Bluechippers

  • Thread starter MontrealCruiser_83*
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Jay Thompson said:
Incorrect. It's not a matter of debate. Bluechip has always meant 'surefire NHL'er' or as close as you can get to it.

You're 100% INCORRECT there.

Bluechip most certain doesn't mean 'surefire NHLer', it means a star prospect who's very likely to make it to NHL and have star-player potential.

Auld most certainly isn't a bluechipper and same can be said for several players in this thread.

I'm bored so I'll make a list of NHL's bluechippers (based on HF info):

Ana: Perry, Getzlaf (borderline/future bluechippers: Smid, Ryan)
Atl: Lehtonen, Coburn
Bos: Toivonen
Buf: Vanek
Cal: Phaneuf
Car: Ward (borderline/future bluechippers: Ladd, Johnson)
Chi: Barker (borderline/future bluechippers: Seabrook)
Col: -
Clb: Zherdev (borderline/future bluechippers: Brule)
Dal: - (borderline/future bluechippers: Daley)
Det: Kronwall
Edm: Schremp
Flo: Horton, Olesz (borderline/future bluechippers: Stewart, Krajicek)
Los: Brown (borderline/future bluechippers: Cammaleri, Grebeshkov)
Min: O'Sullivan (borderline/future bluechippers: Pouliot)
Mon: Perezhogin, Kostitsyn
Nsh: Suter (borderline/future bluechippers: Weber, Radulov)
NJ: Parise
Nyr: Tyutin (borderline/future bluechippers: Lundqvist)
Nyi: (borderline/future bluechippers: Nokelainen, Nilsson)
Ott: (borderline/future bluechippers: Vermette)
Phi: Carter (borderline/future bluechippers: Richards)
Pho: (borderline/future bluechippers: LeNevue)
Pit: Crosby, Malkin, Fleury (borderline/future bluechippers: Whitney)
SJ: Michalek (borderline/future bluechippers: Ehrhoff)
Stl: -
Tam: -
Tor: -
Van: (borderline/future bluechippers: Kesler)
Wsh: Ovechkin, Semin (borderline/future bluechippers: Fehr)
 
Last edited:

HOCKEY_GURU

Registered User
Jun 27, 2002
661
0
Visit site
I have to side with the definition of a blue chipper meaning surfire and somewhat elite, on any given year out of a draft only 5 or so players are considered blue chippers (by scouts and media), players like sydney crosby ,Ovechkin, Malkin Etc, even players like Kopitar..who I think will be an elite NHL 'er are not considered blue chip..in fact theyre considered as risky picks, Vanek as well was considered risky... when he was drafted some said he could be a star others said he could be the next brendl, thas not a blue chipper, now with the more info we have perhaps we can say that he is.
fron the 2005 draft In my opinion id say the blue chippers are possibly Crosby & Johnson(good package maybe not spectacular upside),
Brule and Ryan - depending on how picky you want to be, great upside
Pouliot and kopitar i think will be stars but some risk so not necessarily blue chippers but ill take them in my pool anyday ahead of johnson.
 

Squeaky

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
3,196
0
Toronto
Bluechip has always meant something of high value. I have neevr heard anyone say it just means they're going to make the NHL. For example, if it just means that they're for sure going to make the NHL, I can list you maybe 10-15 goons who are bluechip prospects. That's insane. The way I like to think of it, is a blue chip prospect is one of those prospects your team is thrilled to have, and wouldn't consider trading under normal circumstances.

For Montreal: Perezhogin is the only one I would say for sure. Price is close, as are Higgins and Kostitsyn.
 

B Boarding

Registered User
Feb 26, 2005
1,055
70
Stockholm, Sweden
Nik Kronwall will be a dominant force in Detroit already this year, so he is a sure bluechipper. Besides Crosby and Ovechin it's not many others that you surely can say that about...
 

pooler99

Registered User
Sep 28, 2002
665
0
Krynn
Visit site
Squeaky said:
Bluechip has always meant something of high value. I have neevr heard anyone say it just means they're going to make the NHL. For example, if it just means that they're for sure going to make the NHL, I can list you maybe 10-15 goons who are bluechip prospects. That's insane. The way I like to think of it, is a blue chip prospect is one of those prospects your team is thrilled to have, and wouldn't consider trading under normal circumstances.

