monty57

Although I know it's the case, it still depresses me when I see these reports. The write-up is spot on, and if all we're going to graduate from the farm are "average-ish MLB guys," and we can't afford top free agents, then it's hard to see how we'll have stars on the MLB team in the future, especially with the reluctance to trade anyone from the MLB roster until they are nearly free agents.

Seems about right to me... But I could also see the rotation being better then people think. The Brewer rotation is very hard to predict. They have a lot of talent, but a lot of question marks. Is Gallardo going to find his lost velocity? Is Lohse going to succumb to age? Is Peralta going to keep his walks down and continue to progress? Is Estrada going to bounce back well from injury? And every rotation has the question "are they going to stay healthy?" There's talent there, and they could all play to their potential, in which case they could be pretty good... or they could look pretty bad. It's probably easiest for the "gurus" to predict them to be somewhere in the middle.

I posted this earlier, but: Smoak's career line is 1712 AB, .227 avg / .314 OBP / .386 SLG / .700 OPS Morrison's career line is 1295 AB, .249 avg / .337 OBP / .427 SLG / .764 OPS meanwhile, Francisco's career line is 709 AB, .243 avg / .300 OBP / .432 SLG / .731 OPS Reynolds' career line is 3418 AB, .233 avg / .329 OBP / .464 SLG / .793 OPS None of these guys is very good, but if we gave up one of our MLB starting pitchers to get Smoak or Morrison, I'd be pretty upset. If one of them was cut by Seattle, we may take a flyer on him, but they're not worth giving up someone of value. I'm not even sure that either of them are better than the guys we have, so I think we'd be better off simply going with a Reynolds / Francisco combo at 1B.

I like the Bonifacio idea. Right now we have very limited positional flexibility on the roster, and he could change that himself. Whoever he would replace (Weeks or Bianchi), it would seem to make a lot of sense.

Braun at 3.8 is about half of his actual production in his peak seasons. Put it at 4.5 and Brewers are ahead of Reds. There's plenty to be debated. They also have Francisco and Maldonado getting almost all the PAs at 1B. Like anything at this time of year, they're making an "educated guess." I posted the link because I thought it added to this discussion. If they're even close to correct, St Louis will run away with things, with Pittsburgh, Cincy and Milwaukee fighting it out for the next three spots in the Central, none of them being in the top half (talent-wise) of major league teams.

If we were talking about a good lefty hitter who didn't hit LHP well, then I'd agree that we should keep him in the lineup everyday. Instead, we're talking about Gennett. I'm glad we have someone to play second, which allows us to move on from Weeks, and I really hope Gennett outplays his ability, but he doesn't really project to be a good, everyday MLB player. The likely scenario is that we play him a few years while he's cheap, and then move on to the next option. I hope he proves everyone wrong, but that's not the likely scenario. As I mentioned, I don't have any problem dumping Weeks, but I'd still platoon Gennett with Bianchi or someone else. However, I think the Brewers are going to try to let Weeks hit vs LHP to start the season, in hopes that he does a good job. If he can have an OPS of .800+ (hitting only against LHP there is a chance of this), then he is helping the team, and could be kept in that role, or could be flipped to another team who sees the .800+ OPS and thinks maybe Weeks has "found it." I think this is the only hope we have of getting some value from Weeks without running much risk of his getting 600 PAs and automatically vesting his option. If he doesn't do well in this role, then he's dumped a month or two into the season. We're paying him either way, so unless his 25-man spot is needed for a significant upgrade somewhere, then he'll get the spot. I can't think of anyone else we have that is such a significant upgrade that we'd eat the contract right now. Josh Prince? Caleb Gindl? Holding three first basemen? None of these options are good enough to force Melvin's hand. Of course, a GM could surprise me and trade for Weeks, but I think that's pretty unlikely, even if we eat most of the contract.

Here's a link to FanGraphs' take on the whole Brewer team. http://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=ALL&teamid=23 It has our starting pitching at 10.0 WAR, and the whole team ranked 23rd in baseball at 29.9 WAR, ahead of only the Mets, Twins, Astros, Phillies, Cubs, White Sox and Marlins.

