Confirmed with Link: [VAN/MTL] Canucks acquire G Casey DeSmith for F Tanner Pearson, 3rd Round Pick

[Nick Lang]

2nd chances are great! Look at Mike Babcock!

Have you considered...there are people that haven't assaulted anyone? Perhaps you could give a chance to a player that hasn't done that!

Like it or not, your past actions affect you. If they were bad, and other people want to judge you for it, well, it's your fault.

IMO it's a good thing. In the past, these kinds of transgressions would have been buried. It's good people can find out about them and make their own judgement, with all the information available.

I have. Yeah sure I guess that's fair if that's how we want to do it as a society, as long as it's applied fairly to everyone and carried out as such. I suppose DeSmith should never be allowed to work again anywhere in that case. It does seem kind of harsh. Do we just banish everyone from society that's ever done anything wrong in that case? Put them on an island or just purge them altogether. Really sounds like people are putting themselves on a shrine here.

What about the people that do horrible things but don't get caught? Then I guess that's alright. I would imagine there are many people holding significant positions which would be ousted immediately if their darkest truths were known. This method seems totally arbitrary and poor at deciding the quality of one human vs another in my opinion.

I know I'am probably wrong for whatever I think. I'm not claiming to know the answers I'm just getting tired of constantly reading about cancelling people everyday on a hockey site. I would go to a social reform site if I wanted to discuss that. I have enough trouble worrying about my own life without curating other people's social responsibilities.

 

[biturbo19]

i think a good example would be Burrows. He is obviously a top line winger for us but he didn't really produce at a top line clip. I assume whatever ranking @bossram has will probably id Burrows as a middle 6 player and that would just be wrong.
Miki worked well as a 1st line winger last season for 19 games and the rest of the games he played on the 2nd line with Miller and Bo and also contributed to those lines and at the end of the day, he produced at a 50ish point clip with a busted ACL and had positive possession impact on the top 2 lines. So based on that, he is obviously a top6 players based on his usage, production and impact.

Yeah. I think it's fair to say that in terms of 5v5 play, Mikheyev looks like a pretty clear "Top-6 Winger". Whether his relative lack of powerplay prowess knocks him down a peg, i guess you can argue that aspect of what makes a real clear cut "Top-6 Forward". But for me, his productivity combined with the benefit his speed and defensive acumen brings, and his proven ability to play very well with more skilled players in a positive complementary manner puts him in that conversation.

Though i hesitate a little bit, in that i'm not sure he's got the juice to truly drive a Top-6 line as the "go to guy" necessarily.

Nope. You'd be wrong again.

As I said in my post above, I'd use a simple xGAR/60 list as a base for tiering/ranking.

By this metric, Burrows was 41st in 2011, well into first line caliber territory. He was also rated very highly by this metric in 2010, and was just on the edge of 1st/2nd range in 2012.

In my own personal opinion, I'd probably have to downgrade him from where the model ranks him.

What does Burrows xGAR/60 tell us...before he started playing with the Sedins?

I think that's one area where i see some potential limitations in what you're basing this all on. Before he was bumped up to play with the Sedins are had his real offensive "breakout"...would this metric have called him a "Top-6 Forward"? Or a "Middle-6" guy? What does it have to say about early Mason Raymond years?

How does your model handle a guy like Beauvillier? With and without Pettersson? What does that make him?

It just seems an inherently "backward looking" process, rather than a truly predictive measure.

 

[krutovsdonut]

In the case of CDS, he was arrested, given multiple charges (including resisting arrest), and entered a plea deal. I have no personal opinion on CDS in 2023, but the information here is pretty cut and dry.

