarantee you success. You still need competent management. Teams like the Oilers, early 2000 Chicago, Flordia (pre Tallon), Columbus dint have that. But what a top pick does is give you the best chance at landing elite talent which you need to win. It's that simple.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

Oilers are gonna turn it around almost solely because of McDavid. Enough kicks at the can and eventually you hit the jackpot, and they did just that. He will be the best player in the league very soon, perhaps even next season.

The closest thing we can get to that is signing Stamkos, but even then his best days are likely gone and I don't see him scoring 60 again.

This management won't allow for a tank to acquire our own franchise talent, so the only other way is to take on another team's that miraculously happens to be available on the open market.

 

[bossram]

I do love how everyone seemingly neglects what actually happened with the 'successful' tanking teams. Allow us to review, hmm?

Chicago was perpetually awful not only due to a dearth of quality NHL, but an owner who became so infamous in his frugality, fans booed his eulogy. They faced numerous seasons where merely 10,000 fans showing up was considered a positive. Even finishing dead last repeatedly did not provide immediate success-- rather it took a decade of development, trading and an overhaul of management from the top down before they finally began to turn the corner. Chicago, in fact, looks worse than Edmonton come the early 2000s. Few pay attention to their sordid past now that they have won three Stanley cup, however the Blackhawks were little more than a laughing stock once upon a time.

Tampa is an odd example, considering they may lose their tank acquired asset for nothing, and are primarily winning on talented drafted in later rounds. They, essentially, prove the precise opposite that the only path to success is through being dreadful for a decade.

LA faced threats of relocation prior to Gretzky's influence, and even thereafter struggled for years at any sort of relevancy. They lucked into Kopitar through the Crosby lottery sweepstakes, along with Montreal opting to draft a goaltender in lieu of their much needed center.

So, yes. Let's be Chicago! We can perpetually fail for the reminder of the 2010s, ruin our youth until we replace them with a multitude of 1st overall selections and have an arena of 13,000 again! Or perhaps we try a better solution and development our young prospects in a winning environment..

People also need to appreciate this is a business venture. No owner will intentionally tank and risk losing revenue. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of fans do not actually care about draft picks or obscure prospects suddenly performing. Ben Hutton? I guarantee not a single knew of his existence, let alone were excitedly awaiting his arrival. Hell, it took a full season before people recognized Horvat. Not to mention his struggles this season are entirely why I prefer our current development philosophy. Imagine the difficulty he would face were he relied upon as our de facto leader because the Sedins and everyone else were traded for picks.

As it stands, we might actually turn the corner while the Sedins are still premium players. I'd rather that than loiter in the basement for only a 20% shot at Matthews.

I appreciate your point here, but you also skipped over the point that these teams still acquired their core players through the top of the draft. Kane, Toews, Hedman, Stamkos, Vinny, Doughty.

Also as another poster pointed out, the common thread to winners are: elite talent and competent management. You use the Chicago example as why we shouldn't tank. I see the opposite. Their management and ownership group were abhorrent until Wirtz passed away. After that, Tallon was able to draft and assemble a championship team around his prized top picks and Bowman followed that up. In Tampa, Stevie Y added some key pieces around his top picks.

You need elite talent and the management to build a winner. Currently we have neither. People want to tank because they think the easiest/best way to get those elite players is at the top of the draft. That's a fair point. The other alternatives are fluking out late in the draft or trading for elite players. I wouldn't bank on either happening. And based on Benning's record, he vastly overvalues attributes that do not have much on-ice value and am not competent in him being a guy who can add the correct support pieces to make a team competitive.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

On another note, Dallas got insanely lucky. Their two main pieces are a 5th rounder and another team's castoff (who was a high pick, yes) that figured everything out after he was traded.

 

[Love]

On another note, Dallas got insanely lucky. Their two main pieces are a 5th rounder and another team's castoff (who was a high pick, yes) that figured everything out after he was traded.

Insanely lucky is right. They capitalized big time on Chiarelli's incompetence.

And Benn is another thing, lucky is one way to put it

 

[y2kcanucks]

On another note, Dallas got insanely lucky. Their two main pieces are a 5th rounder and another team's castoff (who was a high pick, yes) that figured everything out after he was traded.

He was traded because Jim Benning didn't think he was the type of player the Bruins needed.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

He was traded because Jim Benning didn't think he was the type of player the Bruins needed.

Not this again, last time I checked Peter Chiarellie was the GM at that time.