Yep, just like when you put a blue chip on the table, you can't ever lose it because it's ''locked in.''
2018 NHL Entry Draft Thread (Less then 24 Hours Edition)
- Thread starter montreal
- Start date
- Status
Yep, just like when you put a blue chip on the table, you can't ever lose it because it's ''locked in.''
Andrei79
Registered User
- Jan 25, 2013
- 15,244
- 27,206
NotProks been explaining it very thoroughly up to now. But no, the value's not "locked in", such a term doesn't make sense when taking about events like the draft where 100% probability is unattainable. It's a realistic chance to attain a high level of play, based on different skills/previous results that do hold high value.
Bro, we should take Daigle, he's ''locked in.'' ''Sure bet.'' You know, like those special blue chips you can't lose at the poker table.
WeThreeKings
Habs cup - its in the BAG
Blue chips are more talented and better physically than white chips but white chips are more dynamic.
Andrei79
Registered User
- Jan 25, 2013
- 15,244
- 27,206
You can't beat the passion of a white chip.
They play the white way.
I'm not saying they're more valuable... but they could be one day.
DramaticGloveSave
Voice of Reason
- Apr 17, 2017
- 14,643
- 13,357
Andrei79
Registered User
- Jan 25, 2013
- 15,244
- 27,206
You should do a Zadina vs Svechnikov one.
The other two this year only favored Svechnikov 90-10% (Interestingly, like the scouts Bob McKenzie polled).
That next one probably won't be closed again, since Zadina's arguably the better prospect, especially head to head.
WeThreeKings
Habs cup - its in the BAG
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
What are the question marks towards Zadina, Wahlstrom, Dobson? I would consider them bluechippers as well. Pre-draft anyways.
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
Wouldn't this create confusion..... Habs are going to take Kotkaniemi with the 3rd pick but the Canes draft Zadina. Then what? I wonder what we could get if we trade down with the Wings? I bet you the phone lines get full pretty quick. Habs would be smart to have discussions on this situation with several GM's now to feel them out on certain circumstances.
I know it's a obvious move for most of you... take Svechnikov. However, I really do think we need to find a way to get that potential #1C grade A prospect at center in this draft. So, I'd be working real hard to get a trade done with the Oilers 10th pick+ for Patch+. Do what it takes. Then we take either Svechnikov or Zadina and cross your fingers Kotkaniemi is available at 10. If not, take Hayton or Veleno. Upside is not the same as Kot but I rather have one of Hayton or Veleno than neither.
I know it's a obvious move for most of you... take Svechnikov. However, I really do think we need to find a way to get that potential #1C grade A prospect at center in this draft. So, I'd be working real hard to get a trade done with the Oilers 10th pick+ for Patch+. Do what it takes. Then we take either Svechnikov or Zadina and cross your fingers Kotkaniemi is available at 10. If not, take Hayton or Veleno. Upside is not the same as Kot but I rather have one of Hayton or Veleno than neither.
Fozz
Registered User
5 weeks, actually.
Doesn't change the essence of the comment. Why would he want to leave his team to participate in an irrelevant tournement?
So would we. Not sure about DGS, he'll be right back with the results of an hf poll lmao.
The Great Weal
Phil's Pizza
- Jan 15, 2015
- 52,717
- 65,843
MrNasty
Registered User
I just read close to three pages of guys debating what a blue chip is. The draft can't come soon enough!
Not really a debate. It was just someone being wrong about something, and being corrected.
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Kotkaniemi wont be there at 10, hes going to go super early like Hampus Lindholm in his draft year, out of the blue. Their rise are really similar, actually and it bodes well for Kotkaniemi.
MrNasty
Registered User
If we do take Kotk at 3 and assume we sign a centre in the offseason; I could see us having too many centres in a couple years if all 3 of Poehling, Evans and Vejdemo make the NHL. Those 4 second round picks need to BPA available no matter what the position.
