They were taking out Crosby one way or another you can bet that.
That's the thing. Those calling for "retaliation", some might just be bloodthirsty, but others see it as the only real way to combat the strategy when its used constantly against the Pens.
Crosby was killing them with his two way play and set ups of others and his own finishing.
They met as a team and strategized how to "stop" him.
Their answer was tried and true ... take him out.
They wouldn't have gone to this of it was adequately disciplined by the league. Or adequately responded to by the Penguins.
If either were probable they wouldn't have dared.
But they knew neither would occur.
The league will never discipline it. They're all for it that style.
So it falls upon the Penguins ... sadly ... to take measures to combat it. But they don't. Not in adequate scale anyway (aka a star for a star).
And the "winning is the best revenge" argument is not adequately accurate. Winning is a nice piece of the vengeance puzzle for sure. But (1) the Pens didn't win, not this time anyway; in fact the injury was the main reason (2) even if they do win the game, series etc. In spite of it ... is it then ok? They've possibly lost their best player, worst case for a long time ... or if a really bad concussion, perhaps for good! How is winning a game or even two more? alone sufficient when that happens? Much of the future... immediate and long term ... could be out the window.
With no adequate response look for them to run Malkin, Guentzel, Kessel, Fleury next. Heck, from their standpoint, why not?