I don't like have two guys who only play 1B and two guys who only play 2B, but that's our situation. If Melvin could get someone to take Weeks and pay some of his salary, I'm sure he'd do it, but at this point, Weeks is pretty much untradeable, so we either play him or cut him and pay him not to play. I think that if he only faces LHP in a platoon/RH-bat-off-the-bench role, then he has some chance of having decent stats, while also allowing Gennett to work his way into the majors in a more player-friendly manner by only facing RHP and getting some days off to rest. After a couple of months, if Weeks' numbers look good in his favorable role of only facing LHP, we're in a better position, as we could either trade him (other GMs would see his good numbers and think he could help them) or we could simply continue the platoon. If he's not working out, he could be cut and no one would be upset about it. If Weeks is outplaying Gennett, Scooter could go back to AAA once it becomes clear that Weeks won't get 600 PAs. Certainly not an ideal situation, but a platoon makes sense. Ideally, we'd have someone with more positional flexibilty, but even if Rickie were cut or traded tomorrow, I'd still want to see Gennett platooned (or "soft platooned") with a RH hitter.

I'm fine with going into the season with Reynolds as the main guy with either Francisco or Overbay coming off the bench, and I think Melvin probably is as well. I just don't know if Attanasio will be fine with it, so I think another move may be on the horizon. It may sound like I want a trade, but I don't, especially if it involves one or more of our few decent prospects. Really, I'd like for Thornburg to get a shot and do really well during that period, so that the Brewers are okay with trading away either Lohse or Gallardo next offseason. Unfortunately, the only way Thornburg will get his extended shot is if someone else gets seriously injured, and I can't hope for that. As to Reynolds, aptly he will be boom or bust depending on how many of his monster swings connect for HRs. He'll swing and miss a lot, and he will hit some HRs. The "rally killing" strikeouts will be offset somewhat by the "rally starting" walks, so really it all depends on about 10-15 PAs. 15-20 HRs and people will hate him. 30-40 and people will love him.

The Suppan signing was very easy to second guess at the time. A guy with very average stuff who was lucky enough to hit free agency at his career peak in an off-season with obscene contracts doled out. I agree that Garza is a better talent, and it's not even close. Looking back, I can't even imagine what we were thinking at the time, and I can't understand why anyone would have been excited about Suppan. Even at the time he was an average at best career starter who benefited from great defense in St. Louis, and I think even the most optimistic of fans wouldn't have thought we would get 4 good year out of Suppan. I agree that even the Wolf signing was much better at the time by comparison, much less the Garza signing. Suppan had to have been a product of an owner who just wanted to put his team on the map, I just wish he had done it with someone else. We had just come off a season in 2006 that was derailed by injuries to our starting pitchers. We expected to have a good team, when Sheets and Ohka went down, making things really ugly with Davis, Bush, Capuano and then two guaranteed losses. We tried everyone we had all the way down to AA (Hendrickson, Eveland, Zach Jackson, de la Rosa, Helling, etc). This is where Villanueva finally got his shot, and was the lone guy out of the bunch who pitched well. It's another in the line of "look at last year's problem and go overboard the next offseason to fix it." This was the early stages of the Fielder, Weeks, Hardy, etc era (Suppan's first year was Braun & Gallardo's rookie year), so rather than sticking with de la Rosa and Villanueva and suffering the growing pains, Brewer management felt we needed to get the proven vet. (In the midst of the 2006 season in which we ended up 75-87, we traded de la Rosa for Graffanino. de la Rosa "found it" in 2008 and has been a pretty good pitcher since.) At the time, the Brewers hadn't had a winning season since 1992, so they were doing whatever they could to appease the suddenly rabid fan base. Trading de la Rosa and signing Suppan got us a winning season in 2007. Who knows what the record in 2007 would have been if we had pitched Villanueva and de la Rosa. The future would've likely been better, but it's about winning now, so you don't let young guys play, you go out and sign the vet.

