Prospect Info: Round 3, Pick 95: Denver Barkey, C, London (OHL) ELC signed 3/3/24

[deadhead]

That really isn’t even that small. When he matures he’ll be ~175. You see a ton of players have successful and long careers within that range.

What is it about your obsession with size?

Actually, you don't. Very few players have successful careers under 180 lbs, and almost none under 170.

 

[scumpup]

I dont understand why we have to care about a player not being "tough enough" for the 3rd/4th lines. there is/soon will be enough skill in the league to make 4 scoring lines on every team. If you need tough guys, you put them in net and chuck pucks at them.

Let The Twinks Play.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

I dont understand why we have to care about a player not being "tough enough" for the 3rd/4th lines. there is/soon will be enough skill in the league to make 4 scoring lines on every team. If you need tough guys, you put them in net and chuck pucks at them.

Let The Twinks Play.

 

[deadhead]

I dont understand why we have to care about a player not being "tough enough" for the 3rd/4th lines. there is/soon will be enough skill in the league to make 4 scoring lines on every team. If you need tough guys, you put them in net and chuck pucks at them.

Let The Twinks Play.

No, there won't be, The distribution of skilled people falls off rapidly from elite to very good, slower to good, but the mass of skill players are mediocre.
Now JG can get away with being a smurf, so can Caufield.
But if you don't have elite agility and quickness, smurfs get knocked off the puck, can't win puck battles and so on.
As the league gets faster, having good quickness and agility has less value, because defenders are quicker and more agile.
The Red Queen effect.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

No, there won't be, The distribution of skilled people falls off rapidly from elite to very good, slower to good, but the mass of skill players are mediocre.
Now JG can get away with being a smurf, so can Caufield.
But if you don't have elite agility and quickness, smurfs get knocked off the puck, can't win puck battles and so on.
As the league gets faster, having good quickness and agility has less value, because defenders are quicker and more agile.
The Red Queen effect.

More like the Size Queen effect. Great post.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

That really isn’t even that small. When he matures he’ll be ~175. You see a ton of players have successful and long careers within that range.

What is it about your obsession with size?

The weird obsession that players on the 4th line have to be big, can fight and throw big hits. That’s it, no skill required. That’s how the Flyers think and many in the fanbase think that is fine. Rolling 4 lines that can contribute every night is a good thing. Seattle

 

[Larry44]

I think Barkey may end up being a tweener. Not quite toolsy enough to play at the top of the lineup and too smol to play in the bottom for certain coaches, but this is a fine gamble at the end of the top 100. Smart, good passer, and good defensively.

He's going to end up playing 30 minutes a night for London and flirting with 100 points within the next two years. That doesn't make him a better prospect but it helps to inflate value.

He could still grow an inch or two, which would increase the likelihood they give him a look. Lots of skill and energy, with more strength his speed should pick up too. He'll get good coaching at least, as will Bonkers.

 

[Magua]

I'm in the Barkey might be a tweener camp too, but I legitimately enjoyed the 6-7 playoff games I watched. I'll take that. For an organization lacking good passers, Barkey qualifies. He's not even a flat skater -- he's pretty good on his edges in tight spaces (I care about that more than straight line stuff) -- it's just a bit average holistically. He has a lot of impactful shifts. Is he dynamic enough? He needs more burst. He is a pretty adept puck handler. I feel like a creative team *wrong answer buzzer* could possibly develop him into a non-stereotypical depth player. He's more skilled than Desnoyers to me.

He played every game with Cowan on the other wing, and it seemed apparent why Cowan went in the 1st. He surprised me. I think he looked better than 8 forwards drafted above him, which is also a criticism of those players. But on a junior line, Barkey performed like his equal. That was a fun duo.

He'll get good coaching at least, as will Bonkers.

It's funny but watching a bunch of London games in a row, their defensive schemes looked like total diarrhea. Toe and I had this discussion, but they run an almost chaotically bad man-to-man heavy defense. It's f***ing weird and definitely not an NHL style, which has more hybrid zone. I've seen Bonk on the regular just sitting on a defenseman up high looking confused after a switch. Or passively watching a 1-on-1 below the dots because he was glued to a guy nowhere near a scoring position. It wasn't a Bonk issue.

