Bluechippers

[WVP]

Incorrect. It's not a matter of debate. Bluechip has always meant 'surefire NHL'er' or as close as you can get to it.

I totally disagree. Craig's definition is correct: a prospect who's almost guaranteed to be a superstar at the next level. Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, Lehtonen, Phaneuf, MAF, Suter, Zherdev, etc... Colby Armstrong (just an example) is guaranteed to make the NHL, but he's no blue chip prospect.

Unless hockey has a totally different, lame standard for blue chip prospects. Blue chip prospects are the best of the best, at least that's the standard for every other sport. Just making the league isn't that big of a deal.

 

[WVP]

By Jay's definition, their is 1 or 2 max per team.

I know the Pens are an exception, but c'mon. Guaranteed to make the NHL is a rather weak definition.

Crosby
Malkin
Fleury
Whitney
Talbot
Welch
Armstrong
Bissonnette
Chiodo (he's already played in the NHL)
Stone

I'm sure Washington, Chicago, Nashville and LA have more than 1 or 2 players that are definitely going to play in the NHL. Blue chip means 'the best of the best.'

 

[Captain Conservative]

Bluechip means almost certain to make the NHL, whether it be a plugger or superstar.

Completely disagree. By that logic Boyd Gordon is a bluechipper and he is simply not a bluechip prospect. Kesler, a better prospect than Gordon, is still not a bluechipper. For me, the edge of bluechip status is a guy like Alex Steen. Almost a lock for a 2nd line role in the future, with the upside to be a 1st liner.

 

[AnThGrt]

If we just naming good prospects now LA:
Brown
Gleason
Tambelleni
Kopitar
Grebeshkov
Tukonen
Boyle
Cammalleri

 

[WVP]

If we just naming good prospects now LA:.....

I know you're not the brightest tool in the shed from you're previous posts, but 'naming good prospects' wasn't my point. Although, I feel that most, if not all of the names you listed will definitely play in the NHL. Tambelleni and Boyle being the question marks.

 

[Pizza]

Jesus Christ, theres maybe 20-25 Blue chip prospects in the entire NHL, so why is everyone claiming their team has like 4 or 5???

I can't speak for other teams, but for the Rangers the ones I'd consider "Blue Chip" are:

1. Fedor Tyutin, D

2. Henrik Lundqvist, G

3. Alvaro Montoya, G

4. Marc Staal, D

 

[Bryanbryoil]

Blue-chippers for the Oilers...

These players IMO have top line or #1 Goalie Potential for the Oilers...

#1-Rob Schremp C/Rw
#2-Andrew Cogliano C
#3-Devan Dubnyk G

 

[Hasbro]

AVS dont have all red chippers (whatever that means)

Blue Chip:
Svatos (if not injured then he can be great)
Woliski (alot of potential)
Budaj (Scouts say that he has the potential to be better the Abei)
T.J. Hensick (Alot of upside to this guy)

Not Blue chip but can be:
Richardson (great season in OHL, if he keeps it up he can play NHL in 1-2 years)
Stoa
Macias (Very fast 3rd ranked skater in draft, can play LW)
Durand

Red chipper is below a blue chipper.

I'd rank Wolski, Svatos, Stoa, Stastny, Fritsche, Durand, Hensick, Richardson and Budaj in that category.

 

[AnThGrt]

I know you're not the brightest tool in the shed from you're previous posts, but 'naming good prospects' wasn't my point. Although, I feel that most, if not all of the names you listed will definitely play in the NHL. Tambelleni and Boyle being the question marks.

Apparently its the other way around i was being sarcastic.... Everyone was posting like that so i was making fun of them - Boyle yes has question marks but amazing upside and Tambs will be on the team next year almost all but guaranteed

 

[King'sPawn]

If we just naming good prospects now LA:
Brown
Gleason
Tambelleni
Kopitar
Grebeshkov
Tukonen
Boyle
Cammalleri

And out of that list, I'd only have Kopitar, Gleason, and Brown as candidates for blue chip (by my standards). The fact that blue-chip is being defined as anyone with absolute certainty of making the NHL is, in my opinion, laughable.

 

[WVP]

The fact that blue-chip is being defined as anyone with absolute certainty of making the NHL is, in my opinion, laughable.

I agree 100%.

 

[shveik]

As long as the definition of a blue chipper is "guaranteed to make the NHL", no goaltending prospect qualifies IMO.

 

[Skroob*]

I can't speak for other teams, but for the Rangers the ones I'd consider "Blue Chip" are:

1. Fedor Tyutin, D

2. Henrik Lundqvist, G

3. Alvaro Montoya, G

4. Marc Staal, D

No, our only one from that group would be Lundqvist. Staal and Tyutin could turn out well, #2 and #3 guys, but i dont see either of them as #1 anchors on a D-corps. Montoya i think too will be a solid NHL goalie, but not at the Level that Lundqvist will be.

