Trade value of intact 4th Line

[Canucksfan829411]

As we near the trade deadline I’ve read lots of threads about trading individual players, and some about packaging a player and a pick, or two players together for a higher value asset in return.

 

I wonder whether there might be a playoff bound team that’s dissatisfied with the play of their 4th line as a whole and a GM that would consider trading for the Canucks intact 4th line of Motte/Highmore/Lammikko. We’d take back 2 or 3 players on expiring contracts and equivalent cap hits (or higher) 

and receive higher value picks/prospects overall than if each of the three players were traded individually to different teams. The new team wouldn’t need to worry about the chemistry of their newly acquired players as they already have it, coupled with an identity as a tenacious, hard checking 4th line ready for the playoffs. 

 

Long time reader, first thread so happy to hear feedback about why trade a whole line (or even a duo) is impractical as it’s not happened to my knowledge in the 15 years I’ve been a Canucks fan and following the NHL.

 

PS: I can’t wait for the next time the Canucks get back into a long playoff run and these treads get so active that we need to take over the Florida Panthers boards again to handle the excitement and shear volume of fan engagement.

[Angry Goose]

I dont know why youd want to trade any of these guys right now (assuming they want to re-sign w/Canucks).

 

They are all relatively young, cost effective (depending on what Motte wants) and bring exactly what a bottom 6 needs.  

 

Canucks should keep these guys (if possible)

[RWJC]

This is exactly what we have lacked for the last couple seasons. It's cheap/cost effective and the chemistry they have as a line is also the same chemistry they have with others on this team.  Can't for the life of me see what we'd get in return that makes this a viable deal unless there's a major overhaul. Their value has definitely increased though so you do have that as a fair point to illustrate with.

[Phil_314]

After sitting through seasons of $12 million 4th lines (Roussel/ Beagle/ Loui) we keep them unless teams want to trade 2nd's or higher.  Trading their contracts just means that we will need to replace them and there's no guarantee that their replacements have the same chemistry and impact.

We should move the mid-tier priced contracts (e.g. Dickinson/ Hamonic/ Poolman/ Pearson).    

[Kevin Biestra]

Well, Ivan Boldirev and Darcy Rota got traded as a pair twice in a row, including to us.  Was definitely more of a synergy than the package of junk we sent to Arizona for Garland and OEL.

 

 

[higgyfan]

You take away the 4th line, Miller and possibly Garland, our team sure lacks +++ character.

[Dr. Crossbar]

58 minutes ago, Phil_314 said:

After sitting through seasons of $12 million 4th lines (Roussel/ Beagle/ Loui) we keep them unless teams want to trade 2nd's or higher.  Trading their contracts just means that we will need to replace them and there's no guarantee that their replacements have the same chemistry and impact.

We should move the mid-tier priced contracts (e.g. Dickinson/ Hamonic/ Poolman/ Pearson).    

Exactly this! We finally have the a great 4th line that can be relied on in various capacities... can even take on 3rd line duties ... we need to leave this intact and work on strengthening the Top 9.

 

The last thing we want to do is break this line up. It's taken us forever to have a great 4th line. We need to build on this.

[AriGold]

2 hours ago, Angry Goose said:

I dont know why youd want to trade any of these guys right now (assuming they want to re-sign w/Canucks).

 

They are all relatively young, cost effective (depending on what Motte wants) and bring exactly what a bottom 6 needs.  

 

Canucks should keep these guys (if possible)

Although I don't agree with everything the OP says, I do agree they should be expendable. The ultimate goal is to trade somebody who's value is higher then it has ever been if they're in the bottom 6. You can replace 4th line players.

[PunjabiCanucks]

Unless the return is great- keep em and re sign them.

 

They cost us now about 2.8M - get them resigned for 3.5M for next year

 

Lammikko - 1M x 2

Highmore - 1M x 2

Motte 1.5 x 2 or 1.75 x 3

[Me_]

3 hours ago, Canucksfan829411 said:

As we near the trade deadline I’ve read lots of threads about trading individual players, and some about packaging a player and a pick, or two players together for a higher value asset in return.

 

I wonder whether there might be a playoff bound team that’s dissatisfied with the play of their 4th line as a whole and a GM that would consider trading for the Canucks intact 4th line of Motte/Highmore/Lammikko. We’d take back 2 or 3 players on expiring contracts and equivalent cap hits (or higher) 

and receive higher value picks/prospects overall than if each of the three players were traded individually to different teams. The new team wouldn’t need to worry about the chemistry of their newly acquired players as they already have it, coupled with an identity as a tenacious, hard checking 4th line ready for the playoffs. 

 

Long time reader, first thread so happy to hear feedback about why trade a whole line (or even a duo) is impractical as it’s not happened to my knowledge in the 15 years I’ve been a Canucks fan and following the NHL.

 

PS: I can’t wait for the next time the Canucks get back into a long playoff run and these treads get so active that we need to take over the Florida Panthers boards again to handle the excitement and shear volume of fan engagement.

And also, no. 