For Montreal: Perezhogin is the only one I would say for sure. Price is close, as are Higgins and Kostitsyn.

You are wrong bluechip is not of high value.....it is of low risk (AKA a bluechip auction) so bluechippers are players that will make the NHL (even if they don't make a significant impact...) so based on this definition, this term doesn't apply to a lot of players i'm not even sure if it apply to hockey cause every players have a propapility of busting...I would be tempted to determine a bluechip prospect ones that have the cote A by HF staff standards
 

Squeaky

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
3,196
0
Toronto
pooler99 said:
You are wrong bluechip is not of high value.....it is of low risk (AKA a bluechip auction) so bluechippers are players that will make the NHL (even if they don't make a significant impact...) so based on this definition, this term doesn't apply to a lot of players i'm not even sure if it apply to hockey cause every players have a propapility of busting...I would be tempted to determine a bluechip prospect ones that have the cote A by HF staff standards

Bluechip stocks trade at high prices because they are low risk. But they still trade at high prices. A prospect with a 6A rating is simply not a bluechip prospect. A 9c also wouldn't be a true bliuechip prospect. High value is definately implicit in the term bluechip.
 

Gags1288

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,359
0
Visit site
Mike Richards is definately a blue chip prospect. The more I see him play, the more I think he's going to be better then Carter. His offensive game is extremely underrated and the rest of his game, well I don't think there's a prospect out there who combines defense, hitting, grit, determination, and PK ability like Mike Richards.
 

pooler99

Registered User
Sep 28, 2002
665
0
Krynn
Visit site
Squeaky said:
Bluechip stocks trade at high prices because they are low risk. But they still trade at high prices. A prospect with a 6A rating is simply not a bluechip prospect. A 9c also wouldn't be a true bliuechip prospect. High value is definately implicit in the term bluechip.

there seems to be a lot of definition to the term of bluechip anyway as we both agree it does not apply to a lot of hockey prospects
 

craig1

Registered User
Nov 1, 2002
4,207
0
Pittsburgh, PA
Visit site
Squeaky said:
Bluechip stocks trade at high prices because they are low risk. But they still trade at high prices. A prospect with a 6A rating is simply not a bluechip prospect. A 9c also wouldn't be a true bliuechip prospect. High value is definately implicit in the term bluechip.
Take the price part out and insert favorable P/E and Div Yield and it would fit better. We'll just leave it at Bluechip stocks are Large Cap Corporations with strong fundamentals and solid, relatively predictable Risk Adjusted Returns.
 

MontrealCruiser_83*

Guest
Since I started the thread... I might aswell give my team by team list:
Ana: Perry, Getzlaf, Smid
Atl: Lehtonen, Coburn
Bos: Toivonen
Buf: Vanek
Cal: Phaneuf
Car: Ward, Johnson
Chi: Barker, Seabrook
Col: Wolski
Clb: Zherdev, Brule
Dal:
Det: Kronwall
Edm: Schremp
Flo: Horton, Olesz
Los: Brown
Min: O'Sullivan, Pouliot
Mon: Perezhogin, Higgins
Nsh: Suter
NJ: Parise, Zajac (This guy will be the talk of HF if he improves on his freshman season)
Nyr: Tyutin, Lundqvist
Nyi:
Ott: Meszaros
Phi: Carter, Richards
Pho:
Pit: Crosby, Malkin
SJ: Michalek
Stl:
Tam:
Tor:
Van:
Wsh: Ovechkin, Semin

My overall definition is a prospect who's most likely going to step in and get top-6 minutes in his first major NHL stint and who probably look back from then on.

A low risk top-6 forward or top-2 d-man. The younger the player is also makes a difference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Vic Rattlehead*

Guest
Skroob said:
ANA: Ryan, Getzlaf
ATL: Lethonen
BOS:
BUF: Vanek
CGY:Phaneuf
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.


