Washington Capitals left wing Alex Ovechkin, of Russia, speaks during an NHL hockey final media availability session, Thursday, May 12, 2016, in Arlington, Va. The Capitals lost to the Pittsburgh Penguins in the second round of the playoffs. (AP Photo/Nick Wass)

Well it's that time of year again: The Washington Capitals are out of the playoffs and many people have seemingly decided that the best way for them to improve is to trade the guy who has led the league in goal-scoring for each of the last four seasons.

Much like the blossoming of the cherry trees around Washington, D.C., the nation's capital has fallen in recent years onto an annual tradition of shivving Alex Ovechkin for problems that are not his fault.

No surprise here, but noted hockey liker Mike Wilbon of ESPN and the Washington Post fired a pre-emptive strike while the Caps were still playing, saying that if the team were to lose Game 5 — of a series they were trailing 3-1 at the time — then Ovechkin had to go. He's never made it to a Cup Final so he has to go. Same old crap from a guy who spent, let's say, three minutes total this season accidentally watching the Caps.

In the time since, others have gone that far as well. It's not especially bright or well-reasoned, but they do it because, if we're going to take a lesson from the real thinkers of the game like Larry Brooks and Joe Haggerty, he didn't do enough to make the rest of the Capitals better. Whatever that means.

This is one of those things where it's tough to suss out whether people are being disingenuous, right? Like, who could actually believe that trading Ovechkin or any elite-level player makes the team getting rid of him better? These types of swaps happen so rarely in the NHL to begin with for a number of reasons. The best recent comparable is the Bruins' Tyler Seguin trade, so why don't you ask the GM who pulled the trigger on that deal how it worked out after your call is forwarded to his new office? And Ovechkin is considerably better than Seguin was at the time.

But taking the exercise to its logical conclusion yesterday was ESPN's Rob Vollman, a titan of the hockey analytics movement and usually a judicious observer, made “The case for trading Alex Ovechkin.” This is based on the fact that the Capitals lost in the second round again and are 5-8 in playoff series since 2007-08.

The Rumor





Let's go with that as far as we can.

At first glance, the notion of trading Ovechkin seems absolutely crazy.

So far I am with you.

He won the Maurice Richard trophy as the league's leading goal scorer for the fourth straight season, has won the Hart trophy three times in his career, and finished runner-up on two more occasions. He is the main reason why the Capitals are one of only four teams with at least 400 wins and 890 points during the last nine seasons combined.

Even in this year's postseason, he tied John Carlson for the team lead with 12 points in 12 games, in which time the Capitals outscored opponents 19-5 with Ovechkin on the ice, while being outscored 17-10 when he wasn't.

Okay, yes. This seems like a player you absolutely do not trade for any reason. So I guess what I'm saying is, I feel like there's a “but” coming.

Why would GM Brian MacLellan possibly consider trading Ovechkin? In theory, it would be to shake things up, try something new and accelerate the start of the post-Ovechkin era.

Ooo, hmm, there it is. “Shake things up, try something new, and accelerate the start of the post-Ovechkin era,” definitely qualifies as a reason to make such a trade. Not, like, a good reason or anything, but definitely a reason.

The rest of the preamble from Vollman basically boils down to “They traded a lot of good players in the past when they were between 29 and 31, so they could do it with Ovechkin as well because it's now a cap league and Ovechkin is expensive.”

Because after all, folks, I don't know if you knew this but: Alex Ovechkin is 30!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Who's Going Where?





After that the article talks about a team with the need for Ovechkin, the cap space to take his salary on, and trade pieces the Capitals would want back. An example provided (of several that could be reasonable destinations): Winnipeg. Who would they give up? Some of their many good prospects. Oh and the second overall pick, too. Yeah, sure.

Why wouldn't a budget team offer up Patrick Laine for a 31-year-old guy who has a contract that pays him more than $9.5 million against the cap at $10 million in actual money for each of the next four seasons?

Story continues