[wildcam]

4 hours ago, Canucksfan829411 said:

As we near the trade deadline I’ve read lots of threads about trading individual players, and some about packaging a player and a pick, or two players together for a higher value asset in return.

 

I wonder whether there might be a playoff bound team that’s dissatisfied with the play of their 4th line as a whole and a GM that would consider trading for the Canucks intact 4th line of Motte/Highmore/Lammikko. We’d take back 2 or 3 players on expiring contracts and equivalent cap hits (or higher) 

and receive higher value picks/prospects overall than if each of the three players were traded individually to different teams. The new team wouldn’t need to worry about the chemistry of their newly acquired players as they already have it, coupled with an identity as a tenacious, hard checking 4th line ready for the playoffs. 

 

Long time reader, first thread so happy to hear feedback about why trade a whole line (or even a duo) is impractical as it’s not happened to my knowledge in the 15 years I’ve been a Canucks fan and following the NHL.

 

PS: I can’t wait for the next time the Canucks get back into a long playoff run and these treads get so active that we need to take over the Florida Panthers boards again to handle the excitement and shear volume of fan engagement.

Only 4th line paler that might move is Motte being a UFA this summer... Motte 26 - 3 X 2.4 million..

Not sure if Canucks will resign him.  Lockwood should be ready to replace Motte

The 4th line players are on great contract and playing well..Don't want to move players on good contracts..

We need cap room...

[eeeeergh]

5 hours ago, Canucksfan829411 said:

As we near the trade deadline I’ve read lots of threads about trading individual players, and some about packaging a player and a pick, or two players together for a higher value asset in return.

 

I wonder whether there might be a playoff bound team that’s dissatisfied with the play of their 4th line as a whole and a GM that would consider trading for the Canucks intact 4th line of Motte/Highmore/Lammikko. We’d take back 2 or 3 players on expiring contracts and equivalent cap hits (or higher) 

and receive higher value picks/prospects overall than if each of the three players were traded individually to different teams. The new team wouldn’t need to worry about the chemistry of their newly acquired players as they already have it, coupled with an identity as a tenacious, hard checking 4th line ready for the playoffs. 

 

Long time reader, first thread so happy to hear feedback about why trade a whole line (or even a duo) is impractical as it’s not happened to my knowledge in the 15 years I’ve been a Canucks fan and following the NHL.

 

PS: I can’t wait for the next time the Canucks get back into a long playoff run and these treads get so active that we need to take over the Florida Panthers boards again to handle the excitement and shear volume of fan engagement.

We absolutely need to keep all 3 of those guys. They're insanely good, and about to enter their primes. They're a 3rd line/4th line we can win with when we're ready to contend in 2-3 years. 

[erkayloomeh]

4 hours ago, Canucksfan829411 said:

As we near the trade deadline I’ve read lots of threads about trading individual players, and some about packaging a player and a pick, or two players together for a higher value asset in return.

 

I wonder whether there might be a playoff bound team that’s dissatisfied with the play of their 4th line as a whole and a GM that would consider trading for the Canucks intact 4th line of Motte/Highmore/Lammikko. We’d take back 2 or 3 players on expiring contracts and equivalent cap hits (or higher) 

and receive higher value picks/prospects overall than if each of the three players were traded individually to different teams. The new team wouldn’t need to worry about the chemistry of their newly acquired players as they already have it, coupled with an identity as a tenacious, hard checking 4th line ready for the playoffs. 

 

Long time reader, first thread so happy to hear feedback about why trade a whole line (or even a duo) is impractical as it’s not happened to my knowledge in the 15 years I’ve been a Canucks fan and following the NHL.

 

PS: I can’t wait for the next time the Canucks get back into a long playoff run and these treads get so active that we need to take over the Florida Panthers boards again to handle the excitement and shear volume of fan engagement.

Now that's thinking outside the box. Never heard of anyone trading a whole line before.  

While on the surface it doesn't seem like a good idea, it would all depend on what's coming back.

My thoughts on 4th liners like we have is that they don't get enough credit both in the media and on the paycheck side.

Has anyone ever won a Stanley cup with a lousy 4th line?    Our whole 4th line is getting paid the same as Dickenson and less than Hamonic for example. Highway robbery I say.

[Angry Goose]

1 hour ago, AriGold said:

Although I don't agree with everything the OP says, I do agree they should be expendable. The ultimate goal is to trade somebody who's value is higher then it has ever been if they're in the bottom 6. You can replace 4th line players.

You can, but these three have proven chemistry, are cost effective and play their role to a tee.  Id go with with that any day of the week over a revolving  door/ineffective 3/4 lines.  Plus they are all PKrs.

 

Focus on moving inefficient contracts that dont push the needle forward.  These guys do.

[AriGold]

34 minutes ago, Angry Goose said:

You can, but these three have proven chemistry, are cost effective and play their role to a tee.  Id go with with that any day of the week over a revolving  door/ineffective 3/4 lines.  Plus they are all PKrs.

