Nice article. I think Heinen was traded not because management were over him individually but primarily because the Bruins had too many of the same sort of players in their bottom 9 - guys who either had limited goal-scoring ability (Kuhlman, Bjork, all the 4th-liners, even Coyle to a point) or who weren't very physical (Kuhlman, Bjork, DeBrusk, Krejci, Lindholm, even Nordy's a tough guy but not really a scary one). The Bruins needed to improve in both these facets and Heinen didn't offer much in either area, plus he was on a good salary and could command some genuine interest and value on the trade market. To top it off his production and form had stagnated. He was still playing perfectly decently most of the time but rarely more than that.
So he was the guy who it made most sense to move on to address one of those deficiencies - physicality - while hopefully both Ritchie and particularly Kase also help address the other. I actually don't think Ritchie is an overall better player than Heinen, which is a credit of sorts to Danton given their respective draft places, but Ritchie simply offers more of what the Bruins were lacking, so the move at least in theory makes Boston better as a team. Hopefully the trade works out for both parties.
So he was the guy who it made most sense to move on to address one of those deficiencies - physicality - while hopefully both Ritchie and particularly Kase also help address the other. I actually don't think Ritchie is an overall better player than Heinen, which is a credit of sorts to Danton given their respective draft places, but Ritchie simply offers more of what the Bruins were lacking, so the move at least in theory makes Boston better as a team. Hopefully the trade works out for both parties.
