Now some fanboys and patriots might fury up from this post, this is just how I view things.
Not worth both Malkin & Crosby. He would definately be a prime candidate for the Art Ross for the next 10 years, but so are both Malkin & Crosby up there, not worth both of them.
The overall level of the league is so much better now. People have positional awareness in defence, the goalies equipment and butterfly style would affect. Also hockey is more wide spread than then. The best Europeans are here in masses now, remove most of them and add the AHL players to fill it out and the league today would still be better in overall skill than it was in the early 80's to mid 80's. Many things affected to that, like lots of expansion teams from the late 60's to 70's and teams managements done poorly. Edmonton was a real odd one out with lots of young talent being there and then there definately was one of the best ever. One would argue about him being better now then, I just think he was way ahead of his time then, his speed would not gain any signifant gain, conditioning would be better, he would not have troubles with the concussions like some said, would last longer prolly also. Another fact is that he did not win the Cup since leaving Edmonton, came in close once though. 200 pts would not see a daylight in this league, 140-150 possibly. But still nothing to take away from him, one of the greatest ever, possibly the best.
Jaromir Jagr had 123 points as a 34 year old in 2005-2006. Joe Thorton the same year had 129 points. Gretzky in his prime was a far better player than Thorton and a lot better than Jagr in his thirties.
I watched Gretzky play over 400 times live. I can tell you that if he was traded for Crosby and Malkin I would have still been very upset.
There is much more to this than just a hockey deal. Gretzky was one of the most dominant althetes of all time. Any trade would have to be an immense overpayment or you would enrage your fanbase.