The bigger issue, as we see more and more now, is that it was very easy to bury this stuff and get away with it in the past (e.g. celebrities and the metoo movement). No, I do not believe online "rage mobs" and "cancel culture" (as an aside, it's hard to take anyone seriously who talks about cancel culture non-ironically) is a bigger problem than, y'know, actual abuses and assault.

disagree. not cut and dry at all. what "stuff" are you talking about? i mean why are we talking about this at all?

the answer is it was and is only newsworthy at all because he was accused of assaulting his ex-gf. a simple drunk and disorderly conviction leading to a $124 fine is not "stuff" that gets reported and follows you arround and get brought up and discussed a decade later.

so the fact he was convicted of disorderly conduct is not "stuff".

the question is what happened to the assaulting his gf allegations?

the evidence i can see is that the prosecutor never proceeded with assault charges. you can draw some inferences from that as to the strength of the actual evidence that he assaulted her.

the evidence i can see is that the school disciplinary hearing process then actually cleared him of the assault charges after a hearing with evidence. in that hearing people apparently said he never hit the ex-gf. you can draw some inferences from that as to the strength of the actual evidence that he assaulted to her.

so the "stuff" that made this newsworthy in the first place may have never amounted to charges proceeding and was dismissed in a student disciplinary hearing.

so as far i can see there is nothing for him to to "get away with". so not cut and dry. yet here we are still discussing it.

 

[MS]

I have. Yeah sure I guess that's fair if that's how we want to do it as a society, as long as it's applied fairly to everyone and carried out as such. I suppose DeSmith should never be allowed to work again anywhere in that case. It does seem kind of harsh. Do we just banish everyone from society that's ever done anything wrong in that case? Put them on an island or just purge them altogether. Really sounds like people are putting themselves on a shrine here.

What about the people that do horrible things but don't get caught? Then I guess that's alright. I would imagine there are many people holding significant positions which would be ousted immediately if their darkest truths were known. This method seems totally arbitrary and poor at deciding the quality of one human vs another in my opinion.

I know I'am probably wrong for whatever I think. I'm not claiming to know the answers I'm just getting tired of constantly reading about cancelling people everyday on a hockey site. I would go to a social reform site if I wanted to discuss that. I have enough trouble worrying about my own life without curating other people's social responsibilities.

There are things that merit cancelling. If a guy is a serial rapist? Yup.

But cancelling people over decade-old one-off drunken incidents (of which the details are very cloudy) is just over the top nonsense.

The whole point of a justice system is that you do your time and if you learn from your mistakes and improve you can go on with your life and are welcomed back into productive society. I seriously question the humanity of people who want people to suffer forever for mistakes made in their teens or early 20s.

 

[bossram]

I have. Yeah sure I guess that's fair if that's how we want to do it as a society, as long as it's applied fairly to everyone and carried out as such. I suppose DeSmith should never be allowed to work again anywhere in that case. It does seem kind of harsh. Do we just banish everyone from society that's ever done anything wrong in that case? Put them on an island or just purge them altogether. Really sounds like people are putting themselves on a shrine here.

What about the people that do horrible things but don't get caught? Then I guess that's alright. I would imagine there are many people holding significant positions which would be ousted immediately if their darkest truths were known. This method seems totally arbitrary and poor at deciding the quality of one human vs another in my opinion.

I know I'am probably wrong for whatever I think. I'm not claiming to know the answers I'm just getting tired of constantly reading about cancelling people everyday on a hockey site. I would go to a social reform site if I wanted to discuss that. I have enough trouble worrying about my own life without curating other people's social responsibilities.

1. I never said CDS should be chased out of the league. If you want to falsely attribute things to me, then that's on you. In a separate post, I said have no personal opinion on him in 2023. What I'm saying is, if people want to judge him for his past actions, that's their right. CDS assaulted someone, was arrested and charged for it, and took a plea deal. Whatever judgement people cast on him, well, it's his fault.

2. Again, in another post in this thread, I expanded my thoughts further. Obviously it's not good if people get away with this stuff. Which is why I said in another post that social media exposing these things is good, because in the past it was way too easy to bury and hide it.

3. CDS isn't "cancelled" my guy. He's under contract in the NHL. I can assure you that actual assault and abuse is a way bigger issue than "cancel culture".

4. Once again, people who want to give 2nd chances to others can totally do that if they want. They can also choose to give 1st or 2nd or 3rd chances to people that haven't assaulted someone else.

There are things that merit cancelling. If a guy is a serial rapist? Yup.

But cancelling people over decade-old one-off drunken incidents (of which the details are very cloudy) is just over the top nonsense.

