Is Jesperi Kotkaniemi a blue chip C prospect?

[CanadienShark]

“Blue chip” has such a variability in definition from individual to individual. I don’t think that there can only be a certain number of prospect that qualify as blue chip types, since the age at which prospects are groomed to the professional level has decreased as training has been optimized. If a forward prospect can reasonably step into a top-six role or a defenseman into a team’s top-four without skipping a beat, I would say that they qualify for the designation of a blue chip. Most teams, excepting rare, exceptional pipelines, will likely only have, if any, just one real blue chip prospect who can fit into my specific definition, but that doesn’t necessarily mean other people don’t scale their definitions differently.

That being said, I don’t think Kotkaniemi is a blue chip prospect at this moment, but there is a good chance he could be next season.

Interesting take. I largely agree. To go off that, are you suggesting that pre-draft, only a handful of guys are "NHL ready" and thus blue chippers, but as the year goes on and players develop, more may grow into that label?

 

[doomscroll]

Interesting take. I largely agree. To go off that, are you suggesting that pre-draft, only a handful of guys are "NHL ready" and thus blue chippers, but as the year goes on and players develop, more may grow into that label?

Certainly. It deosn’t make any sense to me that a prospect could only be at their most valuable in their draft or D+1 season, but it’s a human reaction for any of us to fall for shiny new toys under the notion that those players will become impact pieces within a year or two of being introduced to an organization. Sometimes a prospect we want to designate “blue chips” and show off to everyone else ought to simply be exhibited on the merits of their game, not by pinholing them into some terminology along with success stories and other popular prospects.

If someone doting on a prospect (specifically a player outside the focal point of the prospect world, i.e. beyond the first couple picks of a draft) decides the player in question is a blue chip, there is either reason to believe that the player under scrutiny has been thoroughly watched and examined for the tenets of their playstyle, and has had their strengths weighed thoughtfully against their weaknesses to the end of landing on nearly unmistakable high-end potential; or that person has simply heard good things about the player, and likes the idea of them being real gud pro.

 

[ijuka]

Alright, with the blue chipper-definitions given, I don't think that Kotkaniemi is one. He has serious question marks and it's unsure if he even makes the NHL. Of course, the chances are still quite good... But so they are for several others. Only Dahlin, Svechnikov I'd have up there.

 

[Yoshidas Island]

How are people voting yes here?

Because everyone has a different definition of Blue Chip.
For me it's about projection. For me he projects as ending up as one of your top 4 forwards on a contending team, therefore I'd classify him as a blue chip.

 

[CanadienShark]

Certainly. It deosn’t make any sense to me that a prospect could only be at their most valuable in their draft or D+1 season, but it’s a human reaction for any of us to fall for shiny new toys under the notion that those players will become impact pieces within a year or two of being introduced to an organization. Sometimes a prospect we want to designate “blue chips” and show off to everyone else ought to simply be exhibited on the merits of their game, not by pinholing them into some terminology along with success stories and other popular prospects.

If someone doting on a prospect (specifically a player outside the focal point of the prospect world, i.e. beyond the first couple picks of a draft) decides the player in question is a blue chip, there is either reason to believe that the player under scrutiny has been thoroughly watched and examined for the tenets of their playstyle, and has had their strengths weighed thoughtfully against their weaknesses to the end of landing on nearly unmistakable high-end potential; or that person has simply heard good things about the player, and likes the idea of them being real gud pro.

Great, thanks. I won't say I disagree, I've just never thought of it like that.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

Because everyone has a different definition of Blue Chip.
For me it's about projection. For me he projects as ending up as one of your top 4 forwards on a contending team, therefore I'd classify him as a blue chip.

If someone's blue chip, there's little to no projection, that's the point.

 

[doomscroll]

If someone's blue chip, there's little to no projection, that's the point.

I agree. The idea of blue chips is better fit for sports where there aren’t so many players at a single position, or where there is top competition on the playing field at nearly all times - sports like football, and baseball. In these leagues, prospects really need to marinate and/or be at least reasonably close to peak physical performance before they can break into the show. In hockey, teams have the option to let young players ease into the league against weaker competition so that they can acclimate and physically mature before facing tougher minutes.

Blue chips, by my definition, often come from other professional leagues or the NCAA, where players have a few years to excel against other professionals and somewhat older players while maturing, such that they become known commodities when they start in the NHL. Filip Forsberg and Joe Pavelski come to mind in that respect, among many others.

 

[Yoshidas Island]

If someone's blue chip, there's little to no projection, that's the point.

You can't tell me that if someone like Svechnikov played in the NHL this year he would have scored 70+ points.
But that's what his projection is. Someone like Scherbak was never a blue chip prospect because you couldn't be confident about projecting him as a Top 6 player, even though he may have some of the same skills as a blue chip prospect.

There aren't any prospects who have reached their absolute peak at 17/18, even Dahlin will progress more.
Dahlin forecasts to be an elite #1D, but if he had played in the NHL this year he wouldn't have been an elite #1D.

 

[The Macho King]

I think a blue-chip is someone who is projected to be an impact player, with a high likelihood of meeting that projection.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

You can't tell me that if someone like Svechnikov played in the NHL this year he would have scored 70+ points.
But that's what his projection is. Someone like Scherbak was never a blue chip prospect because you couldn't be confident about projecting him as a Top 6 player, even though he may have some of the same skills as a blue chip prospect.

There aren't any prospects who have reached their absolute peak at 17/18, even Dahlin will progress more.
Dahlin forecasts to be an elite #1D, but if he had played in the NHL this year he wouldn't have been an elite #1D.

