Proportional value of a real 4th line

[Visnovsky]

What would be the proportional value of the best fourth line in the league?

As in straight up trade value, it would not take too much to build an ideal fourth line - but when it is in effect (an easy example of this would be Martin-Cizikas-Clutterbuck), what is the proportional value of that line?

I had a discussion with a friend of mine regarding this, and I stand my ground in saying that the best fourth line in the league would have more value, than a first line player (something along the lines of Scheifele, Buchnevich, Necas, Fiala, etc.)

What is the opinion of HFBoards regarding this matter?

Click to read more...

 

[MrHeiskanen]

Matt Martin is an ideal 4th line player? Yikes. Maybe in the 1980s

 

[Visnovsky]

Matt Martin is an ideal 4th line player? Yikes. Maybe in the 1980s

Not anymore obviously, but when that line was at it's best, it was regarded as the best 4th line in the NHL - just a reference.

 

[Pure Slaughter Value]

What would be the proportional value of the best fourth line in the league?

As in straight up trade value, it would not take too much to build an ideal fourth line - but when it is in effect (an easy example of this would be Martin-Cizikas-Clutterbuck), what is the proportional value of that line?

I had a discussion with a friend of mine regarding this, and I stand my ground in saying that the best fourth line in the league would have more value, than a first line player (something along the lines of Scheifele, Buchnevich, Necas, Fiala, etc.)

What is the opinion of HFBoards regarding this matter?

Stability and depth on the 4th line can be key but the Isles have made it into a laughingstock with the contracts handed out.

I do think it's pointless that there are a lot of teams that throw prospects onto the 4th line with totally different skillsets, they don't do much and tween back and forth between the A and N while their value gets driven down only to get tossed aside for an overager.

That being said, I'd rather have a first-liner than a set 4th line. Your checking line is really the 3rd line and they should be getting a majority of the tough minutes.

 

[MrHeiskanen]

Not anymore obviously, but when that line was at it's best, it was regarded as the best 4th line in the NHL - just a reference.

To get back to your original question, there is too many points to analyze.

Total salary, total roster spots, total points, 1/2/3 PKers vs 1 PPer, etc. etc.

So can't make a generic statement of best 4th line = top line player.

 

[PullHard]

I think you'd have a hard time convincing people that even three 2nd line caliber players add up to a 1st liner. Depending on how you define 1st line, 2nd line, etc.

 

[DJJones]

Ya if I could guarantee to have the best 4th line in the league for like 4-5 million in cap. I'd take that over a generic 1st liner.

There is no "best" 4th liner. At that level it's all about finding value for their contracts. A good player making 1 million is a better 4th liner than a better player making 3-4 million

 

[ManofSteel55]

I don't agree that a top tier 4th line is more important than getting a top line player, unless you have a good enough C to make a middle six winger work as a top line winger, like Crosby did with his string of wingers through his prime.

 

[miscs75]

Center - $800k
LW - $1.5m
RW - $1.75m

Problem solved

 

[Dog]

Center up to $2 million, LW up to $2 million, and RW up to $2 million. So right about $4-$6 million be the sweet spot. A good 4th line can shut down almost any lineup and occasionally scores.

 

[dgibb10]

It's more of a 3rd line but the example of "Depth pieces that aren't elite individually but go out and dominate" would be that Staal-Fast-Martinook line in carolina.

 

[TrufleShufle]

If you could get a great 4th line together and keep them there for multiple year and never have to worry about it, absolutely. But it's virtually impossible. You see it every year or so, some 3rd or 4th line is one of the most important pieces of a playoff team for a number of reasons. They wouldn't have won anything with out the full top 6, but vice versa as well. But after that, with most 4th line players having shorter contracts, if they are that important, the team gets out bid when any or all go UFA and they can't afford to keep them.

The only way to have a great 4th line for a long time is to gamble 3 times on super long contracts with guys willing to sign them for low dollar amounts. Which most GMs and players won't do.

For playoffs every line is as important as any single player on the team, for long term, gotta go top line guy.

 

[Machinehead]

I completely disagree.

I would rather my 4th line literally be worse and cost less if that's my choice.

Even the best 4th liners don't play enough to provide value beyond league minimum.

If they're worth more money than league minimum, they're good enough to play in your top 9. If they're not, don't pay them.

 

[Machinehead]

Also, while Martin-Cizikas-Clutterbuck were effective, they were like 5th, 6th, and 8th on the team in 5v5 ice time when Trotz was coaching the team. Coleman-Gourde-Goodrow was also demonstrably not the 4th line.

The lines people are thinking of are not 4th lines.