I would be so disappointed if this were the trade. The Brewers should not be dealing Thornburg or Nelson, as they are the only young pitchers they have currently that I see making an impact on the MLB roster. Now if the deal was Ramirez and two of Roache/Haniger/Coulter for Butler and Moustakas, I could get behind it, as it possibly fills 1B and 3B for the long term, and the Brewers have some younger depth at the OF positions (Gomez, Davis, Gindl, Tyrone Taylor & likely one of Roache/Haniger). In fact, I would very much welcome this deal as Butler-Ramirez is a likely push in 2014 and Moustakas-(pick one of our 1B), is a likely win for the Brewers this season. As I mentioned in the thread in the Major Leagues section, this is why I want to hold off on deciding on whether I like the Garza signing until I see all the ripple effects. I can't believe that Attanasio would okay the signing of Garza, and then stand pat with our 1B situation. I could see him looking at things and thinking "if we just had a good 1B, we'd be a playoff team." Since Attanasio took the reigns, the focus has been much more on the MLB roster than on the farm, so it's possible a trade like this happens (remembering of course that most trade ideas don't happen). If this were to go down, we would open a two-year "window" much like they did in 2011 with the Greinke and Marcum trades (Gallardo, Lohse, Butler and Ramirez all leaving after two years but only Weeks gone after this season). We would have a decent MLB roster, not as good as 2011, but still capable of making a playoff run. We would just have no depth, so we would be very susceptible to one injury completely derailing the season, and we would have one of the worst farm systems ever assembled. Note that this is not how I would've built the team, but we're here, so it's really about what we're going to do now. Do we spend money for Garza, going "half in" just to sell a few more tickets, or do we go "all in" and give up more of tomorrow for today? It's how they've done things for years, so why would they change now?

The MJS had an article that was a little bit clearer. "If that option does not vest, the Brewers can exercise it for $5 million... I love newspaper reporters. If you exercise the option, it means that you have picked it up and will pay him the $13MM. It should read "If the option does not vest, the Brewers can decline to exercise the option, at which point the Brewers will owe Garza $5MM unless Garza has spent 130 days on the disabled list over any 183-paid period for any injury." One point of language interests me. Does "183-day period" mean one season? Because "183-day period" could include spring training, and could go between seasons (miss end of one season and beginning of next). I think "183-day period" may be MLB lawyer speak for "in one season," so essentially he would only cost the Brewers $1MM to decline the option if he is on the DL 130 days in at least one of the four guaranteed seasons.

I am not to worried about 1st base possibly being below average just because we will also likely be getting above average offense from several positions that you normally don't expect (SS, CF, and C). I hope Segura lives up to what he did early last year, but I think it's early to say we'll get above average offense from him. Barring injury, we are likely to get good (relative) production from RF, CF, C and 3B. We will probably get below average production from 1B and 2B and have big questions at SS and LF. We have basically no backups with any ability, so any injury to any position, especially RF, CF, C and/or 3B could really hurt us. The Brewers play in an offensive park, so that has to play into discussions to some extent (positive for hitters, negative for pitchers). We should have a decent offense, but a lot of things this year are up in the air. How the young guys will play is one. Injuries are another. Injuries hit every team, but with a lot of our offense relying on a few players, and no talent behind the starters, we are probably much more susceptible to one injury derailing the season than most teams at any position except starting pitching.

~Smoak is 27, and with 1712 career MLB ABs has a career OPS of .700. He is entering his first year of arbitration. ~Logan Morrison is 26, and with 1295 career MLB ABs has a career OPS of .764. He is entering his first year of arbitration. As a "let's take a flyer on one of these guys in a rebuild year," I'd probably be okay with it, as they at least have some upside potential, although they haven't lived up to it to date. As a "we just signed Garza, so we need to upgrade 1B to make a playoff run," these guys aren't really prime targets over what we currently have in-house. As far as giving up anything at all of value for one of these guys, I'd pass. ~Mike Carp is 27 with a career .781 OPS in 761 MLB ABs. He has one year at $1.4MM on his contract. Last season he had an .885 OPS in 216 ABs. Definitely a small sample after a down career. Boston's signing of Sizemore could make him available, but only if Sizemore proves himself healthy and able. Probably better chance of success than the guys above, but probably a higher price tag and definite chance that last year was a fluke and he's really a low-.700 OPS guy. ~Butler is almost 28 (April 18, 1986) with a career .823 OPS in 3,768 MLB ABs. He is owed $8.5MM this year, with a $12.5MM option ($1MM buyout). Barring a Melvin finding a dark horse somewhere, Butler is really the only guy out there on the rumor mills who is a "sure thing" to be better than what we have. He is far, far better than any other guy being discussed, and will cost a lot more to get. It really comes down to a couple of things: 1) What is our goal? Are we "going for it" this year, or are we playing out this year to see what we have? Signing Garza seems to signal "go for it," so we will probably look for an upgrade at 1B. Again, only Butler seems to be a "sure thing" upgrade. Any of the other options could easily be outplayed by a Reynolds/Francisco platoon (which is sad). 2) Do we have the money to land Butler? I didn't think we'd spend this offseason, but once again, we made a "splash" signing. It's possible that it was is simply done to increase sales without a true goal of winning. In this case, we'll stand pat with Reynolds/Francisco. If Attanasio believes he can put together a playoff team, can he dig out another $8.5MM (minus what we'd save by jettisoning the 1B on the roster)? Budgets are based on projected ticket sales, so if Attanasio does think this vaults us to the playoffs, then he would probably assume higher attendance, so it's possible he'd okay the money. 3) Do we have the prospects to land Butler? Our farm stinks, so it really depends on how much KC wants to move him and what other teams would offer. I'd guess one of Thornburg/Nelson, one or two of Roache/Haniger/Coulter and maybe someone else would be our best package, and I have no idea if that would be enough to get him. But, if we don't get someone who is a true upgrade over Francisco/Reynolds/Overbay, then I don't see a point in making a move. I think Attanasio will want a better option at 1B, so I think Melvin will at least try for someone like Butler. If he trades anything of value for one of the other guys being mentioned, I will probably be disappointed.

