Even if Marner made sense for NSH, that's a grotesque overpay.

Is it? Saros is most likely gone in free agency next year anyways unless the Preds want to pay him 7-8 million long-term to play with Askarov, as I've discussed with other Pred fans recently Tomasino is the odd man out in their future top 6, Carrier is hitting free agency anyways. The 1st and 2nd obviously hurt to lose for a young team but what are the odds either of those players become as good as Marner

Yeah it is. Giving up that much for a year of Marner is insane. Diminishing Saros and Carrier as lost to UFA feels ungenerous. Either/both guys could be re-signed. With a year remaining, Saros could be traded for a healthy return that makes more sense than an expensive rental, at a position that isn't a big need (it's not like there's any guarantee Marner re-signs with NSH - if that were even a move that NSH should entertain).

Even at a much more reasonable price, I'm against a Marner trade. I just elaborated on this in a different thread, so I'm just going to paste my thoughts about that here, instead of re-writing it all out again:

If NSH wanted to go all in for next season, and saw Marner as the rental they needed to do that, it doesn't make sense for them to trade Saros for him. As talented as Askarov is, he just doesn't have the NHL experience yet to be the guy you bank on in that scenario.

Trading for Marner and re-signing him doesn't make a lot of sense for NSH either. RW isn't a big enough need. Nyquist was a top 40 scorer this year, for a fraction of what Marner makes. Evangelista is coming into his own as a top six RW. There's great depth at the position coming up too (Kemell, Tomasino, Wood, Kiiskinen). NSH has bigger needs that Marner doesn't address.

Even if NSH did want to add a top line RW, meeting whatever price TOR wants for Marner wouldn't be my first move. I'd look at signing a UFA like Reinhart first. He's a better goal scorer, could come at a lower cap hit, and wouldn't cost any assets.