London is good with forwards, but they don't really have some history of churning out defensemen in the last 15 years. More disappointments, if anything. Bouchard is the best, and a great deal of discussion was about how lackadaisical he was defensively. It's sort of the Knights hallmark: you'll play 35 minutes/game and have a blank check. Mailloux looks like a bleh prospect, but the guy thinks he's Brent Burns because that's just what London does.

 

[Appleyard]

 

[VladDrag]

This is a serious question. How many of those other players were on powerhouse teams? I have no opinion of Barkey, and I haven't watched him play, but the fact that London is scoring about 5 goals per game is not something to dismiss imo.

 

[Jersey Fan 12]

I'm in the Barkey might be a tweener camp too, but I legitimately enjoyed the 6-7 playoff games I watched. I'll take that. For an organization lacking good passers, Barkey qualifies. He's not even a flat skater -- he's pretty good on his edges in tight spaces (I care about that more than straight line stuff) -- it's just a bit average holistically. He has a lot of impactful shifts. Is he dynamic enough? He needs more burst. He is a pretty adept puck handler. I feel like a creative team *wrong answer buzzer* could possibly develop him into a non-stereotypical depth player. He's more skilled than Desnoyers to me.

He played every game with Cowan on the other wing, and it seemed apparent why Cowan went in the 1st. He surprised me. I think he looked better than 8 forwards drafted above him, which is also a criticism of those players. But on a junior line, Barkey performed like his equal. That was a fun duo.



It's funny but watching a bunch of London games in a row, their defensive schemes looked like total diarrhea. Toe and I had this discussion, but they run an almost chaotically bad man-to-man heavy defense. It's f***ing weird and definitely not an NHL style, which has more hybrid zone. I've seen Bonk on the regular just sitting on a defenseman up high looking confused after a switch. Or passively watching a 1-on-1 below the dots because he was glued to a guy nowhere near a scoring position. It wasn't a Bonk issue.

London is good with forwards, but they don't really have some history of churning out defensemen in the last 15 years. More disappointments, if anything. Bouchard is the best, and a great deal of discussion was about how lackadaisical he was defensively. It's sort of the Knights hallmark: you'll play 35 minutes/game and have a blank check. Mailloux looks like a bleh prospect, but the guy thinks he's Brent Burns because that's just what London does.

What's bleh about Logan Mailloux? He's the leading scorer for his AHL team as a 20-year-old.

Throw out the piety and virtue signaling when he was drafted and he'd rightly be considered one of the top d prospects.

 

[FLYguy3911]

Leading scorer at 29 points when his teammate has 42. Interesting.

 

[deadhead]

Barkey is a fine 3rd rd pick, the kind you gamble on.
He's having a great D+1 season, but I'll remain skeptical until he hits a legitimate 175 lbs.
People think Caufield is small, but he was drafted at 5'7 164. Barkey 5'9 155.

The only comparable size wise was Point, 5'10 160 when drafted, but he's one of the fastest players in the NHL (99th percentile in top speed and 22+ bursts) - does Barkey approach him as a skater?

Now if Barkey ends up a sheltered third line LW who can dominate on PP1, it's great value.

 

[Appleyard]

Barkey is a fine 3rd rd pick, the kind you gamble on.
He's having a great D+1 season, but I'll remain skeptical until he hits a legitimate 175 lbs.
People think Caufield is small, but he was drafted at 5'7 164. Barkey 5'9 155.

The only comparable size wise was Point, 5'10 160 when drafted, but he's one of the fastest players in the NHL (99th percentile in top speed and 22+ bursts) - does Barkey approach him as a skater?

Now if Barkey ends up a sheltered third line LW who can dominate on PP1, it's great value.

Firstly... Barkey is not 155lbs and was not when drafted. He has been listed at that for ~2 years now and realistically is probably 165lbs.

He really is not the only comparable size wise in terms of guys who later became top 6 drafted later than should have been... not even the only one from CHL. And if expand past the CHL? Something like 70% of fwd steals are guys who are small in draft year with good numbers.