I see no way the Brewers will or can pay what KC will want for Butler. And that is before we talk about Butler's salary and questionable ability at 1B. I'm not sure if Thornburg or Nelson + Roache or Haniger and another prospect would be enough, but I could see the Brewers trying to pull a "Grienke-like" trade. They now have their rotation set for the next two years, Ramirez could be here for two years, and with his option, Butler has two years of team control remaining. This would fit right into the two-year "window" in which Melvin likes to operate. I don't know if the Brewers have enough trade chips (assuming of course that they aren't going to trade anyone from the MLB roster) to make this happen, but I'd guess they'd trade almost anyone from the farm to do it. It's not necessarily how I'd do things, but making a move like this would make the Garza signing more sensible for the "go for it" strategy, as they'd be trading from their excess of AAA starting pitching and outfielders to fill the biggest black hole on the MLB roster. The move really has Attanasio/Melvin written all over it.

I'm not upset about signing Garza. I think he's a good player, he'll make the team better, and relative to the ridiculous deals signed by big money teams, we got him "cheap." In a different situation, I'd be excited by the signing, but in the current situation, it just seems odd. Starting pitching is supposed to be the area in which we have the most young talent. If endaround and DoubleSwitch are correct, and our four best prospects are replacement level or worse, then we are really in trouble. Thornburg (#84 MLB.com 2012. #100 BP last year) and Nelson (#83 MLB.com this year) are supposed to be better prospects than Davis and Gennett, and not far behind Peralta (#64 MLB.com, #68 BP last year) and Segura (#67 BP in 2012). I respect you endaround, but if you truly think Thornburg and Nelson are replacement level, then I will disagree. I think both of them should have careers as #3-5 starters. But we will only know if they ever get the chance. Thornburg has done at least as well in the MLB as Davis and Gennett, and he's been much more heralded by scouts, so I have more faith in him and Nelson than I have in Davis and Gennett and far more than I have in the mish-mash of 1B on the roster or the bullpen. Plus, we have no depth anywhere but starting pitching, so if we get any injury anywhere on the field, that player will be replaced by someone far below replacement level. That is why rather than lighting off fireworks and doing cartwheels over what a steal we got, I question why our most important move this offseason was to bring in a starting pitcher. We have a lot of holes, some of them very big. With all of these holes, signing Garza probably is not nearly enough to make us a playoff team this year, and if endaround is correct that our best prospects are replacement level guys, we aren't going to be winning anything in the foreseeable future. So what really is the point in signing him other than to excite the fans who have been weaned to expect something like this every year or they let their season tickets expire?

