UpandIn

Yes, if we massage the numbers in order to take Willy Adames best 2 year stretch while excluding Story and Baez' two year stretch, then he would certainly look better. Just the obvious flaws with these. His +14.6 Def the last two years is the result of 14.8 while last year he had a -.2 DEF. So you're just really skewing this to make Adames look at best as possible, while...again, taking the other two players worse seasons. The argument was made that he was on the same trajectory as those two were at the same point in their respective careers as a justification for that extension. But he's not been better and both of those teams would gladly get out from under those deals if they could. Also, bWAR Adames WAR 7.9 Baez-7.1 WAR Story-6.7 But if that's ALL you have to go on...who's giving the later two players 6/140? He's been marginally better than the other two while Story has played ~50 fewer games and due to the presence of Xander Boegarts, he moved from SS to 2B. Kida just felt like an afterthought move Boston

I don't even know if I agree those guys were both sure bets. Baez maybe...though he had incredibly poor OBP, but he was an electric player who had incredible defensive versatility. But Story on the other hand...he was Juan Soto at Coors and Christian Yelich(post 2019) on the road. And since leaving Coors for the friendly confines of Fenway, he's STILL down ~.250 points on his OPS from Coors to Fenway and then down to .642 OPS at home. So...talk about cautionary tales. Better by quite a bit than Adames at the same ages but both signed contracts that their teams would likely love to get out of at the moment. Also, look at the state of SS around MLB. Correa couldn't get his 300M last year, so he had to settle for a 3 year deal with a PO to try again this year with Correa, Turner and Swanson as other FAs. So I'll roll the dice with Adames unless he signs a ~6/90 deal with maybe a couple TOs at 25. I like him a lot, but he hasn't become the superstar that we'd be paying him as.

I think it may be speed, defense(especially with the shift) and low K rates. Baseball is cyclical. Maybe we're going back to good pitching and guys who can get an IF single, get themselves to 2nd and then score on back to back outs. It'd be nice given the current construction of our farm system.

Olney reported only a "offer in the area of 180," no # of years, no details and the Cubs, per Baez, pulled the offer Per the Athletic, he turned down 8/168. So Baez basically lost himself 8M dollars by the time he got to the FA market which has been absolutely stacked with SS's the past couple years(this year included). To the point where there actually moving elite defensive SS's to different positions as the did with Story in Boston(Which never made much since given his production way from Coors. Story at Coors-.303/.369/.972 Story away from Coors- .241/.310/.752 So we should just throw out the Story comp IMO. BUT AGAIN, you paying Willy for what you think he can still do. He's been an inconsistent defensive and offensive player(coming off an elite year defensively) but a 4.4 WAR. Story and Baez at 25/26, the last two years Adames was had put up WARs from Again, ages 25, 26, Willy has put up ~8.5 WAR. Story 13.2, Baez 13.0. That's a BIG gap, plus a MVP runner up award. So that's a ~5 WAR difference. That in and of itself is better than any season Willy's had. Any contract extension, especially if we're using Story and Baez's deals, they should reflect that.

Yes...that's what I said.

I don't think I'm doing that literally AT ALL. Did they not draft Aaron Rodgers, have him "hold a clipboard" for 3 years and then try and talk Favre into coming back multiple times before he made his announcement, they used two draft picks on a QB and then decided to move on? What was the plan THEN other than they drafted a QB they thought was the best player available? What's been twisted? If you don't like the ideology NOW, then you don't like the ideology from then. The only difference as of now, the Rodgers picked proved to be a good move and the Love pick is still in it's 3rd year and has not. Tell me what part of what you said am I twisting? They did. They made multiple trips down. McCarthy went down, Murphy went down there, they told him to take more time and said they wanted him back. The "no, we're good," again, AFTER they spent a whole summer developing Aaron Rodgers, using a 2nd round pick on Brian Brohm and a 7th round pick on Matt Flynn. And I still genuinely have no clue how I'm taking your remarks out of context and apparently know this. This situation is SOOO similar to the Rodgers situation, I'm not sure there's a more comparable situation in NFL history. Love STILL hasn't "held a clipboard," as long as Rodgers has, and again, they absolutely wanted Favre back again immediately following the 2008 season. So I'd like some clarification on what's been twisted or how these situations are different? As for the plans to have that backup QB take over at some point, do ya think maybe even if they did have those plans, the back to back MVPs and three straight 13 win seasons may have changed that?

