It was good to let Pavs go and keep Karlsson.

WAIT until you all scream. Let me explain.

Strangely enough, I think this has little to do with the two players involved. Yes, really. Actually, I think it was about Burns being 34 (35 at the end of this season). Burns is still a 1st pairing D-man and it's likely he'll be that again next season. So basically, at the time of making that decision, Burns had 2 years left at being a top pairing D-man. Karlsson, being around 30 years old, has probably 5 years left at being a top pairing D-man, 3 after Burns isn't capable of playing in that role. So I think they kept Karlsson to help Burns during the next years. Burns could be a very reliable number 2 D-man until 38 year old playing behind Karlsson. Basically, what I'm trying to say here is that if Burns had been 2 years younger (he'd be 33 at the end of this season, not 35), I think they'd let Karlsson walk. Then again, I'm not too sure, since Pavs is 35 now and already declining.

A lot of you are probably gonna tell me that SJ has Ferraro and Merkley. While it's true that the later will become a solid top 4 D-man in 2 years maybe, but by then Burns will already be 37, and he won't be capable anymore of playing 27 minutes per game. And yes, Chara and Lidstrom were capable of soing that, but they are in the top 5 in Lidstrom's case and top 15 in Chara's case of the best D-men of all time. Burns isn't there, in my opinion at least.

We all know that the Sharks have way too much money locked up in their 3 best d-men (Vlasic is at 7 mil per, Burns at 8 mil and Karlsson at 11,5 per) but I think that Karlsson's deal won't hurt them too much because he'll only be 36 at the end of the contract. Burns will be 40 at the end of his!!! Vlasic will be 39!!

If anything it was giving Vlasic anything over 6 mil per that goes over the age of 37 and Burns anything that goes over the age of 38 the problem, not letting Pavs go and keeping Karlsson.

You might also point out that Pavs was the leader of the team, the heart and soul.

Well, while that is true, the SJS don't lack leadership... Couture, Hertl, Big Joe, Patty (when he came back of course), Burns, Karlsson and Pickle all bring leadership to the team. There are a lot of teams who would kill to have more than 4-5 players bringing leadership to their group.

And if SJ is struggling big time this season is not because of Pavs not being there (as I've already pointed out, he's already declining), it's Jones being a shell of his former self and DeBoer being past his expiration date with the SJS.

Let me know what you guys think about what I think

Anyone who doesn’t agree with this is dumb. EK was the best D man in the NHL and he still is amazing compared to Pavs who’s on pace for like 35 points

Exactly. People keep saying that EK is a shell of his former self (while that isn't completely false, it isn't completely true), but he's still on pace for about 50 points. And while that IS disappointing, we gotta remember that he plays for a bad team with a defensive coach.

The sharks suck right now, we can’t even make the playoffs. EK is an elite passer and right now the sharks aren’t able to do anything with his passes. He’s still one of the better players every night

Does he play with Burns on every PP?

Just about every PP. they are usally on opposite points. Sometimes burns goes off for Labanc though

very good point. EK imo, is still the best offensive defenseman in the league. the whole team is in a bit of a low. BUT, i think in the locker room, they miss pavelski

Yes, they do. But cap wise, having Pavs (on pace for 35 points or so) who's 35 year old at 7 mil per for 3 years is worse than EK's deal

totally agree. it is a business

And the market commands an AAv over 10 mil per for a player like EK... Pietrangelo will get something in that ballbark as well. Unless he chooses to take a hometown discount

Agreed. But still think SJS should trade one of Karlsson or Burns. Need to spread out the damage.

So id argue ek isnt worth the 11.5 million your paying him. Hes good, still real good but considering the make up of the line up was spending 11.5 on him the best thing for the team. Plus jones being bad isnt a new thing. He was bad last year and hes bad now the question is why havent they done something about it.

Sharks paid...probably overpaid to get EK for one year...so to justify the trade they felt they had to resign him so it looked like they actually traded for a player. Doubt if EK is deserving to paid the highest NHL Dman now or in the future.
An awful lot of love going to those San Jose Dman. Believe San Jose has the 7th worse GAA, and the 4th worse goal differential.

Ek, burns, dillon, vlasik are a good top 4 i think the goalies are to blame for alot of it. Getting jones gone is gonna cost them

They needed to trade Burns in the offseason and reason both EK65 AND Donskoi or Nyquist since while I love Pavs, he's 35 and declining (already showed signs of declining last season). Hopefully they're able to do just that.

It was the right move to keep EK65 but they needed to trade Burns, and they need to do so now. Let Nabby work with Jones in the offseason unless some team unlikely teams his contract without the Sharks offering up anything extra in return for taking him.

If I'm being honest, EK65's been one of my fav players (in the top5 with Patty Jumbo Datsyuk Vlasic) since 2011ish, and I'm his #1 fan, but if I were GM, I'd have capped off my max offer to him at 11mil. But then you ask yourself, is it justified to lose out on him over half a mil?

I know im in the minority here but i just dont think hes worth that much. If they want to sign him i get it but having those 3 guys at those ages and prices is risky. Maybe you sign ek and move vlasik or burns to minimize the risk.

id say that those defensie stats are more because of goaltending. Jones has fallen off a cliff