The whole point of a justice system is that you do your time and if you learn from your mistakes and improve you can go on with your life and are welcomed back into productive society. I seriously question the humanity of people who want people to suffer forever for mistakes made in their teens or early 20s.

Bro, CDS ain't cancelled man.

 

[bossram]

It just seems an inherently "backward looking" process, rather than a truly predictive measure.

When did I say it was predictive? Was anyone classifying Burrows as a top-six forward in 2007, when he had 9 points? What typology was doing that?

 

[bossram]

disagree. not cut and dry at all. what "stuff" are you talking about? i mean why are we talking about this at all?

the answer is it was and is only newsworthy at all because he was accused of assaulting his ex-gf. a simple drunk and disorderly conviction leading to a $124 fine is not "stuff" that gets reported and follows you arround and get brought up and discussed a decade later.

so the fact he was convicted of disorderly conduct is not "stuff".

the question is what happened to the assaulting his gf allegations?

the evidence i can see is that the prosecutor never proceeded with assault charges. you can draw some inferences from that as to the strength of the actual evidence that he assaulted her.

the evidence i can see is that the school disciplinary hearing process then actually cleared him of the assault charges after a hearing with evidence. in that hearing people apparently said he never hit the ex-gf. you can draw some inferences from that as to the strength of the actual evidence that he assaulted to her.

so the "stuff" that made this newsworthy in the first place may have never amounted to charges proceeding and was dismissed in a student disciplinary hearing.

so as far i can see there is nothing for him to to "get away with". so not cut and dry. yet here we are still discussing it.

I can easily flip your information the other way around: Why didn't he go to trial if the evidence was in his favour? Why did he accept a conviction and plea deal? You can draw some inferences from that as to strength of the actual evidence in his favour.

He was arrested, charged, and had a plea deal. I'm not saying he is a bad guy today. I am saying that those things, objectively, are what happened. I have no opinion on this other he said-she said stuff you brought up.

 

[MS]

Bro, CDS ain't cancelled man.

He obviously isn't but there are clearly a few people here that would be happy if he was.

 

[bossram]

He obviously isn't but there are clearly a few people here that would be happy if he was.

Then I don't get the "cancel culture and the rage mob is so bad" narrative, with regard to CDS. He isn't cancelled. A small number of people don't like him. You could say the same of nearly any NHLer.

If the argument is, "absolutely no one should be allowed to criticize CDS", well, I don't agree but at least that makes more sense with what actually happened, given he was able to continue his career and wasn't cancelled.

 

[MS]

Then I don't get the "cancel culture and the rage mob is so bad" narrative, with regard to CDS. He isn't cancelled. A small number of people don't like him. You could say the same of nearly any NHLer.

If the argument is, "absolutely no one should be allowed to criticize CDS", well, I don't agree but at least that makes more sense with what actually happened, given he was able to continue his career and wasn't cancelled.

The fact that something is a minority opinion doesn’t mean we aren’t allowed to make a post disagreeing with it on this board.

People have been critical of the acquisition because of this and feel we shouldn’t have touched this player. I think it’s ridiculous.

 

[bossram]

The fact that something is a minority opinion doesn’t mean we aren’t allowed to make a post disagreeing with it on this board.

People have been critical of the acquisition because of this and feel we shouldn’t have touched this player. I think it’s ridiculous.

Absolutely you can criticize people with that view as well.

But the narrative was that the "rage mob" and "cancel culture" is going too far with regard to CDS. I don't see this as a credible argument, given that he has carried on with his NHL career just fine.

 

[I am toxic]

in this news article on december 6, 2014 they report he had admitted assaulting her in court and then pled guilty to a misdemeanour disorderly conduct charge and paid a $124 and took probation. they also report a second charge of disorderly conduct being dropped but make no mention of an assault charge.

Ex-UNH goalie agrees to diversion agreement DeSmith to receive counseling, avoids jail

DOVER — Casey DeSmith, 23, the former goalie for the UNH men's hockey team, will have to undergo drug and alcohol counseling and complete community service in order to avoid jail time for assaulting …

www.fosters.com

it's highly likely the story is wrong. it is unlikely if not impossible he admitted the higher offence of assault in open court as reported that he was not even charged with, nor would he be required to do so in order to plead to disorderly conduct. in fact, if he did admit to an assault in court then he would have been convicted of assault by the judge.

then on december 15th the article you quote appears headlined that he tells his side of the story. in the article he accuses the media of misreporting the facts but the reporter does not explain what he means.

