why?

I assume it is "go for it this year" trade for the Rangers. The Sharks get a little more term with McDonough and Nash, and Rangers get two upcoming UFA. When Marleau and Burns come off the books next year, well this 13,3m in money to spend on.....let's say Shattenkirk and Stone on defence for a total 11m.

You mean "Why not?". Either way, we're going for it this year, next year...

Marleau is at the end of his career. This only weakens our offense. McDonagh is about equal to Burns and 4 years younger. And why even bother with Donskoi? Our forward depth right now is incredible, and there is no reason to trade for him. All around terrible trade for the Rangers.

We look at the player-for-player comparisons and you get:

Nash (32) for Marleau (37)
McDonagh (27) for Burns (31)

and there is just no point in getting Donskoi and giving up Lindberg. It accomplishes nothing.

Have you ever seen Donskoi or Burns play, like last years playoffs? Lindberg will never be in our top 12 and Nash has to go this year, hopefully Before the POs.

Why? Nash is having a fine season so far. No reason to trade him for someone close to retirement. I did watch them last year during the playoffs, but if getting rid of McDonagh is what it takes to exchange Lindberg for Donskoi, it just isn't worth it.

And even if you were right about any of what you said (which you mostly aren't), Marleau has a NMC, and Burns, McDonagh, and Nash all have Modified-NTCs. This trade is completely unfeasible. The only part that could be done is the Lindberg for Donskoi part, of which would never get accepted by the SJS.

You are from Bizzaro World! Complete opposite of reality. Rid Nash's $ for next year. Marleau instead of Nash for playoffs this year, why not!!! McD for Burns, we wish. Never mind ntc, not the Winnipegs of the world here. You're clueless for someone who talks trash

Rid of Nash's money? He makes less than $2,000,000 more than Marleau and has over double the points. You also contradict yourself when saying you want to get rid of Nash because of his expensive contract because it still has a year left, while you want to pick up Burns, who will have a cap hit of $8,000,000 for over 5 years. I REALLY don't want Burns anymore, especially when you compare his high priced eventual decline to McDonagh's prime years at almost half of that price. And I don't "talk trash." I'm honest. Brutally honest sometimes, but honest. If your trade ideas are bad I'm going to call you out on them, and a lot of your trade ideas are bad.

Pretty much done here. Burns 8m over McD and his big future raise all day long. Marleau 1yr over Nash 2yrs, all day. No More Explaining. Look at Trade. You Don't Like It! WRONG

McDonagh's future raise would be about equal to Burns' $8,000,000 (except we could make the contract shorter and not be forced to keep him until he's 38 like we would with Burns) , and we won't have a slowly declining Brent Burns by the time McDonagh needs re-signing (we have him for two more years after this season), Burns will be 33 and McDonagh will be 30. Next, Marleau for Nash is such a bad trade. It's practically giving up a player that, at the very least, could be traded this/next season for valuable assets, in exchange for an expensive, one-year, shoddy rental. The only person here who is "WRONG" is you, Nashless. Your logic in most of these trades is either backwards or just nonexistent.

Again, OMG! lol