They didn't remove the interim tag from Gard for over 3 months(again, early march IIRC).

This is...literally what they did with Aaron Rodgers. And Rodgers 4th year, they tried to talk Favre into coming back. I'll also say, yes, every team needs multiple RBs and TE was a need and Deguara was a guy compared to Kittle coming out...and he tore his ACL right way. So these arguments are kinda at odds. Also, MLF was not a "run the ball 60% of the time," type of QB. Even the 49ers and their running game wanted Rodgers. You need an elite QB in the modern NFL... Even Shanahan's best teams were those outside zone teams in ATL and then SF, they threw the ball and had an MVP in Matt Ryan. There was complaining about AJ Dillon. Then he played...and played well and there were people, just like with the Gary pick who didn't remember complaining or joked about how they didn't like the pick then, but like it now. And now that he's having a bad season again.... The truth IS the Packers built two Championship caliber teams. That Bakh injured may have cost them two chances. Jenkins injury has cost them and he hasn't rebounded(people talk about taking a RB at the end of the 2nd round, but a OG at the start of the 2nd is at least as questionable...unless it works). I know everyone's writing off the Rodgers era, but...hell, we'll be picking high. Maybe we get a Tristan Wirfs type player in the 1st and the raw 1st round picks develop by next year. Rodgers still most likely has 2 years left. This years a wrap with Gary and the injuries, but look at the Giants, Jets and teams like that. We can absolutely get back there the next couple years. Or Rodgers retires and we re-set for the future. We'll see. I'm not going to re-write history and ignore what this front office/HC did the last several years because everything has gone wrong this past off-season.

I'm not sharing an opinion as to what I believe they should do, I'm saying there are UW bylaws(and maybe even State Laws) about how they have to go about the hiring process. They have to consider all qualified applicants and give them time. It's not like ND or the Packers, they are required to list the job for a period of time. If they decide to hire Leonhard, I'm sure he'll be out there recruiting and giving the wink and a nod and telling the recruits his job is a mere formality, but...the AD can't just hire a guy on a whim or without completing the process. I'm not saying it makes sense in athletics whereas it may in other jobs, but...UW has a lot of handicaps. MAYBE because they fired PC early in the season they can list it earlier, but I still thought it was Feb or sometime around then.

Right. The trade simulator aside, Ohtani is worth far more than just his value on the field...which is that of an ace pitcher and a middle of the order hitter, but he's the biggest international superstar in the game and the Angels are trying to KEEP Ohtani. That's why they're so desperate. They want to build a winner. Otherwise...the value makes sense. 2 years of Burnes for 1 of Ohtani(don't care about Tellez as he's a throw in on a trade like this).

No...and why would the Angels? The whole reason they're desperate is because they want to re-sign Ohtani. So...why would they trade him(And Rudy Tellez would be inconsequential in this deal). And...AGAIN, I'm not doing any Bobby Bonilla extension. It's kinda weird you're hung up on that particular deal since it's not even close to the largest deferred money. The Nats deferred 175M dollars to Scherzer and Strausburg and you're really stuck on the Bonilla thing. What WE'D be doing would be like the Nats and...that'd be dumber IMO. What about when all these prospects develop and you can't afford to extend Frelick, Chourio, Quero, Wiemer, Gasser, Misiorowski...whoever else. I feel like I've done this before, but the Bobby Bonilla deal worked for the Mets because they took the 5.8M dollars, they took that, they gave it to Mike Hampton...who was coming off a 22-4 season in which he was the MVP runner up. So they took money for a player they didn't want and didn't want to be there...and who also wasn't good. And they replaced it with an ace pitcher, exactly what they needed at that time. And THEN they got David Wright back as a compensation pick for Hampton. So can we trade for Rafael Devers, give up very little in compensation, then making a QO to him and get back a player like Ryan Braun(but a little better and who can actually play 3B). Guarantee me THAT, and I'll do the Ohtani trade. Otherwise it makes no sense for the Brewers and it makes even less sense for the Angels. And then there's no world we can afford Ohtani. He may very well get 50M+ a year. He's going to sign an unprecedented contract. Hell, he may get a 5 year 300M deal. I don't know. But this accomplishes nothing we're trying to do. Burnes to Baltimore makes some sense, and even then...we're probably setting our sites too high on a potential return.