Monty - I think we will still see Thornburg/Nelson, but not need them to be studs right from the get go. Bullpen roles or coming up to fill for injuries. Plus Yo is gone next year isn't he? So I don't think this blocks anything, just allows them to slow play their moves in to the bigs. Yo has an option for 2015, and Lohse is signed through 2015, Estrada will be in his third arby year in 2015 and Peralta is under team control through 2018. The Garza signing means our entire rotation is intact for 2014 and 2015, with three guys leaving after 2015. Thornburg is 25 years old and Nelson is 24, so they're both already past the "too young" stage, and by 2016 will be around the "no longer considered a prospect" age. You also have Jungmann (24), Hellweg (25), Blazek (almost 25), Pena (24), Gagnon (23) and Bradley (23) all knocking on the door. That's also more than we can stash in AAA, so at least two will either need to be in the Brewer bullpen or have to spend another year in AA. I understand that Garza is more of a "sure thing" than any of the prospects, but I see this as being akin to signing a LF to a multi-year deal because he is more of a "sure thing" than either Davis or Gindl. Both Thornburg and Nelson are more highly thought of than Davis or Gindl, so if Davis (with Gindl as insurance) is okay for LF, why isn't Thornburg (with a lot of guys as insurance) not good enough for the #5 starter spot? He wouldn't need to be a stud, just a #5 starter. If you spend money for the marginal upgrade from Thornburg/Nelson to Garza, it should mean that that marginal difference is going to benefit you in a meaningful way. I know Thornburg doesn't qualify as a prospect anymore, but since he's in this spot, I'll consider him, Nelson, Jungmann and Hellweg as the top four prospects in the organization. We shouldn't need to sign a good-but-not-great player to a guaranteed $50MM deal just to make sure our top four prospects (all with MLB experience) stay in AAA for the next two years or get relegated to bullpen duty. So again, Garza is a fine player, and when compared to the ridiculous deals being signed by the big money teams, we got him "cheap." It still doesn't seem like a necessary move, but rather one done either just because we had money and no better options, or more likely done to spur fan excitement to increase lackluster ticket sales.

I think this signing has Attanasio thinking playoffs, and I don't think he'll want to stand pat with the current 1B situation. I think they're going to try to get a good 1B, and I think that means trading one of Thornburg/Nelson plus some other prospects for someone like Butler. Attanasio has shown the propensity to worry about today and let tomorrow sort itself out, and trading Thornburg+ for Butler would fit perfectly well into that line of thinking.

I'd say they wouldn't "count their chickens before they're hatched." They may have been in talks with Garza, but Garza wasn't moving until the Yankees signed Tanaka, and the Brewers had to do something about 1B. They could've had a two-pronged approach: If we sign Garza, we go for it and make a trade for a good 1B -or- If we don't sign Garza, we make do with trash-heap players at 1B and probably end up trading some players mid-season to build for the future. Since we did sign Garza, I could very well see the front office feeling that what we have at 1B is not enough, and determining that now that we have Garza for the rest of his career, we can afford to trade one of Nelson/Thornburg plus some other prospects for a good 1B. I think they'll aim higher than Davis, and look at someone like Butler, who would no doubt be far better than what we have, could even be enough to get us into the playoff conversation, but who will be gone after one season, meaning we'd be trading away some good prospects for a one-year window. Another option would be Carp from Boston, who isn't as good as Butler, but who has more "team control," so he may be a better target. I'm not saying this is the route I would've taken, but I think it fits the Attanasio m.o. edit: after posting this, I see there is a thread in the trade forum titled "Impact of Garza Signing on 1B," so I will stop talking about this here

On paper, in a vaccuum, this seems like a good deal relative to the contracts big money teams are paying to starting pitchers. But in our situation, it seems a bit odd. Sure it should make us better, but we just signed a guy in what is supposed to be our farm's biggest area of strength, blocking several MLB ready guys, while we're trotting out Francisco/Overbay/Reynolds at 1B and Weeks/Gennett at 2B. Segura looked like a MVP candidate for a few months and then fell off a big cliff, and his only back-up is Bianchi, with the closest help on the farm playing in the low minors. Our 3B is old and missed half of last season to injury. Maybe there wasn't a viable upgrade available at any other position, but it seems we had areas of greater need. I'm glad that we look to be going with Segura, Davis, Gennett, and Peralta as starters as we need to trust young players, but then we block Thornburg and Nelson, who are around the same talent level of these guys, with Garza. This really makes me believe that at least one of Thornburg/Nelson is going to be moved for a first baseman, because on a relative basis, the drop off from a good 1B to what we have is far greater then the dropoff from Garza to Thornburg/Nelson. So the signing is a "good deal" relative only to the deals which are out of our league (the ones teams like the Dodgers and Yankees sign). We did outbid everyone else for him, so I guess that means it was a "normal free agent deal." It doesn't break our budget, and Garza is 30, which should be safer then the 34-year-olds Melvin has signed the past two offseasons. I don't think this move vaults us past anyone else in the division, although it does help with the team's number one priority, which is exciting the fan base so they buy tickets. I like Garza, and the move should make the Brewers better this year. From a "fan in the seats" standpoint, I guess that's good. I'll have to reserve full judgement until I see the follow-up move, because I would be surprised if we don't trade some "MLB ready" starting pitching prospects for a first baseman. My guess right now for a real "all in" move would be Thornburg+ for Butler.