Former New Hampshire goalie DeSmith tells his side of arrest, dismissal from team - College Hockey | USCHO.com

Dismissed from the New Hampshire hockey team recently, senior goaltender Casey DeSmith recently spoke to the Concord Monitor about his dismissal from the

www.uscho.com

that article was mostly taken from a written statement de smith made which another paper reported in full. in it you will see that de smith in particular was mad about the cecemeber 6th story and considering legal action about how badly the first story was written.

Former UNH goalie Casey DeSmith comments on media coverage of his arrest and suspension from UNH

Text of a press release provided by the parents of Casey DeSmith. ROCHESTER – Casey DeSmith, who had been the

www.concordmonitor.com

this part of the written statement adds detail to a disciplinary hearing at the school where he was cleared:

"During the hearing, DeSmith presented two detailed statements that included evidence which called into question allegations that had been made against him, including an allegation that he had caused physical harm to another student, his former girlfriend. That evidence showed that a) she showed no sign whatsoever of having been struck and was completely uninjured, b) she gave wildly different accounts of what had happened that night to police, c) neither of her descriptions of what happened agreed with first-hand accounts provided to police by eyewitnesses, and d) a teammate, Wildcats captain Matt Willows, stated that she later told him that DeSmith had not, in fact, struck her."

and here's another story indicating he was cleared after the disciplinary hearing by the school.

DeSmith Signs Pro Contract After NCAA Declines Waiver

Former New Hampshire goaltender Casey DeSmith signed with the Wheeling Nailers last week, the ECHL affiliate of the Pittsburgh Penguins, after the NCAA denied him a transfer waiver to play his senior ...

www.collegehockeynews.com

"According to the Concord Monitor this past December, DeSmith was immediately suspended by the University following the incident, which involved a former girlfriend, but that suspension was ended in November after a disciplinary hearing, which found that statements had varied, among other evidence, which also included no evidence of physical harm and other eyewitness statements that DeSmith did not do anything physical during the incident, according to the report.

The board found that DeSmith was not responsible for causing physical harm and was allowed to re-enter the University as a student in good standing the following semester."

so bottom line. he plead guilty only to disorderly conduct, denied assaulting anyone, and was acquitted of assaulting his gf after a discplinary hearing by the school.

what he actually did i have no idea. maybe somebody can dig further. but i'd be pretty cautious trusting these badly written news stories and judging him on it.

Despite the Board finding based on evidence presented by DeSmith's camp, the UNH hockey team refused to reinstate him, citing the hockey program as having a "higher standard".

Whether the NCAA denied his waiver to attend another college on a technicality or were doing the same, I have no idea.

Anyone who works with plea agreements knows how much more serious offences - that are costly and more difficult if not impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt - are downplayed into minor pleas.


Beyond any reasonable doubt, he certainly denies assaulting his ex, on that we can all agree. And that the pro hockey leagues including the ECHL and NHL have a lower standard than the UNH hockey program.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

2nd chances are great! Look at Mike Babcock!

Have you considered...there are people that haven't assaulted anyone? Perhaps you could give a chance to a player that hasn't done that!

Like it or not, your past actions affect you. If they were bad, and other people want to judge you for it, well, it's your fault.

IMO it's a good thing. In the past, these kinds of transgressions would have been buried. It's good people can find out about them and make their own judgement, with all the information available.


@arttk's definition of a 2nd or liner was even more vague. A ranking is very clear if you have a metric to rank them by.

Whereas the definition of a 2nd or 3rd liner that has been given to me is a tautology: It's someone that can play on a 2nd or 3rd line!

Anecdotal example of Babcock aside, I'm as leftist as they come and I think that one place that some fellow leftists find folly is with the endless purity testing and the inability to welcome people back into the fold after mistakes (assuming it's followed by reflection and earnest improvement).