Wow, you forgot one of the top prospects in the league in Toivonen.
 

craig1

Registered User
Nov 1, 2002
4,207
0
Pittsburgh, PA
Visit site
MontrealCruiser_83 said:
Since I started the thread... I might aswell give my team by team list:
Ana: Perry, Getzlaf, Smid
Atl: Lehtonen, Coburn
Bos: Toivonen
Buf: Vanek
Cal: Phaneuf
Car: Ward, Johnson
Chi: Barker, Seabrook
Col: Wolski
Clb: Zherdev, Brule
Dal:
Det: Kronwall
Edm: Schremp
Flo: Horton, Olesz
Los: Brown
Min: O'Sullivan, Pouliot
Mon: Perezhogin, Higgins
Nsh: Suter
NJ: Parise, Zajac (This guy will be the talk of HF if he improves on his freshman season)
Nyr: Tyutin, Lundqvist
Nyi:
Ott: Meszaros
Phi: Carter, Richards
Pho:
Pit: Crosby, Malkin
SJ: Michalek
Stl:
Tam:
Tor:
Van:
Wsh: Ovechkin, Semin

My overall definition is a prospect who's most likely going to step in and get top-6 minutes in his first major NHL stint and who probably look back from then on.

A low risk top-6 forward or top-2 d-man. The younger the player is also makes a difference.
You forgot MAF. He's definately on the list.
 

Ajacied

Stay strong Appie! ❤
Apr 6, 2002
25,136
911
Netherlands
The Stars have zero, zilch, nada..

The Stars strenght isn't their top end talent, but their depth, especially at defense.
 

Wolfpack

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
1,036
0
I have always thought of the term "blue chip" a bit differently. In my estimation a blue chip prospect is not necessarily limited to a top, high-end, first line talent. In many cases it CAN be (Crosby, Ovechkin,) but it is also a player who is not only likely to make the NHL but a player could be looked at as a cornerstone of the franchise.

For example, not too many project Parise to be a first line centre, but I would consider him to be a blue chip prospect because I could foresee him as a key player for many years with NJ. Not necessarily their top scorer, but a key player none the less. Mike Richards is another example I can think of. So to me, a blue chip prospect is a player who, no matter what line they play on, has a minimum potential of being a key player for his NHL team over a long period of time.

Also, it is so much ealier to predict blue chip forwards than any other position, because d-men and goalies don't tend to hit their stride until about their mid-20's.
 

Mizral

Registered User
Sep 20, 2002
18,187
2
Earth, MW
Visit site
pooler99 said:
You are wrong bluechip is not of high value.....it is of low risk (AKA a bluechip auction) so bluechippers are players that will make the NHL (even if they don't make a significant impact...) so based on this definition, this term doesn't apply to a lot of players i'm not even sure if it apply to hockey cause every players have a propapility of busting...I would be tempted to determine a bluechip prospect ones that have the cote A by HF staff standards

Hey, I already told 'em, they don't want to listen. ;)

Check out any of the THN yearbooks. Their definition is the same as mine: prospects almost certain to make the NHL. This could mean older prospects who have spent some time in college and are ready to step up, or younger guys with huge potential. Doesn't matter.

IE: Marc-Andre Fleury is a bluechip prospect. But so is Eric Nystrom.
 

David Singleton

Registered User
Jun 23, 2005
1,802
141
Dickson, TN
Pepper said:
You're 100% INCORRECT there.

Bluechip most certain doesn't mean 'surefire NHLer', it means a star prospect who's very likely to make it to NHL and have star-player potential.

Auld most certainly isn't a bluechipper and same can be said for several players in this thread.