Bluechips are players you look to build a team around. 3 out of 4 of those guys, which all should be very valuable assets to any team, arent guys you look to build for.

For now, we have one Bluechip. this time next year, Kessel/Frolov will be or second.

 

[McDeepika]

well when you have 4 first round picks in the last 3 drafts you may have 4 bluechippers...i.e. Anaheim with Getzlaf, Perry, Smid, Ryan.

I don't think Getzlaf or Perry are blue chippers. To me a blue chipper is a prospect that has a good chance to become elite. The Oiler only have 1 prospect that even resembles a blue chipper and that is Schremp, and he probally isn't even in that category. By some defenitions on this board then Matt Greene, Schremp, Yan Stasny are all blue chippers. Yan Stasny will make the NHL but does not do the word Blue Chipper justice.

 

[Bluesman]

The only way blue chipper means guaranteed to make it into the NHL is because they are such a dynamic talent, not because "He'll be a serviceable checking line player".

I agree about there being relatively few blue chippers. Personally I'd say the only one the Wild has is Pouliet.

 

[Skroob*]

ANA: Ryan, Getzlaf
ATL: Lethonen
BOS:
BUF: Vanek
CGYhaneuf
CHI: Barker
CBJ:Zherdev
COL:
DAL:
DET:
EDM:Schremp
FLA: Horton
LA:
MIN:
MTL: Kostsitsyn
NSH: Suter
NJ:
NYI:
NYR: Lundqvist
OTT:
PHI: Carter
PHO:
PIT: Crosby, Malkin, MAF
SJ:
STL:
TB:
TOR:
WSH: Ovechkin, Semin
VAN:


There can be some wiggle-room, but these are the guys that are Bluechippers. That doesnt mean that others wont become stars, but thses are the ones most likely to.

edit: heres a little litmus test:

If you could see your prospect being traded for anything less than one of the other players on the above list (and the other team would agree to it, ie: fair trade), then they are not a bluechipper.

 

[McSorley 33]

And out of that list, I'd only have Kopitar, Gleason, and Brown as candidates for blue chip (by my standards). The fact that blue-chip is being defined as anyone with absolute certainty of making the NHL is, in my opinion, laughable.

Why is Denis G. not considered a Blue Chip. I think he would be.

 

[McSorley 33]

I know you're not the brightest tool in the shed from you're previous posts, but 'naming good prospects' wasn't my point. Although, I feel that most, if not all of the names you listed will definitely play in the NHL. Tambelleni and Boyle being the question marks.

Hey their, "smart guy", what's with the name calling you big man you...Nothing wrong with being excited about one's propects over hyped or not.

Kings have great propects even you smart guy, wouldn't deny that, would you?

 

[McSorley 33]

I don't think Getzlaf or Perry are blue chippers. To me a blue chipper is a prospect that has a good chance to become elite. The Oiler only have 1 prospect that even resembles a blue chipper and that is Schremp, and he probally isn't even in that category. By some defenitions on this board then Matt Greene, Schremp, Yan Stasny are all blue chippers. Yan Stasny will make the NHL but does not do the word Blue Chipper justice.

Dude, thats crazy, Perry and Getzlaf will dominate in the NHL in a few years. These two are certainly, "BLUE CHIP" propects. Just my opinion....

 

[jfont]

for the kings, if one considers jay thompson's definition, then they have about 8-10 blue chippers...if we go by craig's definition, the kings would have........8-10 blue chippers...


LOL!

 

[stu the grim reaper]

in the movie BLUECHIP shaq was among the bluechips prospects, so i think the player should have the same value as shaq when he was young

 

[stu the grim reaper]

vanek

vanek is a perfect standard

i think having tangible skill has something to do with it

 

[benji]

MTL: Kostsitsyn


.

I'm a Habs fan and I love Kostitsyn but you definitely cannot call him a bluechipper by your definition. Perezhogin would fit right in with the other names. Higgins would also be considered a more sure-fire NHL player than Kostitsyn at this point.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Hey their, "smart guy", what's with the name calling you big man you...Nothing wrong with being excited about one's propects over hyped or not.

Kings have great propects even you smart guy, wouldn't deny that, would you?

I don't think the Kings have any blue-chippers. Maybe Kopitar, but the others don't qualify IMO. The Kings have one of the best group of prospects in the NHL, but thats not because of their top end prospects (like Crosby, Malkin for Pittsburgh and Ovechkin, Semin for Washington), but more about their amazing depth. They have at least 10-11 players who look like locks to play in the NHL though.

 

[King'sPawn]

Why is Denis G. not considered a Blue Chip. I think he would be.

At this point, Grebeshkov hasn't shown that he has a very good chance of being an impact player for the Kings. He has high upside... but so does Boyle. High upside doesn't equate to bluechip, in my opinion.