Salary Cap: Pens '23-'24 Salary Cap Thread: "But if you don't get the President of the Pittsburgh Penguins on that phone, you know what's gonna happen to you?"

[pistolpete11]

That was a me.

Unless they try it and it fails spectacularly. Then that was some other moron.

I half-jokingly said they should throw Carter in the slot on the PP so he can use his size to screen the goalie, and if he takes a slapshot to the knee, ankle or foot, that's just an open roster spot and cap relief baybeeeee. (I wasn't really joking)

Sorry, apparently I meant dummy, not moron.



I do genuinely think it's worth a look, though. He did have 9 PPP last year getting the scraps that the Pen's 2PP usually gets. His issues are mainly that his skating is shit, but maybe he could still use his offensive instincts if they get setup. And yeah, being by far the biggest guy they have except for Z, doesn't hurt

Look, it wouldn't be my first option, but when you've got the 30th ranked PP in the league, you've got to try SOMETHING different.

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

Sorry, apparently I meant dummy, not moron.



I do genuinely think it's worth a look, though. He did have 9 PPP last year getting the scraps that the Pen's 2PP usually gets. His issues are mainly that his skating is shit, but maybe he could still use his offensive instincts if they get setup. And yeah, being by far the biggest guy they have except for Z, doesn't hurt

Look, it wouldn't be my first option, but when you've got the 30th ranked PP in the league, you've got to try SOMETHING different.

Interchangeable descriptors in my case, to be fair.

Yeah, I think Carter's still got a good shot, but his gas tank is perma-empty and his skating is absolutely dogshit. If he's going to play--and this coaching staff will play him as long as he's healthy--he's like a 5min at ES, PP specialist guy anymore. If that.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I'm asking that question bc I think there's a crossing of wires between what you're saying is occurring (which I agree with) and others taking it as an endorsement of Sully's approach.

You kinda touched on it in your 2nd paragraph and that's where my argument angle is coming from. I don't think this model is successful long term. You're like "I'm just stating what is occurring on the ice and it falls in line with expectations"

Does that make sense?

If people want to interpret my post in incorrect ways, that sounds like a them problem

 

[SEALBound]

I feel like goal differential is a lot more important, though. It doesn't matter if you're scoring a goal a game if you're also giving up a goal a game. Again, the Penguins are 7th in the NHL in 5v5 goals and 5v5 goal rates. How is that not good enough?

If you want more production out of the bottom-6, you shouldn't be spending like 80% of your cap on your top-6 F and top-4 D. For the money they have spent in their bottom-6 and for the role/ice time the bottom-6 is being used in, they're doing exactly what they should be doing.

The team's 5v5 production is just not an issue in my eyes, it's among the top in the league and would be even better if the 4th line would start to chip in here and there. It is far down the list of reasons why this team is 3-5 to start the year.

Again, because the bottom 6 players collectively have 2 goals, we are 3-5, and last in the East. If the top 6 "was enough" we wouldn't be where we are at. But the fact that the Top 6 has been great doesn't mean the bottom 6 hasn't been. There comes a point where the two are separate issues.

Of course there are other factors going it but it's all relative. You need an entire team to win. If the top 6 manages 2 goals and you're losing 3-2, you need your PP to step up, if they can't, you need a bottom 6 player to chip in a goal, or you need a dman to chip in a goal. Or, more so, you need a goalie that's only going to let in 1-2 goals. But in games where the only chance you have is the top 6 outperforming the offense, defense, and goaltending of the other team while hoping and praying that the defense, goaltending, and special teams your own team doesn't botch it, that's not a good long term strategy for success. To boot, that's a hell of a burden to put on the top 6 and a gnarly lack of expectations of your bottom 6 and defense.

I will give you the nod to your second sentence, though. They went top heavy, but I feel like for a good reason. The top 6 sans Rakell are pulling their weight. I would say no one on defense is pulling their weight in the production department but that would be solely based on stat sheet watching (which obviously has limitations). One issue we have is that we don't have a young ELC player or a value contract player capable of being put in the top 6 (that we know of). If you could insert, say, Yager and/or Poulin into the top 6 the way we did Sheary and Rust in 2016, you could pull off a Rakell-Eller-Rust 3rd line which would certainly be more productive than what we currently have now and could lead to better outcomes.