The movie was literally about a 102 win team regrouping after losing Giambi(1.137 OPS) and an All-Star CFer Johnny Damon and replacing them with high OBP guys and then winning 103 games.

And both of those deals look terrible right now and they're a year old. Baez had two 6+ War seasons at 25 and 26. Adames best season was 4.4 WAR. And Baez turned down 8/168 for an average of 21M per one year before free agency and he was coming off 13 WAR in the previous 2 seasons and an MVP runner up. Story put up even better years at 25 and 26 putting up 13.1 WAR. And again, both look like bad deals right now. Yeah, I could see Willy putting up 6 WAR...but he hasn't yet. You're comparing him to players who, at the same age, put up MUCH higher war. You're also locking him up through age 35, not 34 with the option at age 35.

You're talking about about a payroll a lot closer to 180M than 150. And I don't know that I want Attanasio to sell the team. There are a LOT of owners who'd buy the team and move them. I like watching baseball in Nashville...because they're our AAA team. A new owner is probably more likely to move a team to Nashville or LV than it is to invest the 400-500M dollars needed by 2030 when the lease is up to maintain Miller Park(or AmFam) or build a new stadium as the life of Miller Park was apparently only meant to be 40-50 years in large part because of the roof and the way it's constructed. I guess the money doesn't need to be spent BY them, but in the not too distant future. So if you're a billionaire and you want to buy a team and you're not from Wisconsin, why would you keep the team here? Maybe one of the 4 billionaires in Wisconsin will want to buy the team, but they're all old(as are most billionaires). Nashville, LV, Portland, Carolina, either one, they'd probably love a franchise. Anway...obviously signing all three would be great and if we could do it, everyone would. But we don't have the resources for it and it's real unlikely. 5 years with those 3, plus the players you mentioned, Chourio, Quero, Black...and I think we'll find relievers just fine. Uribe looks like he could be a stud, Gasser, whatever, we'll fine 'em. I just don't think it's realistic. 3 years from now, you'd be conservatively paying ~90 million for Adames, Burnes, Woodruff and Yelich. So then you'd likely just watch the young studs we developed leave and the Brewers would slash payroll and totally rebuild.

And I hate to rain on yours, but she was literally representing the team at the owners meeting. There wasn't anything "behind the scenes" about it. Also, '92 was Molitor's last year, so it was more '93 and moving forward. Either way...she was running the team. Probably deferring to Bando, but her and Laurel Prieb became the face of the Brewers ownership when Selig became interim comish. Also...why would this rain on my parade? Do you think this is something I'm celebrating? The Braves literally just signed two more players to large pre-arbitration deals to players with less than 1 year of service time. Strider and Harris. Austin Riley signed last year...don't know if he was super-2, but lets leave him out of this and assume he was. I don't get what you argument is though. It was originally, we'd be better off signing Anthony Rizzo through age 40 and now it's players don't sign them...presumably because Albies in particular signed a bad deal? So what? Didn't stop Strider, Harris or on our very own team, Ashby or Peralta...just as Lucroy's extension didn't stop them from signing. That first big contract is appealing to teams AND players as it generally guarantees generational wealth and the opportunity, particularly if you'd be 30 by the time that contract is over...to hit free agency again. Obviously not every player is going to sign...but they haven't exactly stopped happening because of the two you cited.