What you're suggesting seems a lot like discarding people who make terrible or stupid mistakes. If you leave people no recourse for redemption, it gives them no reason to redeem themselves other than their own moral compass which, given the circumstances, probably needs a helping hand.

We can have accountability AND forgiveness.

Otherwise what's the recourse (again, assuming earnest attempts to learn and be better)? Kill them? have a caste system of those who have never erred above those who have? Who gets to define what makes someone unredeemable?

 

[Nick Lang]

There are things that merit cancelling. If a guy is a serial rapist? Yup.

But cancelling people over decade-old one-off drunken incidents (of which the details are very cloudy) is just over the top nonsense.

The whole point of a justice system is that you do your time and if you learn from your mistakes and improve you can go on with your life and are welcomed back into productive society. I seriously question the humanity of people who want people to suffer forever for mistakes made in their teens or early 20s.

I couldn't agree more. If I'am going to be spending considerable time with a person I would like to know the very character of that person perhaps. I don't want to know and judge the gray area moral issues of tertiary people in my life. Especially every transgression a person has had long in the past. The minutia would be unbearable.

In this case he's been judged and sentenced already and paid his penance. Does it really require the whole world's attention?

 

[bossram]

Anecdotal example of Babcock aside, I'm as leftist as they come and I think that one place that some fellow leftists find folly is with the endless purity testing and the inability to welcome people back into the fold after mistakes (assuming it's followed by reflection and earnest improvement).

What you're suggesting seems a lot like discarding people who make terrible or stupid mistakes. If you leave people no recourse for redemption, it gives them no reason to redeem themselves other than their own moral compass which, given the circumstances, probably needs a helping hand.

We can have accountability AND forgiveness.

Otherwise what's the recourse (again, assuming earnest attempts to learn and be better)? Kill them? have a caste system of those who have never erred above those who have? Who gets to define what makes someone unredeemable?

I've expanded on this elsewhere in the thread already: I have no real opinion on CDS in 2023. But the objective facts are that he was booked, charged, and entered into a plea deal. If people want to judge him for this later in life, that's their right. If people want to give him a 2nd chance., sure, they can.

But there are also others that have never assaulted anyone that never received their 1st chance either.

CDS isn't cancelled. He is very smoothly carrying on his NHL career. To me, this counter narrative saying that it's the cancel culture and "rage bait" crowd that is too dangerous just isn't credible. He isn't cancelled my guy. People are discussing his past, as they would with many other public figures.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

I've expanded on this elsewhere in the thread already: I have no real opinion on CDS in 2023. But the objective facts are that he was booked, charged, and entered into a plea deal. If people want to judge him for this later in life, that's their right. If people want to give him a 2nd chance., sure, they can.

But there are also others that have never assaulted anyone that never received their 1st chance either.

CDS isn't cancelled. He is very smoothly carrying on his NHL career. To me, this counter narrative saying that it's the cancel culture and "rage bait" crowd that is too dangerous just isn't credible. He isn't cancelled my guy. People are discussing his past, as they would with many other public figures.

I mean, the NHL is a meritocracy (for the most part). I've never been charged with assault but I've also never played goalie. I'm not holding my breath for the phone to ring.

And this whole, "if people want to judge them for this, that's their right' thing seems like you're backing off your point without actually conceding it.

Like yes, people are allowed to think what they want. Some people think that certain races are inferior, it's a heinous views but it is their 'right' to hold it as long as they don't act on it.

I feel like the argument was more about SHOULD we hold this view or not. Do we believe in redemption? Etc.

Not 'people can believe what they want' which is so banal as to not really require being mentioned.

Also, in another post you lamented feeling lumped in with others on a point you didn't hold.

I have seen you respond to me and others with 'he's not cancelled my guy' as if all of the people taking issue with what you said are arguing about cancellation, etc. Most of us aren't suggesting he's been 'cancelled'.

 

[bossram]

I mean, the NHL is a meritocracy (for the most part). I've never been charged with assault but I've also never played goalie. I'm not holding my breath for the phone to ring.

And this whole, "if people want to judge them for this, that's their right' thing seems like you're backing off your point without actually conceding it.