That said, we could be bring up guys or switching line combos up that at least attempt to give us a better chance. That's on Sullivan and Dubas.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Again, because the bottom 6 players collectively have 2 goals, we are 3-5, and last in the East. If the top 6 "was enough" we wouldn't be where we are at. But the fact that the Top 6 has been great doesn't mean the bottom 6 hasn't been. There comes a point where the two are separate issues.

Of course there are other factors going it but it's all relative. You need an entire team to win. If the top 6 manages 2 goals and you're losing 3-2, you need your PP to step up, if they can't, you need a bottom 6 player to chip in a goal, or you need a dman to chip in a goal. Or, more so, you need a goalie that's only going to let in 1-2 goals. But in games where the only chance you have is the top 6 outperforming the offense, defense, and goaltending of the other team while hoping and praying that the defense, goaltending, and special teams your own team doesn't botch it, that's not a good long term strategy for success. To boot, that's a hell of a burden to put on the top 6 and a gnarly lack of expectations of your bottom 6 and defense.

And they're 3-5 dramatically more due to the fact that their powerplay is dogshit than their bottom-6 not producing enough. Especially if you're talking relative, there is flat out not an argument for their bottom-6 not producing enough being even remotely close to the biggest issue with this team. The bottom-6 producing "well" would have them at like 2 more goals at 5v5, maybe 3. The powerplay producing "well" would have them at about 8-10 more powerplay goals.

Again, if you want a better bottom-6, you shouldn't be spending $10 million on it while you're spending $61 million on your top-6 F and top-4 D. The expectations you're putting on the bottom-6 for the little amount of money that was available to invest in it are just downright unreasonable.

People here are mad that a bottom-6 that costs $10 million and is filled with defensive players isn't productive in addition to being good defensively. How is that reasonable whatsoever? That's like being mad that Jake Guentzel isn't also a Selke candidate. For the amount of money/capital the team both could and did invested in the bottom-6, there just isn't remotely enough to hit some of the expectations I've seen on here.

 

[SEALBound]

And they're 3-5 dramatically more due to the fact that their powerplay is dogshit than their bottom-6 not producing enough. Especially if you're talking relative, there is flat out not an argument for their bottom-6 not producing enough being even remotely close to the biggest issue with this team. The bottom-6 producing "well" would have them at like 2 more goals at 5v5, maybe 3. The powerplay producing "well" would have them at about 8-10 more powerplay goals.

Again, if you want a better bottom-6, you shouldn't be spending $10 million on it while you're spending $61 million on your top-6 F and top-4 D. The expectations you're putting on the bottom-6 for the little amount of money that was available to invest in it are just downright unreasonable.

People here are mad that a bottom-6 that costs $10 million and is filled with defensive players isn't productive in addition to being good defensively. How is that reasonable whatsoever? That's like being mad that Jake Guentzel isn't also a Selke candidate. For the amount of money/capital the team both could and did invested in the bottom-6, there just isn't remotely enough to hit some of the expectations I've seen on here.

No, I get your argument. You've said the exact same thing several times.

 

[pistolpete11]

I think there's an argument to be had what's been worse.

The bottom 6's scoring or the top 6's defense?

Different routes to get there, but they are both playing to about even.

 

[Empoleon8771]

No, I get your argument. You've said the exact same thing several times.

I keep repeating the same thing several times because you just keep repeating the same point over and over again. About how the team is 3-5 and the bottom-6 isn't scoring much, so therefore it's a massive issue.

What are you expecting offensively out of a bottom-6 that is composed of defensive players that make a total $10 million a year? And a third of that is tied up to a horrible player that everyone here would rather not be playing.

I'd have a lot more complaints about the bottom-6 not producing if they actually spent money on the bottom-6 and had offensive players in the bottom-6. But they're doing exactly what I expected them to do, what is there to complain about? They had no money in free agency and decided to go with an all-defense bottom-6 and rely on their top-6 to produce. So far, it has been successful at 5v5 with them sitting 7th in the NHL in 5v5 production.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I think there's an argument to be had what's been worse.

The bottom 6's scoring or the top 6's defense?

Different routes to get there, but they are both playing to about even.

I think the top-6 has been bad defensively but I think their really bad results are more because they're getting dogshit goaltending.

