Klefbom isn’t without his warts. Especially if he’s being played insane mins with a mediocre partner. And certainly none that are as good as bear.
But the same would absolutely be said of nurse if he was playing those mins. In fact, He was last year and the team was a fuking tire fire. Not all causality of course. But definitely a correlation.
- HB77
The problem I have with this argument is your framing.
Yes, Nurse was effectively playing top pairing minutes last season and the team was a tire fire. Do you know who else was playing effectively top pairing minutes on that tire fire team last year? Klefbom. He saw 23:59/gm while Nurse saw 23:49/gm. Pretty much identical and one played largely with a struggling Larsson while the other played with a typical Russell.
As stated in my write-up, Edmonton under Todd and Ken deployed their top-2 pairings against the best opposition at very comparable rates, they both played almost 24 minutes a night and both were fixtures on special teams. Docking either of them for not facing 39%+ of their time against the best opponents goes both ways. Either both of them played top pairing last year and deserve equal shares of blame for the "tire fire" or neither did/does.
Nurse doesn’t move the puck nearly well enough to be considered our best defender. And not only is that extremely important in today’s game, but it’s paramount when u have a weapon like mcdavid that essentially can’t be stopped if given the puck in stride with a step on defender. klefbom can do that. And one can even say it’s important when u have weak forwards Cause they can’t break traps by carrying the puck over multiple lines.
He certainly doesn't pass as well as Klefbom does, but he's twice the puck carrier which makes me think that's part of why he's so much more effective than Klefbom when away from Connor (by 8.2% in goal share over 3 years).
Considering your argument is oriented around Klefbom's passing being so much more important to the team's success with he and McDavid on the ice, why doesn't this show in the data?
Player: GF/60 / GA/60 / total /60) / GF% w/o McDavid
Klefbom: 3.2 / 3.25 / -0.05 G/60 / 34.8%
Nurse: 3.8 / 2.71 / +1.09 G/60 / 43.5%
I can't think of any particular reason why the data could be considered invalid or skewed. Unless you were to argue Nurse is always stepping on the ice after Klefbom makes the pass for McDavid to gain the offensive zone, but at that point you'd have a massive burden of proof. Seems HIGHLY unlikely.
Maybe it's true that Klefbom's passing aids in transitioning the puck but I'd ask two things to follow that up: 1.) is it fair to state that- going off the data- Nurse's in-zone offensive contributions must be greater than Klefbom's and 2.) does that "flow of play" matter much if it isn't generating goal share dominance?
Having looked at the data, even if we make the argument that flow of play does matter, this set's flow numbers even looked rather similar to the rest.
As far as trading nurse, I’m not entirely sure it’s the right move. He’s a quality defender that can’t easily be replaced. Especially by question mark prospects. But he’s not worth 7 long term and we desperately need a scoring winger. I’d prefer larsson in a package of course, but It has to considered depending on nurses’s ask.
Nurse has consistently shown an ability to be a positive force on the ice relative to his team's results. It's fair to suggest that he may be better suited to a spot lower down the lineup considering the team's results with him in that spot, but I'd respond in kind considering the team's results with Klefbom in such a spot.
Further, this doesn't account for the additional factors I listed. Nurse has a LOT going in his favour- results, age, durability, etc- that we shouldn't hastily disregard in our value calculations when comparing him and Klefbom.
I don't know for sure that he's worth 7mil but I do know that I'd rather take the risk with him at around 7 (probably closer to 6.75, but I'll assume higher) than trade him and rely on a perpetual injury risk whose results in the same role have been noticeably worse- even if he costs ~3mil less.
My ideal is really to continue playing Nurse as we have, get Klefbom's minutes and deployment down to how it was with Persson (offensive push, softer minutes) and use those two to usher in the new era of Dmen.
Klefbom is our only true top pairing guy.
The past two years, Nurse and Klefbom have played VERY comparable minutes alongside comparable partners and comparable deployment. I'll stand by my statement: either both are or neither are.
Bear’s probably not too far
Excuse my strong words here but it's absurd to suggest that Bear is close while simultaneously asserting that Nurse isn't. This if my inference of your meaning in this statement is accurate, of course.
If we go my way... likely still yes, but maybe not! 