Like yes, people are allowed to think what they want. Some people think that certain races are inferior, it's a heinous views but it is their 'right' to hold it as long as they don't act on it.

I feel like the argument was more about SHOULD we hold this view or not. Do we believe in redemption? Etc.

Not 'people can believe what they want' which is so banal as to not really require being mentioned.

Also, in another post you lamented feeling lumped in with others on a point you didn't hold.

I have seen you respond to me and others with 'he's not cancelled my guy' as if all of the people taking issue with what you said are arguing about cancellation, etc. Most of us aren't suggesting he's been 'cancelled'.

The argument you're trying to say: That it should be beyond the pale for anyone to personally believe he should not have an NHL career based on his past actions.

That is not my opinion. But yes, people should be allowed to have that opinion. Apparently that is not a banal thing to say, because there are folks in this thread (I can't tell if this is you or not) who do think no one else should be allowed to have this opinion, and that "cancel culture" or whatever is going too far in this instance - despite CDS clearly not being cancelled.

I think we both agree that racist views are disgusting. To me, it's pretty insulting that you'd equate these views.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I can easily flip your information the other way around: Why didn't he go to trial if the evidence was in his favour? Why did he accept a conviction and plea deal? You can draw some inferences from that as to strength of the actual evidence in his favour.

He was arrested, charged, and had a plea deal. I'm not saying he is a bad guy today. I am saying that those things, objectively, are what happened. I have no opinion on this other he said-she said stuff you brought up.

the only inference i can draw from the plea he took is that there was actual evidence strong enough to convict him of being drunk and disorderly.

i don't think you can infer anything else from him pleading to that especially when he was cleared in a disciplinary hearing of other charges when the standard of proof needed to prove those charges against him would be lower than a criminal court.

according to the news story he pled to a ticket citation, and not even a misdemeanour. so he paid a small fine and took a diversion program so that even that charge was expunged after a year of good behaviour.

lots of other things might have happened, but i don't see any evidence they did.

 

[arttk]

2nd chances are great! Look at Mike Babcock!

Not sure what point you are trying to make here, we should never give anyone a 2nd chance because some of them will never learn their lesson? Is it just to punish people for the sins of others?

 

[Aphid Attraction]

There are things that merit cancelling. If a guy is a serial rapist? Yup.

But cancelling people over decade-old one-off drunken incidents (of which the details are very cloudy) is just over the top nonsense.

The whole point of a justice system is that you do your time and if you learn from your mistakes and improve you can go on with your life and are welcomed back into productive society. I seriously question the humanity of people who want people to suffer forever for mistakes made in their teens or early 20s.

Can I add that part of the justice system is also to take people away from society in order to protect others and potentially themselves from harm.

I don’t mean to discredit anything you are saying because I think you are bang on with this topic.

 

[Petey But Really Jim]

Our owner is a way bigger scumbag than Casey DeSmith ever could be. Cheer the logo, cheer Aquilini. So why not give CDS a shot?

 

[Intangibos]

Plea deals are always fair and when someone takes one you just know for SURE they're guilty. Me? When I see someone takes a plea deal, I recognize the reality that they're just GETTING OFF EASY, so I make sure to do my part to give them the punishment they deserve after the fact.

My strength of character and strong ethics continuing to make the world a better and more accepting place. Click the like button if you are also a certified good person and do the same.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

There are things that merit cancelling. If a guy is a serial rapist? Yup.

But cancelling people over decade-old one-off drunken incidents (of which the details are very cloudy) is just over the top nonsense.

The whole point of a justice system is that you do your time and if you learn from your mistakes and improve you can go on with your life and are welcomed back into productive society. I seriously question the humanity of people who want people to suffer forever for mistakes made in their teens or early 20s.

Yeah.

There needs to be a 'way back' from idiotic and to a certain degree immoral acts.

There needs to be a path to redemption.

 

[Zippgunn]

Watch them trade Silovs next. Watch him turn into Arturs Irbe Version 2.0 immediately afterwards...

 

[biturbo19]

Watch them trade Silovs next. Watch him turn into Arturs Irbe Version 2.0 immediately afterwards...

Why on earth would they do that? And why would that cause Silovs to shrink so much???