Blue Chip Prospects: Where do you draw the line?

[Hasbro]

Since this term is bandied about enough here. What is your criteria for a prospect being a blue chipper?

Click to read more...

 

[David A. Rainer]

Potential, and good likelihood of reaching the potential, to be a #1 dman, first line forward, or good starting goalie.

 

[Abyss]

Potential, and good likelihood of reaching the potential, to be a #1 dman, first line forward, or good starting goalie.

hmm, I'd always thought of it being top pairing D-man..

 

[Rand]

A passable chance of being a 1st line forward, or a pretty strong likelyhood of being a 2nd line forward.
A very strong likelyhood of being a top 4 D-Man.
A reasonably good chance of being a starting goaltender.

I view blue chip prospects as excellent prospects, but not necessarily guys that may have elite upside.

Elite prospects are guys that I view as near certain starters and a very strong chance of being top 10 goalies. A very strong likelyhood of being top pairing D-Man, or above average 1st liners.

 

[Dominator13]

just to see what is that line, Kyle Chipchura, is he one?

 

[MikeC]

just to see what is that line, Kyle Chipchura, is he one?

NO

 

[Randall Graves*]

According to this board? a first round pick.

 

[montreal]

just to see what is that line, Kyle Chipchura, is he one?

I consider him one. He's not flashy, doesn't have great offensive upside but he's still a very good hockey player, smart, works hard, does so many of the little things well. He's got NHL written all over him imo.

 

[Dominator13]

I consider him one. He's not flashy, doesn't have great offensive upside but he's still a very good hockey player, smart, works hard, does so many of the little things well. He's got NHL written all over him imo.

sorry MikeC but i take Dan's answer over yours....

 

[David A. Rainer]

just to see what is that line, Kyle Chipchura, is he one?

Nope. A solid third liner with some offensive upside does not constitute blue chip in my book. Each organization probably has three or four of these in their system, making some 90-120 "blue chip" prospects out there. Ouch. Kind of dilutes the definition.

 

[Rand]

just to see what is that line, Kyle Chipchura, is he one?

Not a chance, uspide defines "bluechip" IMHO which pretty much strictly rules out most of the "safe" prospects".
I view Chipchura as pretty much an absolute sure thing to be a solid defensive 3rd liner, I can't foresee him every having much of an offensive impact however.
His odds of being worse then that are roughly equivalent to his odds of being better- near nonexistent.

 

[Habs33]

not sure about the nhl but blue chip from a fantasy stand point is:

fwd= 1st line potential
def= top pairing
goalie= no. 1 goalie.

 

[SOLR]

Nope. A solid third liner with some offensive upside does not constitute blue chip in my book. Each organization probably has three or four of these in their system, making some 90-120 "blue chip" prospects out there. Ouch. Kind of dilutes the definition.

Im not completely with you on that. A 3rd liner seen as a perpetual selke winner is a blue chiper, so in the case of Chipchura, yes he is. He got a very big Selke-type upside that is quite rare.

 

[montreal]

I think there's going to be varying opinions on what is a blue chip prospect. Imo I look more at a teams top prospects to consider them blue chip. I don't have any concern if their upside is 1st line or not (since most teams hopefully don't have 4th liners at the top of their list)

As for using only 1st line forward/top D pairing/good starting goalie as a basis, then the Habs would only have 2 prospects that fit this, Carey Price and Andre Kostitsyn. Frankly I'd consider Chipchura, Latendresse, Emelin, O'Byrne and Grabovsky in addition as bluechip prospects for the Canadiens since I personally view them as the teams top prospects. (excluding Danis since he's already 25)

To me a bluechip prospect is the cream of the crop for each team. Some teams will have more then others. Lots of people will differ on their definition of a blue chip prospect. Frankly I don't recall using the term bluechip prospect much if at all, but if I had to name who I thought were the Habs bluechip prospects, those are the guys I'd name since I feel they are the teams top prospects.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

If Chipchura is considered a blue chip, than the term has lost all meaning.

 

[Lust for Leafs*]

if the person does not have the potential to be a franchise, joe thornton esque player then he is not blue chip

 

[Big McLargehuge]

if the person does not have the potential to be a franchise, joe thornton esque player then he is not blue chip

See...I see those as simply potential franchise players...