 

[These Are The Days]

The best 4th line in the league has yielded precisely dick for the NYI. I feel bad for how long their fans have had to wait for another title. It's no wonder why they have. Best 4th line in the league? Goddamn what a terrible flex that is. I hope you guys have better soon

 

[Cup or Bust]

I don't think the best 4th line in the league is more valuable then a 1st line player. If you have a weak top line but what is considered a really good 4th line, you are not likely going to be very successful. You can have a great first line and a very average to below average 4th line that plays 7 minutes a game and still be a successful team.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Also, while Martin-Cizikas-Clutterbuck were effective, they were like 5th, 6th, and 8th on the team in 5v5 ice time when Trotz was coaching the team. Coleman-Gourde-Goodrow was also demonstrably not the 4th line.

The lines people are thinking of are not 4th lines.

What about the Marchand/Bergeron/Pastrnak line? That was a pretty good 4th line.

 

[PettersonHughes]

Agreed with the sub-$2 million contract value (optimally closer to $1.5 million each if anything), and draft pick wise, probably only late round picks (if trading for or drafting these guys).

With the right scouting I'd argue that these guys can be picked off waivers, acquired as trade fill-in or even signed as FA's, and the qualitative value of these guys is that the wingers should be young, fast, hungry guys who can hit and have some skill, and the center should be strong at faceoffs and two-way play so that his line is not a liability. These 4th line wings should be the least of a team's worries though, when they often only play several minutes a night and would be considered as having done a good night's work if they aren't burned on a play, play without pace or miss a defensive assignment. If you look at Tampa in their heyday, their cap utilization reflected their prioritizing top-6 F and top-4 D, as none of their bottom-6 guys' contracts exceeded $1.5 million and it was filled with youth or specialists (e.g. faceoff guys, depth scorers or hitters).

 

[miscs75]

What about the Marchand/Bergeron/Pastrnak line? That was a pretty good 4th line.

I think they were as good of a 4th line as Rust/Crosby/Guentzel.

 

[Machinehead]

What about the Marchand/Bergeron/Pastrnak line? That was a pretty good 4th line.

We have this weird habit in hockey of arbitrarily deciding what the order is and just sticking with it.

Every day, the Rangers best writers list Panarin-Trocheck-Lafreniere as line 2. They're much better than all the other lines and they play more than all the other lines. Not that close in either regard. They're line 1 in every way, but we're sticking with it.

A "good 4th line" probably plays more than you think they do.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

We have this weird habit in hockey of arbitrarily deciding what the order is and just sticking with it.

Every day, the Rangers best writers list Panarin-Trocheck-Lafreniere as line 2. They're much better than all the other lines and they play more than all the other lines. Not that close in either regard. They're line 1 in every way, but we're sticking with it.

A "good 4th line" probably plays more than you think they do.

On a serious note, it reminds me of the Pens local beat writers calling the ZAR/Blueger/Tanev one of the best 4th lines in hockey when they were together, even though Sullivan utilized them like a 3rd line.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

I completely disagree.

I would rather my 4th line literally be worse and cost less if that's my choice.

Even the best 4th liners don't play enough to provide value beyond league minimum.

If they're worth more money than league minimum, they're good enough to play in your top 9. If they're not, don't pay them.

I'd rather have guys who are good enough to play in my top 9 on the 4th line, so I have depth that is at least capable of filling in up the lineup when guys inevitably get hurt. I don't like being 1 or 2 injuries away from a lottery pick.

 

[Machinehead]

I'd rather have guys who are good enough to play in my top 9 on the 4th line, so I have depth that is at least capable of filling in up the lineup when guys inevitably get hurt. I don't like being 1 or 2 injuries away from a lottery pick.

If it's possible, sure. The cap hasn't exactly ballooned in recent years.

And the other thing about 4th liners is that somebody probably can do it for cheaper. It's not like you're replacing Nathan MacKinnon.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

If it's possible, sure. The cap hasn't exactly ballooned in recent years.

And the other thing about 4th liners is that somebody probably can do it for cheaper. It's not like you're replacing Nathan MacKinnon.

I'm not saying it's easy or that they need to replace a Hart finalist. I just want someone who isn't a liability to slot in on the 2nd/3rd line while better guys slide up.

And I don't care about someone doing it cheaper if they aren't doing it better than the guy they'd be replacing. I'd much rather spend a little extra to get the best possible 4th liner than ice a pylon and save $100k in AAV.

 

[Mickey Marner]

In their best season, 2018-19, Martin-Cizikas-Clutterbuck were 17-12 as a line in ~500 minutes at 5v5 and cost 9.35 AAV combined. 9.35 AAV is about what Barzal makes now. Would you give up Barzal for that line?

Line Stats - Natural Stat Trick