Yeah, I understood what you meant when you were talking about the cap. I'm saying because of how much money the Packers get just from the NFL right off the top(expected to be 400M....just handed out, first day of the league year)...the Packers COULD just keep this cycle going as long as they wanted. Just use cash to stay ahead of the cap via signing bonuses and void years. And you'll have dead cap hits and as you re-sign players, they'll have low cap hits to off-set the dead cap. It's not ideal, but Rodgers isn't really preventing us from doing much. '22-28M cap hit '23-31M cap hit (massive dead cap if they excercise the options of 99M). '24-40M cap hit -24M dead cap And the cap will be going up by an easy estimate of 20M a year. I mean...I kinda just listed the top players, rookies who'd already proven themselves...and then a couple guys who are certainly possible "meh" type players. Toure, Dillon(at least the way he's being used), the other two rookie WRers may never hit. Other than that, I think they're all already good players or rookies who are actually playing well like Tom and Enagbare. Maybe Jenkins won't ever be the same...but I'm skeptical. Gary's injury is...devastating. The Packers had been negotiating with each player on contract extensions(reportedly) with Gary being the priority. What the hell do we do now with those two? No way we can extend Jenkins for ~15M a year at this point, right? And as likely as Gary is to return to an elite level after an ACL injury, we're kinda going through hell right now as both Jenkins and Bakhtiari have suffered injuries and not come back. I don't know, I'd need a whole lot of zanax or valium if I were running the Packers. This team is like playing Tetris...and you KNOW there's a way the pieces fit together and you just need a couple pieces, but you just can't QUITE get them to fit together...and then when you do get the right piece...it breaks(I guess that's where my analogy falls apart).

The 4-12 Jets traded a 2nd round pick for Brett Favre at 39 years old. So yeah, my definition of "much" would be a couple 2nds, with at least one being a conditional 1st round pick. And I also agree, teams aren't going to look at Aaron Rodgers and his stat line this year and put it on him. The Lions game...sure, he threw two INCREDIBLY uncharacteristic picks. It is just totally wild speculation to guess if Rodgers would accept a trade which...while not technically a requirement, with the complicated contract and the option that guarantees the '24 and '25 money, he'd need to work that out with a team. I always assumed that was put in there to give Aaron Rodgers compete autonomy of how his career ends in GB(as he should). I'm reasonably sure Rodgers isn't going to want to go out like this, so I'd expect him back. I'd also be alright if he retired.