Malkin has an on-ice save% of .852 right now at 5v5. That's heinously bad.

 

[SEALBound]

I think there's an argument to be had what's been worse.

The bottom 6's scoring or the top 6's defense?

Different routes to get there, but they are both playing to about even.

To win as a team, there needs to be a layered approach. Just like most wealthy people have multiple sources of income, the team needs multiple sources of offensive production. The top 6 is banging along. Great. But if the Top 6 can't muster enough goals because (and to a point this is irrelevant) the goaltending is bad, the defense is bad, or the top 6 is being outperformed - then you need to be able to get the production from somewhere else reliably. That means the defense, the powerplay, and the bottom 6. Some think it doesn't matter because the top 6 is doing well. I say, no you need all three of those chipping in in order to win regularly.

Hey, the top 6 stunk tonight but the PP added two goals.

Hey, the top 6 and PP stunk tonight but we got a goal from the defense and the bottom 6.

Hey, the goalie had a rough game but we got goals from the top 6, defense, and PP.

And so on and so on. Saying "well because the top 6 is doing well, the bottom 6 doesn't need to do well" is part of the philosophy and strategy that has us bottom of the league. No team that solely relies on the top 6 as the ONLY means of production does well and there most certainly has NOT been a cup-challenging team that's been able to compete with that model.

Fire Sullivan. HS Carter. Bring up a WBS forward. Change up the lines. Fire whichever coach is in charge of the PP. Bring in a new coach with a new scheme. Something has to change. Unless we want to write this season off at 9 games.

 

[Empoleon8771]

And so on and so on. Saying "well because the top 6 is doing well, the bottom 6 doesn't need to do well" is part of the philosophy and strategy that has us bottom of the league. No team that solely relies on the top 6 as the ONLY means of production does well and there most certainly has NOT been a cup-challenging team that's been able to compete with that model.

The entire structure of this team is built exactly in this way. This team is built based on heavily investing in the top-6 F and top-4 D and telling the depth guys "eat defensive minutes and don't get scored on".

Want to criticize that philosophy? Sure, but that's the philosophy this team has and it's not changing. So far this year, the forward group is doing exactly what it was designed to do. Being mad that the bottom-6 isn't wildly productive is like being mad that your microwave can't make a quality burger.

Realistically, the only chance this team has of winning anything is their core going on a hot run in the playoffs and basically carrying the team to a cup. That's why the team is built like it is, they don't have the young pieces coming up or cap space available to be able to build a conventional cup contender. They have to rely on Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Karlsson and Guentzel going god-mode in the playoffs and somehow winning based on that, that's the only possible (and completely slim) chance they have at winning again.

 

[vodeni]

To win as a team, there needs to be a layered approach. Just like most wealthy people have multiple sources of income, the team needs multiple sources of offensive production. The top 6 is banging along. Great. But if the Top 6 can't muster enough goals because (and to a point this is irrelevant) the goaltending is bad, the defense is bad, or the top 6 is being outperformed - then you need to be able to get the production from somewhere else reliably. That means the defense, the powerplay, and the bottom 6. Some think it doesn't matter because the top 6 is doing well. I say, no you need all three of those chipping in in order to win regularly.

Hey, the top 6 stunk tonight but the PP added two goals.

Hey, the top 6 and PP stunk tonight but we got a goal from the defense and the bottom 6.

Hey, the goalie had a rough game but we got goals from the top 6, defense, and PP.

And so on and so on. Saying "well because the top 6 is doing well, the bottom 6 doesn't need to do well" is part of the philosophy and strategy that has us bottom of the league. No team that solely relies on the top 6 as the ONLY means of production does well and there most certainly has NOT been a cup-challenging team that's been able to compete with that model.

Fire Sullivan. HS Carter. Bring up a WBS forward. Change up the lines. Fire whichever coach is in charge of the PP. Bring in a new coach with a new scheme. Something has to change. Unless we want to write this season off at 9 games.

I tried to make the same point, let me repeat, its not as much about wholesome production, its timing! When you have Sid and Jake not having a night or Geno and Smith, and things look bad, how about jst go guns blazing as 3rd or 4th line. Do not need the score, just keep the puck in the OZ, hustle, put the pressure on their dman, allow for 58 or 65 to hold the blue line and try to score from there, bang the bodies, flip the ice...instead they dissapear, go back to dzone (play hard there evidence of not getting scored on) but being caved in does not swing the momentum, ....Anyways, its all things together, but this is what you want to see here otr there (chiping a goal or two extra would be a nice bonus)

 

[ChaosAgent]

I think there's an argument to be had what's been worse.

