Doubt if Seattle wants Burns. Seattle isn't going to take "the best players", otherwise they will drafting 31 players at average cap hit of 4m or 124m total . Sorry, every "homer" on this site thinks Seattle is gonna take their high priced contract.
Seattle will gladly draft from San Jose a 1m player and then spend 7m on a UFA rather than draft Burns.

Can't see Seattle taking Burns. Too big contract, too big risk.

One of Gambrell, True or Balcers would make more sense from a rebuild team's standpoint. At least these contracts wouldn't turn out negative ones, hindering them for the foreseeable future.

True or Balcers would be the pick. Too many teams are 'helping' Seattle get to the floor. Getting to 48+ mil in the draft will be easy....

I should add that compensation for taking him is an option as well. Not sure what it would take but picks/prospects could be involved. And don't get me wrong, Burns' contract isn't good but he's nowhere near as bad as most of this site makes him out to be. Nowhere near as bad as Jones/Vlasic. If deployed in the right, he could still be more than serviceable for the rest of his contract. Guy still has elite durability and hands.

Burns is a 36 year old $4M offensive D. But he costs twice that much. For 5 years. That is too much. I would keep out of those sweepstakes. As a compensation, players like Gambrell and Balcers are worth nothing.

Alone as the singular pick they're still almost valueless, but even a zero is better than a huge minus.

That's how i see it anyway.

That's a valid viewpoint for sure. I would still say Burns is more than a 4 million dollar player, at least at the moment. You have a point about contract length although it'll only be 4 years in length after the expansion draft. So he may very well be way below his pay grade in 2-3 years. But just from watching him on a nightly basis I don't think he's really as bad as people make him out to be.