It's not like the team is going to get Barzal for free, whereas Malkin doesn't cost any assets at all. So yes, they would be better off. I mean seriously, what is Barzal gonna cost?
Complete strawman argument, and you are absolutely wrong.
Edit: Also the Wings are 9th from bottom right now.
Again, you don't know what opinions are, you are welcome to yours... And that's all the bolded is... but 2 years of Malkin does nothing, NOTHING for this franchise while a trade for Barzal no matter the cost sets up a rebuild properly with young talent.
Your agenda driven dream of adding Malkin is just the same as mine with Barzal, (a dream).
I didn't give you straw man argument, you just don't wanna hear it. Idk what your goal is but Malkin doens't help build a Stanley cup team, and a Barzal trade absolutely does. Maybe not year 1 or even 2.... but yeah you've got chances at cup runs with Barzal vs Malkin's+random C prospects timeline.
Your straw-man arguments are some random prospect(that you don't even bother to name cause you don't know if they're good or will even be there with our pick), 2 years of nothing with Malkin(you aren't competing for Stanley cups), and upset over a dude on a 1st line that's easily replaceable. lol. You... have all the straw here scarecrow.
Like I get Barzals not exactly an option... but man... to get rebuttled with Malkin/Random C prospect/ and no top LEFT Winger. K. Good points. We can agree to disagree at this point though I think. Neither of us are impressed with the other. I'm not saying your stupid or anything either, just I disagree with you completely, is all. I see you post, I know you're not dumb, it's ok to have different ideas. Same type of convo's happen in front offices all the time, you like Malkin/draft. I like the idea of Barzal/Larkin/Raymond/Seider/Edvinsson as rebuild core.