The bottom 6's scoring or the top 6's defense?

Different routes to get there, but they are both playing to about even.

Considering the top 6 contains "the best 200 foot player in hockey," (TM) this is a close call.

I'd say how the top 6 players suck donkeys on the Powerplay is the most egregious issue.

 

[Josey Wales]

To win as a team, there needs to be a layered approach. Just like most wealthy people have multiple sources of income, the team needs multiple sources of offensive production. The top 6 is banging along. Great. But if the Top 6 can't muster enough goals because (and to a point this is irrelevant) the goaltending is bad, the defense is bad, or the top 6 is being outperformed - then you need to be able to get the production from somewhere else reliably. That means the defense, the powerplay, and the bottom 6. Some think it doesn't matter because the top 6 is doing well. I say, no you need all three of those chipping in in order to win regularly.

Hey, the top 6 stunk tonight but the PP added two goals.

Hey, the top 6 and PP stunk tonight but we got a goal from the defense and the bottom 6.

Hey, the goalie had a rough game but we got goals from the top 6, defense, and PP.

And so on and so on. Saying "well because the top 6 is doing well, the bottom 6 doesn't need to do well" is part of the philosophy and strategy that has us bottom of the league. No team that solely relies on the top 6 as the ONLY means of production does well and there most certainly has NOT been a cup-challenging team that's been able to compete with that model.

Fire Sullivan. HS Carter. Bring up a WBS forward. Change up the lines. Fire whichever coach is in charge of the PP. Bring in a new coach with a new scheme. Something has to change. Unless we want to write this season off at 9 games.

PSSSSSSST Players on PP do whatever they want, so firing the coach in charge is worthless & Firing Sullivan is not going to make Sid, Geno & Letang 25 again & Rust & Jake play like the actually care

 

[SEALBound]

The entire structure of this team is built exactly in this way. This team is built based on heavily investing in the top-6 F and top-4 D and telling the depth guys "eat defensive minutes and don't get scored on".

Want to criticize that philosophy? Sure, but that's the philosophy this team has and it's not changing. So far this year, the forward group is doing exactly what it was designed to do. Being mad that the bottom-6 isn't wildly productive is like being mad that your microwave can't make a quality burger.

Realistically, the only chance this team has of winning anything is their core going on a hot run in the playoffs and basically carrying the team to a cup. That's why the team is built like it is, they don't have the young pieces coming up or cap space available to be able to build a conventional cup contender. They have to rely on Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Karlsson and Guentzel going god-mode in the playoffs and somehow winning based on that, that's the only possible (and completely slim) chance they have at winning again.

No, it's watching the person putting it in the microwave over and over again while members of the family point out there's a toaster oven, a regular oven, a stove top with a pan, a smoker, and a grill. Maybe not the best grill but maybe one worth trying if the microwave is upsetting.

Your argument is "it doesn't matter if the microwave nukes and destroys the burger, we have King's Hawaiian buns!" while the entire family pouts about another crappy burger and neighbors are leaving poor Yelp reviews.

I mean, I get what you're saying - this isn't a highly potent offensive bottom 6. No one is arguing that necessarily. What I (and maybe others) are suggesting is that, while not the best bottom 6, it shouldn't be THIS bad and we should be trying to figure out how to make it not this bad and that ther are small things that could be done. Instead, we are watching McGinn-Carter-Kapanen 2.0 twice over this year because Sullivan refuses to make any change.

 

[Empoleon8771]

No, it's watching the person putting it in the microwave over and over again while members of the family point out there's a toaster oven, a regular oven, a stove top with a pan, a smoker, and a grill. Maybe not the best grill but maybe one worth trying if the microwave is upsetting.

Your argument is "it doesn't matter if the microwave nukes and destroys the burger, we have King's Hawaiian buns!" while the entire family pouts about another crappy burger and neighbors are leaving poor Yelp reviews.