Baseball makes the most money when the big market teams are good, so things aren't going to change. Complaining isn't going to do anything, so as fans we can either watch the games knowing there is an uneven playing field, or we can stop watching the games. If enough fans stop watching, then maybe something would be done about it. However, the Brewers can do something. Teams like the Rays, A's and Twins under Terry Ryan found a way to work the system in a way allowing them to remain competitive. Conversely, the Brewers decided to run their team like a big market team, which worked for a short while because they were coming off an extremely low payroll, so they were able to expand payroll at a time when they had some very good players coming up from the farm. This was easily recognizable as an unsustainable model. Like the continually successful small-market teams, they need to adopt a sustainable model. Other than international free agents like Tanaka, the system as it is set up severely underpays players for the first 3-6 years of their MLB careers. It then overpays players who are past their prime. Shouldn't be too difficult to figure out where small market teams should look to find talent.

This on MLBTradeRumors.com this morning: Yuniesky Betancourt will decide on his new club within the week, MLB Daily Dish's Chris Cotillo reports (Twitter link). Betancourt was drawing interest from several teams, potentially even as a starter.

This was on MLBTradeRumors.com this morning: For now, Mike Carp's future with the Red Sox isn't likely to be impacted by the club's signing of Grady Sizemore, an industry source tells MLB Daily Dish's Chris Cotillo (Twitter link). Carp received a lot of trade interest earlier this winter and now another left-handed outfield bat has joined the team, Carp could be the odd man out. I'd guess that Boston wouldn't do anything with Carp, however, until they get a long look at the injury-plagued Sizemore during Spring Training. Although it would be worth making a phone call to see what the price tag might be.

So much for the new posting system making an even playing field. I thought the posting wasn't an MLB rule, but a Japanese one. The players were basically owned by their team, and if the player wanted to play in the U.S., the Japanese league worked out the system that allowed the team to make a huge payday by "selling" the player's rights to an MLB team. This generally ended in the MLB team paying a lot of money, the Japanese team making a lot of money, and the player getting signed to a smaller contract. The Japanese players were upset by this, so I thought the new posting was so that the player would get more of the pie and the Japanese team less of the pie. Yeah this should lead to a max exodus of American Ballplayers who can attract Japanese Professional teams to sign them and play there and then sign Massive Free Agent Contracts to come back here. I believe the Japanese rules are much stricter than the U.S. rules, so this would be a risky strategy. Plus, the work routines they put their players through would probably destroy an American recent HS grad, who has been babied compared to what they do over there. So, if a player decided to go this route, moved to Japan from age 18 to his mid-to-late 20's making relatively little money, and ended up being a superstar, then yes, he could potentially convince his team to sell his rights back to a U.S. team and he wouldn't have to go through the pre-arby/arby process. If he was merely an average MLB talent, no one would pay $20MM on top of a contract to get him.

I like Gindl's bat better than Schafer's as well, but I don't believe the Brewers will enter the season without a 2nd person who can play CF. I'd prefer they get rid of Weeks and find a starting 1B whose backup plays multiple positions, but if they don't, they are only going to have four OF, so the backup has to be able to play all three spots. If they had the room, I'd like to see Gindl on the roster to get a decent amount of PT in LF. Davis should be the starter, but I'd like to have the lefty Gindl get a couple starts a week against RHP. But, as long as we have two 1B-only players and two 2B-only players, we're going to be shallow in other positions. Bianchi will probably be the only backup for SS & 3B, and Schafer for all three OF positions. At least we'll have three guys who can play 2B and four who can play 1B (incl Lucroy and Maldonado)