Lol what. How the hell is this speculation? Sharks aren't trading Marleau and I don't see why the Bruins would be interested in him. They have the same problem the Sharks do; a dearth of competent puck-moving defensemen. They're stacked up front.
"Do you know what "nemesis" means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent."
13-14 Sharks CI Feed Tracker: 62 GP |23-26-13 (SJ-Opponent-Van/Nat'l) www.bluejayshipsters.comWe liked the Blue Jays before it was cool. Sorry, I am not taking signature requests at this time.
The contract that Marleau signed this past summer has an unconditional NMC according to capgeek. Not an NTC. It is even more restrictive.
A suggestion to the OP for future proposals:
Go to http://www.capgeek.com/index.php
and lookup the player. If there is a padlock icon on the player, he has a clause (NMC or NTC). Click on the players name for contract details as to what is contained on the NMC or NTC. If their contract doesn't allow them to be moved, I would be very circumspect in the ability of the Bruins to acquire the player. You can make of fool of yourself by citing players who have waived their clauses as they are few and far between. In Marleau's case, the chances of his waiving his clause are between slim and none and slim left town.
Why laugh at someone's proposal when the trade was your idea and you said "what would you want." The answer is Chara. Obviously you're not going to give that, but that's what we would want, and consequently we won't be trading Marleau to you.