2006 draft: Brad Marchand, #71 overall (when numbers said should have gone in 2nd)
2006 draft: Mathieu Perreault, #177 overall (when numbers said should have gone in 3rd)
2010 draft: Brendan Gallagher, #147 overall (when numbers said should have gone in 2nd)
2011 draft: Vincent Trocheck, #64 overall (should have gone ~10 picks earlier)
2011 draft: Jean-Gabriel Pageau, #96 overall (when numbers said should have gone in 2nd)
2012 draft: Chandler Stephenson, #77 overall (tbf right around where should have gone)
2013 draft: Oliver Bjorkstrand, #89 overall (when numbers said should have gone in 2nd)
2014 draft: Andrew Mangiapane, Undrafted (when numbers said should have gone in 4th)
2014 draft: Conor Garland, Undrafted (when numbers said should have gone in 2nd-3rd)
2016 draft: Alex DeBincat, #39 overall (when should have gone ~#10)

All these guys were 5'11 and under and ~160lbs in draft year. (yes, even Stephenson who is 6'0 now had a late growth spurt and was 5'9-5'10 in draft year!)

So roughly 1 player out of the CHL a year with such a profile becomes a top 6 NHLer... with more to come. And when look at USHL, Europe etc? Lots more. You are talking 2 guys every draft pretty much on average who end up top 6 NHLers when fell due to size, put up good numbers and are ~5'8-5'11 and ~150-170lbs.

If you want the best chance of getting steals in the draft? These are the guys you draft! (mainly as they are the guys who fall most often because for some reason most GMs are size queens.

and that is JUST top six guys off the top of my head.

Nick Cousins, Matt Calvert, Gabriel Bourque, Jordan Weal, Brendan Leipsic... also around that. (~155-170)

Going from ~160 to 175 is just par for the course for every single ~18-21 year old who is athletic/does sport anyway. Who DOESNT put on 15lbs over that age-range?

 

[deadhead]

He really is not the only comparable size wise in terms of guys who later became top 6 drafted later than should have been... not even the only one from CHL. And if expand past the CHL? Something like 70% of fwd steals are guys who are small in draft year with good numbers.

2006 draft: Brad Marchand, #71 overall (when numbers said should have gone in 2nd)
2006 draft: Mathieu Perreault, #177 overall (when numbers said should have gone in 3rd)
2010 draft: Brendan Gallagher, #147 overall (when numbers said should have gone in 2nd)
2011 draft: Vincent Trocheck, #64 overall (should have gone ~10 picks earlier)
2011 draft: Jean-Gabriel Pageau, #96 overall (when numbers said should have gone in 2nd)
2012 draft: Chandler Stephenson, #77 overall (tbf right around where should have gone)
2013 draft: Anthony Duclair, #80 overall (when numbers said should have gone in 2nd)
2013 draft: Oliver Bjorkstrand, #89 overall (when numbers said should have gone in 2nd)
2016 draft: Alex DeBincat, #39 overall (when should have gone ~#10)

With more to come. And when look at USHL, Europe etc? Lots more.

All these guys were 5'11 and under and ~160lbs in draft year. (yes, even Stephenson who is 6'0 now had a late growth spurt and was 5'9-5'10 in draft year!)

and that is JUST top six guys off the top of my head.

Nick Cousins, Matt Calvert, Gabriel Bourque, Jordan Weal, Brendan Leipsic... also around that. (~150-170)

Going from ~160 to 175 is just par for the course for every single ~18-21 year old who is athletic/does sport anyway. Who DOESNT put on 15lbs over that age-range?

The problem is which guys put on 20 lbs without slowing down?
Some players get faster as they build up their lower bodies, others the opposite - a combination of genetics and training.
Projecting 18 year olds to their 22-23 bodies is difficult, and probably the biggest reason for misses (intangibles are a close second) [MLB giving big bonuses to 15 year olds is crazy]

Combine measurements:
DeBrincat 5'7 165
Caufield 5'7 164
Bjorkstrand 6'0 166
Duclair 5'11 175
Stephenson 5'11 190
Konecny 5'10 175
Brink 5'8 165
hard to get reliable numbers for earlier years.

Barkey is historically small, probably only reason he fell.

My rule of thumb is 1"/5 lbs, so if 6'0 190 is a norm for an offensive forward 5'9 175 would be equivalent in terms of mass/center of gravity (smaller mass is still a disadvantage but lower center of gravity compensates).

 

[FLYguy3911]

Wait weren't we just putting him in the NHL next year?

 

[deadhead]

Bonk and Barkey will almost certainly get a long look in TC.
TK made it at 19.

I think Bonk has a legitimate shot, Barkey would have to come to camp at 170+ and show he belongs - even if he looks great, if he's 165 they probably send him back to the CHL to keep him alive.

 

[Appleyard]

And that is totally ignoring the 1st round guys who were that big at draft in CHL...

