I'm not going to belabor the point too much, but I really think people are out to lunch if they say moving on from Crosby somehow expedites the Penguins rebuild. I know this team is extremely uninspiring, but they're still not a truly bottom of the barrel team even if you subtract Crosby off the roster. They'd be bad without a doubt, but I think they'd be more in "7th or 8th worst team in hockey" territory instead of "worst team in hockey" territory.
Any sort of deal you'd make with Crosby will involve the Penguins taking back cap as well, and I'd imagine they'd get halfway decent players with the amount of cap they'd be sending out. Let's use Colorado as an example and say the deal was Crosby for Colton, Girard and a 2025 1st (which seems like a realistic return for what Crosby would bring back). You're still getting 2 halfway decent players back, which will prevent your team from getting worse, and the late 1st you'd get isn't going to tangibly move the needle for their rebuild. They still won't be bad enough to bottom out.
Both are true.
The 29th from Colorado and our own pick going from 16th to 6th overall without Sid.
Everyone knows they're not going to sell Sid though - he's got to request the trade himself. Clearly he's worth his contract in dollars. His legacy in Pittsburgh is completely cemented regardless of where he spends the next 3, 4, 7 years.
Increasing their pick from 16th to 6th (which seems like a reasonable estimate) isn't enough for this team to truly "bottom out" and get the top end talent it needs from a rebuild.
You're basically trading Crosby for a return that doesn't tangibly impact the team in the long-run, while you're also not getting bad enough to truly bottom out and get the franchise pieces you need. At that point, what's the point of moving him?