The Pittsburgh Penguins' salary cap issues are not related to their two best players. (USATSI)
The Pittsburgh Penguins' salary issues are not related to their two best players. (USATSI)

Thanks to their defeat at the hands of the New York Rangers on Friday night, the Pittsburgh Penguins lost in the first round of the playoffs for the third time in five years which can mean only one thing: It is time for our yearly game of "let's try and fix what's wrong with the Pittsburgh Penguins."

One of the first things that always gets floated after each of their recent playoff exits is the possibility of breaking up their current "two-center model" that has seen the team be built around superstars Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin, a duo that has combined to win four of the past eight scoring titles and three of the past eight MVP awards. Both players said on Sunday that they want to finish their careers in Pittsburgh, both have no trade clauses, and the Penguins' president has already said both players, along with coach Mike Johnston and general manager Jim Rutherford will return next season. 

But still, the discussion continues. 

The thinking is simple: The Penguins have some major holes throughout their lineup and have a lot of money tied up in their top players. Perhaps too much. So maybe they should trade one (Malkin), restock the cupboard, and create salary cap space to build around the remaining superstar (Crosby).

We go through this every summer. 

On Monday, Sportsnet's Elliotte Friedman appeared on Sportsnet 960 radio and suggested that maybe the Penguins should sit down and consider shopping Malkin. 

From Sportsnet:

"To me, if you're the Pittsburgh Penguins, you have to take a good long look in a salary cap world, you don't have to do it, but you should be asking yourself the question: Do we need to trade a Malkin? If we can get two or three good pieces, because you're not trading one for one, if you're trading Malkin for another guy who makes Malkin's salary you're not solving anything. But if you can get two or three pieces, including a guy who can play with Crosby for Evgeni Malkin, don't you have to think about it?

At what point do you look at it and say, you know what? Yeah we won the Stanley Cup, but that was six years ago. The salary cap is flattening out. These two guys together make $18.2 million and we keep losing in the playoffs because we don't have enough support pieces. I think if you're the Pittsburgh Penguins you at least have to have that conversation. I would be shocked if they didn't at least have a serious debate about it internally"

I both enjoy and respect Friedman's work and commentary on all things NHL, and it is important (very important, actually) to keep in mind that he is not saying the Penguins must trade Malkin or should trade him, but that they should at least consider it given their salary cap situation. He is also not the first -- or only -- person that will have a similar thought over the coming weeks and months. 

But I still disagree with the overall thought process here. This is not the type of fix the Penguins need or need to be looking for. 

Quality for quantity trades almost never work out for the team that is trading the superstar player (ask Bruins fans how happy they are to have Loui Eriksson and Reilly Smith right now instead of Tyler Seguin. The ones with common sense will realize how much worse the team is because of it). The easiest way to make your team worse is to trade one great player for a couple of lesser ones (which you would certaily be doing in this case because there are only a handful of players of equal value to Malkin in the NHL, and none of them are going to Pittsburgh in a hypothetical trade for him). One great player is worth more than two good ones, and even if the two or three pieces you would get in such a trade turn out to be worth it, you're only going to put yourself in a similar -- if not worse -- salary cap situation in a couple of years because you're going to have to pay them more money as well.

It is very true that the Penguins definitely have salary cap issues and a flawed roster that is clearly not good enough to win the Stanley Cup as currently constructed. But they are not in their current position because they have $18.2 million going to Crosby and Malkin next season (and for several more after that). Too often the focus for the Penguins' salary cap issues (and really, any team with a couple of big-money players) and roster shortcomings falls on their two best players and their large contracts. If anything, Crosby, Malkin and even defenseman Kris Letang, might all actually be underpaid for the value they provide on the ice. It's not like the Penguins are paying big money to players that are not performing.

Not only that, the thing that continues to get overlooked in the salary cap era every year is that winning teams all have a significant chunk of their salary cap space tied up in just four or five players. 

As of now, the Penguins' five highest paid players under contract for next season (Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Patric Hornqvist and Marc-Andre Fleury) combine to take up $35.3 million in salary cap space. If the projected salary cap of $71 million becomes a reality, that is 49 percent of their cap space going to five players.  

That might seem like a lot to commit to five players, but keep in mind that when the Penguins actually won the Stanley Cup in 2009 they had 48 percent of their cap space that season going to their five highest paid players (Crosby, Sergei Gonchar, Marc-Andre Fleury, Brooks Orpik and Malkin ... in that order).

The average Stanley Cup winner since 2007-08 has committed more than 47 percent of its cap space to its five highest paid players, including two teams (the 2012-13 Chicago Blackhawks and the 2007-08 Detroit Red Wings) that had more than 50 percent. 

The difference between those teams (including the Penguins team that won the Cup) and this top-heavy Penguins team is that they did a better job of producing cheap talent through their farm system and making smarter decisions with their complementary players. 

The Penguins have failed in recent years and have cap issues next season not because they committed so much money to their two best players (the two players that have helped to keep the franchise afloat the past couple of years), but because they have committed too much money to aging and declining players in their mid-30s like Chris Kunitz, Pascal Dupuis and Rob Scuderi (See also: A winning team that was too loyal to players it won with and didn't know when to move on).

They have failed because they have consistently traded top draft picks for rentals, continuing a vicious cycle where they can't develop their own complementary players from within because they don't have any draft picks to select them, and then feel the need to keep trading draft picks for the complementary players they can't devleop because they don't have any draft picks. 

They have cap issues because they insisted on taking a player like Nick Spaling in last year's James Neal trade, a restricted free agent that was coming off of a career year and would be due for a significant pay raise, and paid him $2.2 million over two years to be a fourth-liner. 

These are the little mistakes that add up into big mistakes and put the team in a hole like the one the Penguins are facing. 

Every player in the NHL has a price, and a general manager is not doing his job if he doesn't at least listen if a team makes an offer for a player. There is always the chance somebody is willing to pay an unreasonably high price for a player. But if you're the Pittsburgh Penguins it's hard to imagine a scenario in which it makes sense for them to actively look to trade a player like Malkin short of him going to management and saying, "get me out of here."

You don't trade superstar, franchise players to create salary cap space and build depth. You find ways to build around them.

It's a heck of a lot easier to find capable depth players, and even a quality top-line winger, than it is to find another Evgeni Malkin.