 

Focus on moving inefficient contracts that dont push the needle forward.  These guys do.

100% it's all fair with these guys. If we were a team that could really push for it in the next 1-2 years then hang onto them. Unfortunately that's not the case with us if that trade 1 of the big players.

[iceman64]

6 hours ago, Canucksfan829411 said:

As we near the trade deadline I’ve read lots of threads about trading individual players, and some about packaging a player and a pick, or two players together for a higher value asset in return.

 

I wonder whether there might be a playoff bound team that’s dissatisfied with the play of their 4th line as a whole and a GM that would consider trading for the Canucks intact 4th line of Motte/Highmore/Lammikko. We’d take back 2 or 3 players on expiring contracts and equivalent cap hits (or higher) 

and receive higher value picks/prospects overall than if each of the three players were traded individually to different teams. The new team wouldn’t need to worry about the chemistry of their newly acquired players as they already have it, coupled with an identity as a tenacious, hard checking 4th line ready for the playoffs. 

 

Long time reader, first thread so happy to hear feedback about why trade a whole line (or even a duo) is impractical as it’s not happened to my knowledge in the 15 years I’ve been a Canucks fan and following the NHL.

 

PS: I can’t wait for the next time the Canucks get back into a long playoff run and these treads get so active that we need to take over the Florida Panthers boards again to handle the excitement and shear volume of fan engagement.

If your the Canucks and lacking in 3rd pairing D and D as a whole, if your offered D coming back then yes you make that deal but trading F for F isn't 1st on the list. As fracking awesomeness Demko is, he can't hold the fort all by himself forever, he needs help first, toughen up with speed and skill too and then see what happens but even after all that we have to develop depth to get anywhere.

Edited February 27, 2022 by iceman64

[Baggins]

5 hours ago, Canucksfan829411 said:

As we near the trade deadline I’ve read lots of threads about trading individual players, and some about packaging a player and a pick, or two players together for a higher value asset in return.

 

I wonder whether there might be a playoff bound team that’s dissatisfied with the play of their 4th line as a whole and a GM that would consider trading for the Canucks intact 4th line of Motte/Highmore/Lammikko. We’d take back 2 or 3 players on expiring contracts and equivalent cap hits (or higher) 

and receive higher value picks/prospects overall than if each of the three players were traded individually to different teams. The new team wouldn’t need to worry about the chemistry of their newly acquired players as they already have it, coupled with an identity as a tenacious, hard checking 4th line ready for the playoffs. 

 

Long time reader, first thread so happy to hear feedback about why trade a whole line (or even a duo) is impractical as it’s not happened to my knowledge in the 15 years I’ve been a Canucks fan and following the NHL.

 

PS: I can’t wait for the next time the Canucks get back into a long playoff run and these treads get so active that we need to take over the Florida Panthers boards again to handle the excitement and shear volume of fan engagement.

First I doubt there's any team out there looking to replace their entire 4th line. I doubt there's a playoff team that actually wants two of the three. When you have a truly good fourth line, and two of the three are minimum wage RFA's, the only reason to trade any of them at the deadline is you've talked to their agent and the money/term they want is simply unreasonable. If Motte wants more than 2m I'd definitely look at moving him and judge that on the return. I suspect Lam and Highmore will be pretty resonable to re-sign as both were on the verge of being the league and will want sign because they don't have the leverage as lopw level RFA's. Their only option being Europe and the KHL where they won't make more anyway. A reasonable multiyear deal should be fairly easy to attain. Key word there is 'resonable' rather than 'cheap'.

 

At some point you need to keep what's good instead of gambling on futures. Build around what's good. It all comes down to cost versus reward. If you can build a good fourth line with all of them making less than 2m you've got a good bargain going. Then you only move them if something as good, or better, comes up on an entry level contract, or when one demands too much on their next contract. Teams often have a 4th line with a player over 2m or a 4th line that gets minimal ice time because they're just not that good. If you get cheap and good you can roll lines with confidence and you keep it as long as you can. You trade players at the deadline because you don't intend to re-sign them, not for the sake of just doing something. Do you want to help other teams win cups or build around what's good here to move towards winning the cup ourselves? 

 

Ask yourself this: how good would this team be by adding just a good shutdown 3C and solid two way top 4 RD? Think a ride side Hamhuis - decent production and solid defense? Would we look better at both even strength and PK? I don't think this team is as far away as most seem to think now that we have a coach that doesn't play them in such a passive style. If we could wipe away the Green portion of the season we'd be in a playoff spot. Add a good top 4 RD and shutdown center and we could be possibly be viewed as a contender.

[YEGCanuck]

What a novel idea. Not so sure we would receive perceived value in return for such a trade, but love your thinking.

When you watch the playoffs it will be apparent the strenghts of a teams fourth line may very well make the difference between two competitors.

[ShawnAntoski]

Lots of good points and I wonder, how the new crew, will be tweaking the roster.  Finally, a 4th line that can compete and they are all FA's.  

[Type R]

so trade our 4th line for Beagle Roussel and Erickson?