Giroux was 5'10 and 169lbs.
Kane was 5'10 and 165lbs.
Marner was 5'10.5 and 160lbs.
Jarvis was 5'10 and 170lbs.
Fabbri was 5'10 and 170lbs.
Ennis was 5'9 and 160lbs.
Ehlers was 5'11 and 162lbs.
Yamamoto was 5'8 and 145lbs.

 

[Appleyard]

The problem is which guys put on 20 lbs without slowing down?
Some players get faster as they build up their lower bodies, others the opposite - a combination of genetics and training.
Projecting 18 year olds to their 22-23 bodies is difficult, and probably the biggest reason for misses (intangibles are a close second) [MLB giving big bonuses to 15 year olds is crazy]

Combine measurements:
DeBrincat 5'7 165
Caufield 5'7 164
Bjorkstrand 6'0 166
Duclair 5'11 175
Stephenson 5'11 190
Konecny 5'10 175
Brink 5'8 165
hard to get reliable numbers for earlier years.

Barkey is historically small, probably only reason he fell.

My rule of thumb is 1"/5 lbs, so if 6'0 190 is a norm for an offensive forward 5'9 175 would be equivalent in terms of mass/center of gravity (smaller mass is still a disadvantage but lower center of gravity compensates).

The biggest reason for misses is pretty consistently NHL teams drafting not based on how good someone is, but drafting because they are 6'1-6'5 and have grit and ignoring that their scoring numbers at a lower level are very mediocre.

The biggest reason for steals is the opposite! Teams putting guys down their lists because they are ~5'8-5'11 despite them producing at a rate that should merit going inside the 2nd round. Still get misses ofc... but they are pretty good bets to be steals in general.

Between age 18-21? Basically every player puts on 20lbs without losing speed... in fact a lot gain it as that weight is in the biggest muscles in the body that are key to skating.

Point was a guy who was considered slow in junior hilariously...

and yeh, I was just looking at CHLers.

Without talking Kucherov, Gaudreau, Keller, Cooley, Kaprizov, Panarin, Bratt, Guentzel, Schwartz, Maccelli, Nyquist, Tolvanen, Zuccarello, Atkinson, Tatar, Cogliano, Kerfoot etc, etc, etc... who at draft were all ~5'9-5'11 and in the ~150-170lbs range.

 

[Appleyard]

I can tell you flat out that from an extreeeemely large sample of CHLers and USHLers (1301 forwards to be precise over 20 drafts)?

Player size does not really negatively impact their chance to be NHLers until get down to 5'8 and under at the time of draft year. But that is a VERY small sample, and probably some selection bias.

But guys who are ~5'9-5'11? They have basically the same chance of being an NHLer as a guy who is 6'0-6'2 with the same production.

 

[BritainStix]

I can tell you flat out that from an extreeeemely large sample of CHLers and USHLers (1301 forwards to be precise over 20 drafts)?

Player size does not really negatively impact their chance to be NHLers until get down to 5'8 and under at the time of draft year. But that is a VERY small sample, and probably some selection bias.

But guys who are ~5'9-5'11? They have basically the same chance of being an NHLer as a guy who is 6'0-6'2 with the same production.

He won't reply. He'll wait until there's at least a page between this comment and his next before spouting the same nonsense about size.

I wish there was a term for boomer hockey opinions.

 

[Appleyard]

He won't reply. He'll wait until there's at least a page between this comment and his next before spouting the same nonsense about size.

I wish there was a term for boomer hockey opinions.

If an NHL team made their entire draft philosophy after the 1st round of just drafting forwards under 6'0 with good stats who fell due to size?

They would get probably 1 top 6 forward on average every year in the ~3rd-7th rounds. Yeh... there would be misses... but they would probably triple their %s in terms of drafting NHLers and top six guys later on in draft.

 

[deadhead]

And that is totally ignoring the 1st round guys who were that big at draft in CHL...

Giroux was 5'10 and 169lbs.
Kane was 5'10 and 165lbs.
Marner was 5'10.5 and 160lbs.
Jarvis was 5'10 and 170lbs.
Fabbri was 5'10 and 170lbs.
Ennis was 5'9 and 160lbs.
Ehlers was 5'11 and 162lbs.
Yamamoto was 5'8 and 145lbs.