I'll use Penguins players here as my thought(max out at 4 examples per term)

Franchise(******)- Players with the potential to carry a team. Ex. Crosby, Malkin
Blue Chip(*****)- Players with the potential to be legitimate first line forwards, first pairing defenders, or All Star calibur goalies. Ex. Fleury, Whitney, Staal
Second Tier(****)- Players with the potential to be top 6 forwards, top 4 defenders, or starting goalies. Ex. Welch, Armstrong, Stone, Sneep
Third Tier(***)- Players with the potential to be top 9 forwards, top 6 defenders, or mediocre starting/good back-up goalies. Ex. Talbot, Letang, Carcillo, Filewich
2 Star(**)- Players with the potential to make it to the NHL, but most likely not stick. Ex. Gifford, Fernholm, Leinonen
1 Star(*)- Players with little to no shot of making the NHL. Ex. Bartschi, Isakov, Peluso

 

[Seph]

Not a chance, uspide defines "bluechip" IMHO which pretty much strictly rules out most of the "safe" prospects".
I view Chipchura as pretty much an absolute sure thing to be a solid defensive 3rd liner, I can't foresee him every having much of an offensive impact however.
His odds of being worse then that are roughly equivalent to his odds of being better- near nonexistent.

As the term was originally coined, it referred to stocks whose value was in their steadiness; they were safe, grew at a consistent rate and were basically a sure thing to pay off. Though they might not have had the same growth potential as more risky stocks, you knew what you were getting. In that sense, Chipchura could be considered a bluechipper.

Another definition is simply an extremely valuable asset. In which case, Chipchura does have value, but probably not to the extent that he would be considered a bluechipper. But then by that definition, someone like say, Chris Pronger, could still be considered a bluechipper.

 

[Kirk- NEHJ]

Kyle Blue-Chipchura?

 

[SOLR]

Kyle Blue-Chipchura?

 

[Squeaky]

As the term was originally coined, it referred to stocks whose value was in their steadiness; they were safe, grew at a consistent rate and were basically a sure thing to pay off. Though they might not have had the same growth potential as more risky stocks, you knew what you were getting. In that sense, Chipchura could be considered a bluechipper.

Another definition is simply an extremely valuable asset. In which case, Chipchura does have value, but probably not to the extent that he would be considered a bluechipper. But then by that definition, someone like say, Chris Pronger, could still be considered a bluechipper.

I think when it comes to prospects, the proper definition should be a combination of the two. A Bluechip prospect is one with a fairly high ceiling, and one that is a sure bet to at least be a good player. Having bluechip just mean something between a franchise player and a good prospect doesn't take the guaranteed return aspect into account.

A good example is a guy like Frolik. He's got an ultra-high ceiling, in that he clearly has the potential to develop into a 1st line player. I wouldn't call him a bluechip prospect though, since he could totally bust. He's an excellent prospect, but not what I would consider a bluechipper.

On the other side is a guy like Toews, who I would consider a bluechip prospect. You know that Toews has the upside to be a fantastic player in the NHL, but even if that doesn't pan out he's expected to at least become a pretty good forward. It's that certainty that he'll turn into something pretty good in the worst case that gives him his blue chip status.

 

[Vincent_TheGreat]

A passable chance of being a 1st line forward, or a pretty strong likelyhood of being a 2nd line forward.
A very strong likelyhood of being a top 4 D-Man.
A reasonably good chance of being a starting goaltender.

I view blue chip prospects as excellent prospects, but not necessarily guys that may have elite upside.

Elite prospects are guys that I view as near certain starters and a very strong chance of being top 10 goalies. A very strong likelyhood of being top pairing D-Man, or above average 1st liners.

I'd agree with that reasoning. If a guy comes along like Crosby, Ovechkin etc.. I call those guys franchise players like Thornton, Lecavalier and Kovalchuk were called. To me Franchise player is more of a sure thing then a Blue chipper.

 

[Lars]

See...I see those as simply potential franchise players...

I'll use Penguins players here as my thought(max out at 4 examples per term)

Franchise(******)- Players with the potential to carry a team. Ex. Crosby, Malkin
Blue Chip(*****)- Players with the potential to be legitimate first line forwards, first pairing defenders, or All Star calibur goalies. Ex. Fleury, Whitney, Staal
Second Tier(****)- Players with the potential to be top 6 forwards, top 4 defenders, or starting goalies. Ex. Welch, Armstrong, Stone, Sneep
Third Tier(***)- Players with the potential to be top 9 forwards, top 6 defenders, or mediocre starting/good back-up goalies. Ex. Talbot, Letang, Carcillo, Filewich
2 Star(**)- Players with the potential to make it to the NHL, but most likely not stick. Ex. Gifford, Fernholm, Leinonen
1 Star(*)- Players with little to no shot of making the NHL. Ex. Bartschi, Isakov, Peluso

Agreed.

 

[BJCOLLINS]

So with this line of reasoning MANY,MANY members of HHOF would never have been considered "blue chip".

 

[zbubble]

Personally, as this is just in terms of prospects and trade value, I've always considered a blue chip prospect to be any guy who you could basically say will have a long and productive NHL career.

To me that always seemed to be the way to differentiate a really good asset who you knew would be a good NHLer vs. a guy you drafted who might toil in the minors, be a 'tweener, or might never get a contract at all.