Should The Pittsburgh Penguins Trade Evgeni Malkin?

Days after the Pittsburgh Penguins were eliminated from Stanley Cup contention, the articles of hysteria began flowing about what went wrong in the playoffs and what to do to fix it.

The first came from John Grigg on The Hockey News, focusing on why the Pens must trade Evgeni Malkin .

The next came yesterday morning on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review from the controversial Rob Rossi about what needs to be done to win the Cup next season .

His first point is that Malkin needs to be traded.

Where is all of this coming from?

Because I'm familiar with the Pittsburgh media, articles like this aren't out of the ordinary.

Too many times have I seen articles from beat writers on the Trib asking for either Malkin, Sidney Crosby, Jordan Staal, or Marc-Andre Fleury to be traded at some point in the season when one is in a slump.

Frankly, these controversial articles have lost their edginess and have crossed into the annoying category.

Yes, the Pens ended the season on a sour note this year. But have these writers forgotten that, for the most part, this is the same team that made appearances in the Stanley Cup Final for two consecutive years?

I want to note that the Stanley Cup win in 2009 can be contributed to the tandem of Crosby, Malkin, Staal and Fleury.

Following two consecutive Stanley Cup Final appearances, an elimination in the second round shouldn't be a cause to promote radical change like trading away one of the best players in the League.

The journey to the Stanley Cup isn't easy simply because a team has talent. Nor does trading away talent always guarantee talent in return.

Yet, that seems to be the conclusion, according to Penguins beat writers and other commentators.

They couldn't be more wrong and the hysteria bleeding from these articles is nothing short of embarrassing.

Here are the following reasons why trading Malkin makes sense, according to the articles I have read:

1) Crosby needs a winger that will give him the numbers he deserves.

2) The Pens need to secure a better top defensive pairing and getting rid of Malkin could yield better options.

3) Staal would get more ice time.

All interesting points, but none of these deserve the consideration.

All year long, Pens fans must endure the talks about Crosby needing a top-notch winger. The closest Crosby got to that was probably Marian Hossa who came for a short stint in the 2007-2008 season.

Would it be nice to see a 25+ goal-scoring sniper on Crosby's wing? Of course.

Does Crosby need a 25+ goal-scoring sniper on his wing?

No.

This past season was all the proof critics need.

Crosby put on a goal-scoring clinic this season, netting a career high 51 goals for a total of 109 points. He did this with Bill Guerin, Chris Kunitz, and Pascal Dupuis on his wing.

Anyone keeping track of General Manager Ray Shero's signings would see that he has a plan: emphasize strength down the middle and inter-change wingers when necessary. Other long term contracts will go to young and growing talent on defense, in this case, Kris Letang and Alex Goligoski.

Getting rid of Malkin completely thwarts this mentality, even if it means gaining a solid top-defensive pairing.

While I agree that the Pens need a Rob Scuderi/Hal Gill duo, getting rid of Malkin isn't going to guarantee equal talent in return. It's far too much of a risk that may yield little in return.

Instead, I would push that the current defense on the Pens must step up their game, starting with a good training program in the off-season.

The Penguins organization should expect a lot from Letang and Goligoski since we have seen the depth of their skills when they're on their game. Head Coach Dan Bylsma and Shero must demand more from these players because they have more to give.

Lastly, people claim that Staal can spend more time on the ice with Malkin gone.

In the 2009-2010 season, Staal spent an average of 19:23 on the ice per game. Malkin spent an average of 20:50 per game.

Less than a minute and a half difference which can be argued that Malkin's increased minutes come from the amount of time he spends on the power play as opposed to Staal's time on the penalty kill.

In short, the thought of trading Malkin should be pushed aside as quickly as it's come to the table.

It simply makes no sense to make the move, if only for the fact that Malkin is still a young player and growing into his role on the ice.

You don't trade a player who is increasing his game and continues to mature.

The only reason why this story exists is because the Pens were eliminated from the playoffs. Grigg admits this in his article.

The hockey world has grown used to the Pens being a dominant force on the ice, so for them to be eliminated before the Stanley Cup Final, there must be something wrong with the team.

Clearly not the case.

I agree that desperate times call for desperate measures, but the Pens are not facing desperate times.

The only desperation I see is coming from reporters who need to sell a story, no matter how poorly thought-out it is.