Yamamoto was taken at #22 and has had one decent season in six years (2021-22, 16-17 33 ES). He looked like a star in a cameo at 21, 27g 9-15 24, then one full season two years later. Like Kase, his career was derailed by injuries.

Players under 170 lbs at the Combine:
2012: Erik Karlsson 6'0 161, Teravainen 5'11 169
2013: Bjorkstrand 6'0 166
2014: Aho 5'9 165, Ehler 5'11 162, O Kase 6'0 165, Pastrnak 6'0 167
2015: Cirelli 6'0 160
2016: Hronek 6'0 163, Girard 5'9 160, Kyrou 6'0 169, DeBrincat 5'7 165, Keller 5'10 164,
Lindstrom 6'0 165
2017: Joseph 6'2 163, Yamamoto 5'8 146, J Boqvist 5'11 165, Pettersson 6'0 165
2018: A Boqvist 6'0 165, T Madden 5'11 150 (#68, still in AHL at 24), Luke Henman 6'0 150 (#98, out of hockey), Blake McLaughlin 6'0 157 (#79, OOH), Farabee 6'0 162, Merkley 5'11 168
2019: Domenick Fensore 5'8 153 (#90, OOH), Alexander Campbell 5'10 154 (#65 OOH), N Robertson 5'9 162, Brink 5'8 165,

Teams are drafting smaller players, but taking anyone under 160 lbs in the top 100 still seems to be a gamble. One group that is surprisingly successful are 6'0 players between 160-170 lbs, I suspect they have frames that can fill out and wiry strength.

The sweet spot for "smaller" players seems to be 5'7 to 5'9 and 160-170 lbs.

 

[Appleyard]

Yamamoto was taken at #22 and has had one decent season in six years (2021-22, 16-17 33 ES). He looked like a star in a cameo at 21, 27g 9-15 24, then one full season two years later. Like Kase, his career was derailed by injuries.

Players under 170:
2012: Erik Karlsson 6'0 161, Teravainen 5'11 169
2013: Bjorkstrand 6'0 166
2014: Aho 5'9 165, Ehler 5'11 162, O Kase 6'0 165, Pastrnak 6'0 167
2015: Cirelli 6'0 160
2016: Hronek 6'0 163, Girard 5'9 160, Kyrou 6'0 169, DeBrincat 5'7 165, Keller 5'10 164,
Lindstrom 6'0 165
2017: Joseph 6'2 163, Yamamoto 5'8 146, J Boqvist 5'11 165, Pettersson 6'0 165
2018: A Boqvist 6'0 165, T Madden 5'11 150 (#68, still in AHL at 24), Luke Henman 6'0 150 (#98, out of hockey), Blake McLaughlin 6'0 157 (#79, OOH), Farabee 6'0 162, Merkley 5'11 168
2019: Domenick Fensore 5'8 153 (#90, OOH), Alexander Campbell 5'10 154 (#65 OOH), N Robertson 5'9 162, Brink 5'8 165,

Teams are drafting smaller players, but taking anyone under 160 lbs in the top 100 still seems to be a gamble. One group that is surprisingly successful are 6'0 players between 160-170 lbs, I suspect they have frames that can fill out and wiry strength.

The sweet spot for "smaller" players seems to be 5'7 to 5'9 and 160-170 lbs.

I mean, it is not really a gamble stats wise! If teams just ignore the height and weight column and draft on player profile they would be more successful.

I can tell you categorically that the difference between a 5'11 and 6'0 guy with the same stats who is 160-170lbs? Zero in terms of outcome. Just more likely the guy who is an inch smaller will fall and therefore have a better chance of being a steal!

 

[deadhead]

I mean, it is not really a gamble stats wise! If teams just ignore the height and weight column and draft on player profile they would be more successful.

I can tell you categorically that the difference between a 5'11 and 6'0 guy with the same stats who is 160-170lbs? Zero in terms of outcome. Just more likely the guy who is an inch smaller will fall and therefore have a better chance of being a steal!

It's the outliers that are the bigger gambles, at both ends of the spectrum.
6'6 and taller players have a long history of being overdrafted.
5'7 to 5'9 have been underdrafted historically, but that has changed, especially the ones with top level speed.

Barkey is an outlier however, 155 lbs is really light, so how he fills out his frame will probably determine his future - there just aren't a lot of comparables, and those don't bode well. He lacks elite speed, so like Brink, he has to be able to operate in dirty areas to make plays.