I mean, I get what you're saying - this isn't a highly potent offensive bottom 6. No one is arguing that necessarily. What I (and maybe others) are suggesting is that, while not the best bottom 6, it shouldn't be THIS bad and we should be trying to figure out how to make it not this bad and that ther are small things that could be done. Instead, we are watching McGinn-Carter-Kapanen 2.0 twice over this year because Sullivan refuses to make any change.

No, you don't have access to those because they don't have the money for those. You only have a microwave because you spent all of your money on other things and all you had left was money to get a microwave. Again, the Penguins are spending $10 million on their bottom-6 and it is filled with purely defensive players. What could you possibly be expecting from that group that you're mad about them not meeting?

The bottom-6 has not been "this bad" this year. Calling it McGinn-Carter-Kapanen 2.0 is just objectively false, it's a horrible take. McGinn-Carter-Kapanen sucked last year because they couldn't score AND they were hemorrhaging goals against. The bottom-6 this year isn't hemorrhaging goals against. Hence why the team without Crosby and Malkin on the ice is at a 4-4 goal differential right now, compared to a 49-71 ratio last year. The bottom-6 is doing exactly what it's paid to do and what it's designed to do. The "burger in a microwave" offense from the bottom-6 is exactly what the team intended for their bottom-6 to be and exactly what they're doing.

The Penguins made a philosophical choice that they were going to spend no money on their bottom-6, and the only money they were going to spend is adding purely defensive players. What you're upset about with the bottom-6 is something it was never designed to be. For what the team is supposed to be at 5v5, it is working exactly as intended.

That's the big reason why I'm arguing against the idea that the bottom-6 production is even remotely an issue on this team. Being upset with their production implies I expect better out of them, but why would I? They're playing exactly as I would expect a cheap bottom-6 of purely defensive players would play. If they wanted a better bottom-6, they would have needed to spend more money on it. They picked Karlsson, Graves and Smith over doing that, they made the decision to reinforce their top-6 F and top-4 D rather than spending significant money on their bottom-6.

 

[ChaosAgent]

I spent all my kitchen budget on an air fryer. But the advantage is I get to tell everyone I know I have an air fryer. People at work gatherings say I am a great conversationalist

 

[pistolpete11]

I think the top-6 has been bad defensively but I think their really bad results are more because they're getting dogshit goaltending.

Malkin has an on-ice save% of .852 right now at 5v5. That's heinously bad.

If the save percentage is significantly worse for one line than it is another, I think you've got to ask yourself "why?".

Could be bad luck, but could also be something with how that line is playing defensively and the quality of chances they are giving up.

To win as a team, there needs to be a layered approach. Just like most wealthy people have multiple sources of income, the team needs multiple sources of offensive production. The top 6 is banging along. Great. But if the Top 6 can't muster enough goals because (and to a point this is irrelevant) the goaltending is bad, the defense is bad, or the top 6 is being outperformed - then you need to be able to get the production from somewhere else reliably. That means the defense, the powerplay, and the bottom 6. Some think it doesn't matter because the top 6 is doing well. I say, no you need all three of those chipping in in order to win regularly.

Hey, the top 6 stunk tonight but the PP added two goals.

Hey, the top 6 and PP stunk tonight but we got a goal from the defense and the bottom 6.

Hey, the goalie had a rough game but we got goals from the top 6, defense, and PP.

And so on and so on. Saying "well because the top 6 is doing well, the bottom 6 doesn't need to do well" is part of the philosophy and strategy that has us bottom of the league. No team that solely relies on the top 6 as the ONLY means of production does well and there most certainly has NOT been a cup-challenging team that's been able to compete with that model.

Fire Sullivan. HS Carter. Bring up a WBS forward. Change up the lines. Fire whichever coach is in charge of the PP. Bring in a new coach with a new scheme. Something has to change. Unless we want to write this season off at 9 games.

I guess my post was another way of saying "Is the top 6 really doing that well?"

They're scoring plenty of goals, but they are giving up nearly as many. It's more entertaining, but is it really helping them win games any more than the bottom 6?

At 5-on-5:

-2 : Acciari
-1 : Carter, Nieto
even : Malkin, Guentzel, Zohorna
+1 : Crosby, Rakell, Eller, DOC
+2 : Rust, Smith

Not that big of a spread when you look at it like that.

