Kind of weird when we are talking about the same guy who was traded for Martin Erat.
Oh wait, you were actually serious?
Here, allow me to explain to you exactly how you asking for Forsberg
+(you want more!!!) in exchange for Thornton is in no way close to the Forsberg for Erat/Latta trade.
Let me begin by saying that I normally don't expect people to be privy to the details of trades that don't involve their team because, well, most of us don't have the time to keep up with all of the goings-on in the NHL, but this has been one of the most talked-about trades in the past five years. Forgive me if I sound short. Maybe my coffee hasn't kicked in yet. Or maybe I'm just taken completely by surprise by the appearance that you weren't actually joking.
OK, so here is how that situation played out. McPhee knew that missing the playoffs with the roster he had, which wasn't a Cup contending roster but was definitely a playoff team, would likely cost him his job. Making it into the playoffs, however, likely kept him employed for one more season, and after that who knows what happens? Forsberg was a prospect at the time. In fact, before he got traded to the Predators he had exactly zero games played in the NHL or AHL. Martin Erat had 723 regular season games, averaging .77 ppg (63 points per 82 games), and 46 playoff games in the NHL alone (though he only played about half of a season in the AHL before being called up, so it's not really worth including that).
Yes, it was an absolutely stupid trade in retrospect, and it seemed like an absolutely stupid trade at the time as well. But it at least made some sense to the GM at the time. He was protecting his job. He was attempting to buy himself some more time to build a team who could compete for a Cup, thus buying himself even more time. It was a job-security trade for Washington.
Now, fast-forward to 2016. The hypothetical situation is that the Sharks are, for whatever reason, not only out of Cup contention but out of playoff contention. Yes, I realize it takes a lot of "ifs" to get to that point, but it's the premise we have been given for the thread so we roll with it. Filip Forsberg now has 182 NHL games under his belt, averaging .73 ppg (60 points over 82 games). He also has tied the Nashville team single season goals record at 33 (yes, I know it's not much, but we're talking about Nashville here). He was tenth in Selke voting last year, meaning he has grown into a two-way forward (Martin Erat, coincidentally, was also a two-way forward who would from time to time get Selke votes). In just two full NHL seasons he has gotten to the point to where he is as productive as Martin Erat, for all intents and purposes, and as good of a two-way forward. And he is 22 years old.
Joe Thornton is a hell of a player, and still has the ability to be the best passer in the entire league. He is also 37 years old, and the hypothetical seems to have him only being a rental for Nashville (the OP even says later on the first page that Thornton could easily just re-sign a contract with San Jose in July). I realize your position is that you don't have to trade him, so why would you, but then you go on to seemingly defend your absolutely ludicrous proposal, apparently meant to show just how little of a chance Nashville has at obtaining Thornton, by drawing a comparison to the Erat for Forsberg trade, I suppose to highlight how anything can happen.
No. Anything cannot happen. No, a trade of Forsberg+ for Thornton would not even remotely be in the same category as the Erat+ for Forsberg trade. You are wrong. Nashville would not have to trade Forsberg+ for Thornton in the event San Jose is shopping him at the deadline. That is, quite frankly, a stupid position to take, and there really is no actual argument for it.