I'm bored so I'll make a list of NHL's bluechippers (based on HF info):

Ana: Perry, Getzlaf (borderline/future bluechippers: Smid, Ryan)
Atl: Lehtonen, Coburn
Bos: Toivonen
Buf: Vanek
Cal: Phaneuf
Car: Ward (borderline/future bluechippers: Ladd, Johnson)
Chi: Barker (borderline/future bluechippers: Seabrook)
Col: -
Clb: Zherdev (borderline/future bluechippers: Brule)
Dal: - (borderline/future bluechippers: Daley)
Det: Kronwall
Edm: Schremp
Flo: Horton, Olesz (borderline/future bluechippers: Stewart, Krajicek)
Los: Brown (borderline/future bluechippers: Cammaleri, Grebeshkov)
Min: O'Sullivan (borderline/future bluechippers: Pouliot)
Mon: Perezhogin, Kostitsyn
Nsh: Suter (borderline/future bluechippers: Weber, Radulov)
NJ: Parise
Nyr: Tyutin (borderline/future bluechippers: Lundqvist)
Nyi: (borderline/future bluechippers: Nokelainen, Nilsson)
Ott: (borderline/future bluechippers: Vermette)
Phi: Carter (borderline/future bluechippers: Richards)
Pho: (borderline/future bluechippers: LeNevue)
Pit: Crosby, Malkin, Fleury (borderline/future bluechippers: Whitney)
SJ: Michalek (borderline/future bluechippers: Ehrhoff)
Stl: -
Tam: -
Tor: -
Van: (borderline/future bluechippers: Kesler)
Wsh: Ovechkin, Semin (borderline/future bluechippers: Fehr)


As for Nashville, this appears to be fairly close. Parent might be added next year, but it's too soon for that now. I probably would consider both Weber and Radulov as full-scale bluechippers considering how well both are doing in camp and preseason (Radulov's first game is tonight). The only player that could be a top six forward (outside of Radulov of course) in their system is Simon Gamache.

David
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Gags1288 said:
Mike Richards is definately a blue chip prospect. The more I see him play, the more I think he's going to be better then Carter. His offensive game is extremely underrated and the rest of his game, well I don't think there's a prospect out there who combines defense, hitting, grit, determination, and PK ability like Mike Richards.

While I'm not sure Richards has Carter's upside, I agree very much that he belongs in any discussion of "blue chip" prospects and should be a very good player in the NHL. Perhaps not quite an "elite" player, but every bit as good as an early/mid-90s Rod Brind'Amour with even better intangibles.
 

MrMastodonFarm*

Registered User
Jul 5, 2004
6,207
0
Bluechip prospect are those propects that are elite top of the class type guys. The term is being thrown around way too loosey goosey around here. Hell, the actual definition of bluechip means "extremely valuable". That leads me to beleive when saying bluechip prospect we should only be talking about the elite guys.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
LaVal said:
In the NHL, "bluechip" has always meant a player that is almost certain to make the NHL regardless of their top end potential.

Not by anybody who actually understood the meaning of the term.

Blue chip has *always* meant the best of the best, the rare gem scattered amongst the common. In stocks, that rarity is expressed in safety and stability, leading to the best performance, whereas in prospects, it's upside that leads to the best performance.

A safe and secure prospect like Kesler is *not* a blue chipper.
 

FlaPanthers7

Registered User
May 31, 2002
4,632
0
Denver, CO
Visit site
Florida: Horts and Olesz with maybe Krajicek slipping in, but I don't really consider him "blue chip"

IMO anyone who isn't an expected top line guy isn't a blue chip player.
 

Hasbro

Family Friend
Sponsor
Apr 1, 2004
52,415
16,383
South Rectangle
MrMastodonFarm said:
Bluechip prospect are those propects that are elite top of the class type guys. The term is being thrown around way too loosey goosey around here. Hell, the actual definition of bluechip means "extremely valuable". That leads me to beleive when saying bluechip prospect we should only be talking about the elite guys.
Well in that case it's alot like the Wall Street term.
 

Bruins4Ever

Registered User
Sep 12, 2004
5,247
0
Caledonia, Ontario
Toivonen is the only Bruins blue chipper.

The solid prospects are:

Mark Stuart
Matt Lashoff
Brad Boyes

Right now, those are our best prospects, and I think all can make an impact in the NHL.
 

The Mars Volchenkov

Registered User
Mar 31, 2002
49,604
3,421
Colorado
I think Meszaros would be the Sens bluechipper. He was highly rated before the draft but dropped for some reason. He came to North America and had a great first year. Now, he's in Sens training camp making a very good case to play for the big team, as high as the #5 role.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->