For comparison, looking at the Bruins who I think run a similarly heavy top 6 structure....Pasta is +4, Marchand +3, Geekie is +6(!), Zacha is +4, Debrusk is +4, Poitras +4. That top 6 is carrying them offensively without giving it back defensively.

YMV how much of that you want to blame on goalies, but as I said above, why is it that the goals are mostly being scored on the top 6?

Considering the top 6 contains "the best 200 foot player in hockey," (TM) this is a close call.

I'd say how the top 6 players suck donkeys on the Powerplay is the most egregious issue.

I don't know who you're referring to, so I'm going to assume that's Rust

PP needing to be better is something that I think is universally agreed upon.

 

[Empoleon8771]

The only argument for the bottom-6 that I think is legitimate to make is that they needed a better "doesn't PK but offers some offense" bottom-6 forward than O'Connor for the 3rd line. The Penguins have generally had 1 or 2 guys like that in their bottom-6 in the past, guys like Heinen, Kapanen and McCann fell in that group. They can offer some secondary scoring and aren't completely out of place in a defensive role. It seems like they planned on O'Connor being one of these guys and he's absolutely not that.

They have spots for 2 of those guys because Rust and Smith are regular PKers, and it seems like they've been trying to add that ability to Zohorna's skillset as well. I just don't think O'Connor is even close to good enough to be that kind of guy. I honestly don't even really see what purpose O'Connor serves on the roster. I don't think he's bad, but if he's not PKing and he's not offering any sort of offense, what exactly is he supposed to be providing?

If I could play Captain Hindsight, I'd probably argue for:

1. Force O'Connor into the defensive PKing 4C role.
2. Don't sign Acciari because his role is taken up by O'Connor
3. Sign Sheary to the same contract that you gave Acciari, which is the same deal he signed with Tampa Bay.

It ends up with you having:

Zohorna-Eller-Sheary
Nieto-O'Connor-Carter

That would also have Carter be more useful since his good faceoff skills in place of O'Connor would be more regularly used.

 

[SEALBound]

I think the best overall move for this time right now may be:

Jake @50% for a replacement roster player + 2025 1st to replace the 1st we have to give to the Sharks. I'm terrified our first in 2025 is going to turn into a major get for the Sharks.

 

[pistolpete11]

I just to say I think it's hilarious that this discussion was going on right before the game tonight.

We got 2 PP goals, a goal from the bottom 6, and we STILL lost.

 

[SEALBound]

To Phi: Rakell @ $4mil
To Arizona: POJ, Alex Nylander, retained salary for Rakell $1.5mil
To Pit: Frost

To Dal: Jake Guentzel @$5mil + 2025 4th
To Pit: Marchment + Mavrik Bourque + 2025 1st

Finish bottom 5. Keep 2024 1st.
Draft Ivan Demidov

Let Demidov and Yager on the team

Trade one or both of Nieto or DOC.

Smith-Crosby-Rust
Marchment-Malkin-Demidov
Frost-Bourque-Yager
Nieto-Eller-Accari

or you could even get crazy and run:

Smith-Crosby-Malkin
Marchment-Yager-Demidov
Frost-Bourque-Rust
Nieto-Eller-Accari

Interchange Yager or Bourque as you need.

These moves really replenish the youthful skill needed to win in today's league. The 2025 1st from the Guentzel trade replenishes the pick we give to SJ.

 

[ChaosAgent]

I think the best overall move for this time right now may be:

Jake @50% for a replacement roster player + 2025 1st to replace the 1st we have to give to the Sharks. I'm terrified our first in 2025 is going to turn into a major get for the Sharks.

It would be ridiculous to not give the 2024 1st to the Sharks unless it's top-4. The 2025 1st could be #1OA.

 

[SEALBound]

It would be ridiculous to not give the 2024 1st to the Sharks unless it's top-4. The 2025 1st could be #1OA.

I mean, maybe, it might depend on the selection and how the prospect pool pans out.

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

It would be ridiculous to not give the 2024 1st to the Sharks unless it's top-4. The 2025 1st could be #1OA.

Either way, the Sharks are getting a premium pick. /shrug

It's probably too early to decide atm. Gotta let the season play out and see who is likely to be available where the Pens are most likely to be picking and go from there. But yeah, next year ain't gonna be better, regardless of how the rest of this season plays out. It's been all downhill since 2018, and shows no signs of slowing down or stopping.