Yoshidas Island
TY for the memories Yosh :'(
- Jan 2, 2015
- 2,703
- 665
*This is all my opinion, feel free to disagree*
I'm not one to argue with anyone on this board as most of the time I feel as though people have solid logic behind their opinion, even if I don't agree. But I think that a blue chip prospect should be defined that if their projection stays on course, they'll be a Top 4 Forward, Top 3 D, Starting Goalie. (For a Stanley Cup Playoff Team)
Most of the players you take in the Top 10 are on course to reach one of those 3 areas, therefore I'd classify them as blue chip.
Sergachev was a blue chip because his project at the time was a 50 point+ Offensive D, which would put him at a #3 at least.
Poehling wasn't a blue chip, because he was likely going to be your 5th, 6th or 7th best forward. Now he's improved to the point where I'd say his projection is now 4th, 5th,6th. (Still not truly a blue chip).
Kotkaniemi's current projection (IMO), has him as a Top 6 forward, something like the 2nd, 3rd or 4th best forward. That's Blue Chip
It isn't a matter of question marks, it's a matter of projection.
Elias Petterson has one major question mark (size), but as of now his projection is to be a top line player, hence he's a blue chip prospect.
Someone like Martin Kaut isn't a blue chip prospect, because he's likely going to be the 4th, 5th or 6th best player on your team. That's not a true blue chip. If his progression continues, he very well could be a blue chip this time next year, but as of now he's at the door looking in.
Blue chip certainly can be used subjectively, but I think the general consensus is that it's about projection, rather than being safe.
Also a side note: The Kotkaniemi poll won't solve the debate, because there are some people who think Kotkaniemi is the 8th-15th best prospect in the draft, so to them he's likely to be the 4th/5th/6th best player on a team... Which again isn't a true blue chip.
I'm not one to argue with anyone on this board as most of the time I feel as though people have solid logic behind their opinion, even if I don't agree. But I think that a blue chip prospect should be defined that if their projection stays on course, they'll be a Top 4 Forward, Top 3 D, Starting Goalie. (For a Stanley Cup Playoff Team)
Most of the players you take in the Top 10 are on course to reach one of those 3 areas, therefore I'd classify them as blue chip.
Sergachev was a blue chip because his project at the time was a 50 point+ Offensive D, which would put him at a #3 at least.
Poehling wasn't a blue chip, because he was likely going to be your 5th, 6th or 7th best forward. Now he's improved to the point where I'd say his projection is now 4th, 5th,6th. (Still not truly a blue chip).
Kotkaniemi's current projection (IMO), has him as a Top 6 forward, something like the 2nd, 3rd or 4th best forward. That's Blue Chip
It isn't a matter of question marks, it's a matter of projection.
Elias Petterson has one major question mark (size), but as of now his projection is to be a top line player, hence he's a blue chip prospect.
Someone like Martin Kaut isn't a blue chip prospect, because he's likely going to be the 4th, 5th or 6th best player on your team. That's not a true blue chip. If his progression continues, he very well could be a blue chip this time next year, but as of now he's at the door looking in.
Blue chip certainly can be used subjectively, but I think the general consensus is that it's about projection, rather than being safe.
Also a side note: The Kotkaniemi poll won't solve the debate, because there are some people who think Kotkaniemi is the 8th-15th best prospect in the draft, so to them he's likely to be the 4th/5th/6th best player on a team... Which again isn't a true blue chip.
Evans and Vejdemo are still pretty big ifs - even Poehling to a certain extent isn't a lock- and centers can always play wing, Tampa had like 5 centers in their top 9 at some point.
MrNasty
Registered User
This is probably a bonehead question but is it unfathomable for Merkley to transition to being a winger?
Everyone loves his offensive potential, hates his defensive potential and thinks he has an attitude problem. Maybe he just needs to be a lazy goal scoring winger
Everyone loves his offensive potential, hates his defensive potential and thinks he has an attitude problem. Maybe he just needs to be a lazy goal scoring winger
MrNasty
Registered User
Good point. It is easier to play a center on the wing than to try to make a winger a centre. We have experience with that.
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Its possible if a team wants it, and if he wants it. Hughes and Merkley are two players that would absolutely thrive as wingers.
- Status