In scouting circles, the term was first used in the NFL. It essentially meant the guy was going to be a plug and play above average starter from Day 1. Obviously in the NHL draft you are dealing with younger prospects so there's less plug and play, but it essentially means the same thing: That the guy is going to be an above average player at his position and that he requires little projection to be that. This is why I don't consider Kotkaniemi as Blue Chip. For myself, the Blue Chip guys for sure are Dahlin, Svechnikov, and Zadina. All 3 are going to be above average players at their position and require little projection to get there. I think the debatable blue chip guys are Tkachuk, Dobson, Bouchard, and Hughes and they represent the next tier. Beyond that, every player in this draft requires at least moderate projection and that includes Kotkaniemi.

 

[Saxon]

Brayden@B_Habs27
Bob McKenzie on his podcast: "If the Montreal Canadiens were to take Kotkaniemi at number 3, this is no longer an off the board pick" Mentions multiple NHL scouts he surveyed have the finnish centre ranked above Zadina/Tkachuk
18:05 - 14 Jun 2018

• 75
• 51 people are talking about this

 

[Captain97]

Brayden@B_Habs27
Bob McKenzie on his podcast: "If the Montreal Canadiens were to take Kotkaniemi at number 3, this is no longer an off the board pick" Mentions multiple NHL scouts he surveyed have the finnish centre ranked above Zadina/Tkachuk
18:05 - 14 Jun 2018

• 75
• 51 people are talking about this

In the same Bobcast, he said several scouts he has spoken with have Zadina outside their top 5.

 

[Mrb1p]

How many centers do you think were better than him going into the draft last year? Probably 4 at least imo:

Hischier / Patrick / Vilardi / Glass

Then it's debatable if where he would have ranked compared to Pettersson / Mittlestadt / Rasmussen. I struggle to see that as a blue chip C prospect.

Pettersson and Mittlestatd are not blue chippers? Necas is another blue chipper. Hes right along that group. His rise came late, consensus dont move quick, but he did and now hes there.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

Pettersson and Mittlestatd are not blue chippers? Necas is another blue chipper. Hes right along that group. His rise came late, consensus dont move quick, but he did and now hes there.

I meant going into the draft. Feel free to add them to the list of Centers that were higher ranked than JK.

 

[Lays]

Never understood the definition of blue chip, I’ve seen it used a lot here but I always thought it meant a prospect who had a very good chance at being a top 6 f/top 4 d/starting goalie.

 

[Lays]

Pettersson and Mittlestatd are not blue chippers? Necas is another blue chipper. Hes right along that group. His rise came late, consensus dont move quick, but he did and now hes there.

Add Chytil as well

 

[93LEAFS]

Define Blue Chip?

If you mean a Blue Chip center prospect you can fully expect to turn into a #1 center like Stamkos, Tavares, Matthews, Eichel? And to a lesser extent MacKinnon, and Seguin? No. I'd say Barkov was also clearly ahead. Followed, by both Strome's, Bennett, Reinhert, RNH, Monahan, E. Lindholm, Draisaitl, Hischier, Ryjo, and Patrick etc.

Now, he could easily end up better than guys viewed ahead of him in time. But, I don't think to expect a number 1 center is realistic. He's closer in value at the draft to guys like Zacha, Barzal, William Nylander, Galchenyuk, Zibanejad, Couturier, etc. Now, a bunch of those guys have or look likely to end up better than the guys listed in the tier above.

Him going 3rd or even being viewed as a consensus top 5 guy isn't unreasonable in this draft. I'd think the main reason to take him at 3 is positional value and the fact he is no less risk at being a #1 C than Dobson, Hughes, Bouchard and Boqvist are of being #1D. So, the real question is, how high do you value a first line winger, which is reasonable to expect with Tkachuk, Zadina and Wahlstrom vs a guy who could develop into a winger or doesn't have a great chance of being a top 20 center in the league (which is what you need to be, to be a legitimate #1 center you are comfortable building around, and not permanently looking for an upgrade).

 

[Saxon]

NHL Prospects Watcher@Prospects_Watch
McKenzie on Kotkaniemi: “Lot of scouts told me during the U18’s, my god, he’s looking like Barkov, he can score, makes plays and can play away from the puck. Who wouldn’t like that?”
9:49 AM - Jun 15, 2018

• 20
• See NHL Prospects Watcher's other Tweets

 

[Saxon]

Never understood the definition of blue chip, I’ve seen it used a lot here but I always thought it meant a prospect who had a very good chance at being a top 6 f/top 4 d/starting goalie.

To me it's someone that projects to be a top line forward, top pairing D or starting goaltender. For example Sergachev was a Blue Chip prospect, even though he was drafted ninth and isn't projected to be a franchise player. Therefore Kotkaniemi is definitely a Blue Chip prospect.

 

[Captain97]

With Bobby Mack saying kotkaniemi has received multiple top 5 nods for this draft from scouts I'd without a doubt say bluechip prospect. Because if a top 5 draft pick isn't blue chip what is?

 

[Breakers]

Pettersson, Strome, Thomas, Necas and maybe Vilardi will all be in the nhl next season.
That would make Kotkaniemi the 2nd best drafted center prospect

Yeah but we aren't taking about then.

We are talking about today.

 

[Meeqs]

The guy is the best C in this draft. He's not the elite of the elite but a good process none the less.

 

[Scuba-Steve]

He is until the Habs draft him - HFboards

 

[ViktorBaeArvidsson]

Well based on how well Montreal developed centers in the past I'm guessing he's in good hands if he's selected by them.

 

[bob27]

He's more of a Mikko Rantanen type winger, no? Didn't play a lot of C in Liiga as far as I can remember.