Burns is 37 in March, and a hilarious liability defensivly. If anyone gives up a 1st for 3.5 years of even just 5 milion dollars of that is in for a bad time

What evidence (statistical or visual) would you provide to backup that claim? Really bizarre claim. He's less than half a decade removed from top norris voting.

No question Norris voters value traditional defense

Karlsson would have 5+ if not 🏆

well, for one he's never been a great defensive player, he was just so good at scoring it didnt matter (and lots of people use points as a huge consideration for voting). Now he still scores ok, but his defence is even worse and he's very deep into falling off a cliff territory and getting even worse.
As far as evidence, well he's been a 49% chance/shot negative relatives player for three years running and getting worse every year.
As far as Karlsson goes, he got absolutly jobbed out of a norris or three, especially the year Doughty won. And to add to that, Norris (and other vote to win) awards need to always be given massive context, when you give the decision on who wins to guys like Steve Simmons, Damien Cox and a host of local homer sports writers you arnt getting an unbiased vote, the best example is in 02 when Iginla should have easily won the Hart, but then for 'some reason' a montreal based voter left iggy off the ballot entirely so theodore won.

man if Weisblatt, Robins, Coe and Kniazev aren’t NHL ready by this time then we have developmental issues

Look at the Sharks team in general the last 3 years. Major injuries, turnover, and the result is he's logged more minutes. You may be missing more pieces of the puzzle.

except that i pointed out relative numbers. As in he was bad relative to the team mates who he was playing with. So, if you're using turnover, injuries whatever as a reason it just makes him look worse.

If he's playing almost half the game, his stats are going to be worse long term. He's out there spending more time against better lines.

He was drafted as a RW, lets not forget.