HockeyWooot
Registered User
- Jan 28, 2020
- 2,362
- 1,969
Their 4th line looked different in the playoffs because :
a) The Kovalchuk deadline rental pushed a LW down the depth chart
b) Brendan Leipsic unexpectedly decided to commit career suicide and was released.
c) They had several injuries, especially at C, and were forced to play guys like Brian Pinho and Travis Boyd.
The whole team looked like absolute garbage in this playoffs. The point remains that they were a top-5 team in the NHL during the regular season running a 4th line consisting of 3 castoffs at combined $2.9 million.
4th lines are very unimportant. You find three warm bodies that don't hurt you, and the biggest positive they can bring is that they're cheap. Running a cheap 4th line frees up money to spend on players that actually matter. Replace Beagle and Schaller with two $800k scrubs and Benn with Biega on our roster last year, and you free up $5 million to spend on an actual difference-maker at the top end of your roster. And the replacement depth players would actually have been better than what we had.
Disagree that 4th lines are unimportant.The strength of your bottom 6 can be what puts you to over the top.
Great 4th lines can go head to head with the opponents top lines and push possession the other way. The Blues 4th line is excellent, they were giving our top lines fits keeping them hemmed in their own zones. Boston in its cup run last year had an excellent 4th line as well.
I do completely agree not to overpay for 4th line players though, generally speaking. The best teams can draft/develop quality bottom 6 players, and cycle new ones in when the former ones get prices out.
The exception I can think of is if the 4th line player projects to have more upside, in which case the contract is a value contract providing quality depth.
I personally would be okay giving Motte 1-1.5* 3 years, ONLY IF the Canucks brass and scouting think there is more upside there.