1st-Each NFL team got 335M dollars from the league on the 1st day of the league year. Because of the increase in TV revenue, that number will be ~400M next year. The Packers lost about ~60M from their rainy day fund. 2nd-The Packers are spending about 270M in cash on contracts this year...so yes, there IS a salary cap and there are a million and one ways around it. If it was the NBA, the Packers wouldn't be able to pay Jaire and Rodgers ~75M in cash this year and have 48M in salary cap hits. These are important distinctions. 3rd-I'm quite sure the non-profit you work at operates VERY differently than the Packers, and I also never ONCE suggested the people running it don't "consider their budget and profit line." That's a bizarre reading of what I said. I said I DIDN'T care. And you kinda made my point for me. In a year in which the Packers have spent more CASH on players than the total salary cap by a significant margin and had a 60 million dollar "dip" from the stock market in their nearly half a BILLION dollar rainy day fund a year before the NFL's 110 BILLION dollar TV deal kicks in, meaning they'll be receiving 70M(at least, they're still negotiating the new red zone package last I heard, something they charged 1B for last year and are looking at close to 3B in their newest contract, meaning each team will receive tens of millions MORE in revenue) I think I was pretty accurate. The Packers can most certainly continue to spend more in cash than the salary cap for as long as they so choose. Doubt it. At least as it pertains to the Packers. Their primary agenda isn't to maximize revenues, it's to create revenue in service of the Football team. They're not curing cancer or running a food bank, they're handing out 150M dollar contracts for 3 years in a league that's on pace to generate 25 BILLION a year by 2027. So I'm not sure what your point is. If not for a temporary downturn in their rainy day fund and record cash over cap spending, the Packers revenue would have been ~150M? Much of which would have just gone into their rainy day fund. What is the point of this "correction?" I do not expect Aaron Jones back. Kylin Hill isn't Jones, but he's a similar type of runner and Jones cap hit IS actually prohibitive. While...again, you can spend 50M more a year on players than the salary cap, retaining Aaron Jones would likely require a new contract or a 20M+ cap hit. So maybe they re-sign him...he's taken far less money already to stay in GB, but maybe they decide a 20M cap hit is worth it for a RB. If they decide to draft a new QB, I would guess that would make it that much more far fetched. Re; trading Rodgers, of course Rodgers trade value isn't going to be anywhere near what it was 2 years ago or this year. I sincerely doubt playing with this OL and this receiving crew and his level of play this year is going to diminish his value THAT much. The fact that Denver has already gotten their QB, SF, LAR...that'd do it. The small number of teams who would both be in need of a QB+have the talent on their roster for it to make sense+ Rodgers age is what's going to make his value drop, plus his strange contract that has a massive roster bonus that triggers 2024 and 2025 guarantees would also complicate matters. But IF Tennessee, Indy or another team along those lines wanted Rodgers, I'm sure they'd make it work. If Josh Allen's UCL tears, Buffalo would be a team set up to take on 1 year of Rodgers and get his contract. I don't have a clue. Would you get a 1st? A 2nd and a conditional 1st like Carson Wentz got? I'd think that'd be the minimum Aaron Rodgers would go for, but I don't know. There's a whole season to play out before we get to that point. Finally-Yes, if there is a great QB in this draft, that would make sense. Will Levis, Young, Stroud(he's not the same as the other OSU QBs...he's not just an athlete with a big arm, he's got incredible touch). And you could let Jordan Love play a year if Rodgers retired or if he was traded. It totally depends on where they're picking. There's also a Lawrence Taylor like edge rusher in this draft in Will Anderson. I'd be fine taking him as well. There are a lot of directions the Packers could go, they could double back down, out-spend the cap again, and kick it down the road further counting on their young WRers and what are likely to be high selections to make a bigger impact next year or they could tear it down. What they do will depend on a whole lot of options. The one thing that they should be doing now is making Jerry Grey the DC, put Devonte Wyatt into the starting lineup with Enagbare, Rudy Ford and...I suppose try and get Darnell Savage back on track so if nothing else, you can trade him...because he looks bad.

I'm not following, are you saying for the purpose of this hypothetical we can't think about the deadline? Because that makes sense. But if you're saying in reality waiting until the deadline creates a difficult scenario, then I don't think that's an issue. I don't see this being like Hader. We were 3-4 games up when we traded Hader, he's a reliever, so inherently less valuable than an ace or a ~5 WAR SS. But for the purpose of this hypothetical, if they're in the mix for a wildcard, I guess it'd depend. Are the rookies you hoped would come in and produce flailing? Is your BP leaking? Or did we get off to a 20-30 start and then get hot and work our way back into playoff consideration? I should have clarified this off-season/deadline, but I THINK that question will answer itself. What I hope is that if we're in that position, the same one were this past year...we're not playing well, we're trending in the wrong direction, you make the trade. More than anything, if you're getting a massive offer, I think that takes care of itself. If we're in 1st place, but trending in the wrong direction and instead of trading a closer, you trade Corbin Burnes, the fallout of that would be...absolutely awful. So I think that'd be a difficult decision. That's the only time I think it'd be a hard decision. You get a good offer and you're on the brink of contending. But yeah, if you don't get a good offer, you don't make the deal. I don't think that'll be an issue. I think a good GM will just have to divorce himself from emotion as Stearns did. Didn't work out in his case, but you set a price, they agree or you start the process of quietly shopping them(teams I'm sure have already called and inquired). Unless Attanasio, snake bitten from getting blamed last year interferes, it should go smoothly. I'm still fairly confident that we'll extend one of the two pitchers. With a significant increase in money via revenue sharing and TV deals, we really should be able to push the payroll up. So IF Burnes accepts 5/130(Which I know people don't think he will, I think he might) I don't think that'd cripple the Brewers or be a bad move. But I also would discourage Attanasio from digging deeper into some of the contracts I've seen thrown around(6/200 was one...I think that's WAY too much as we're taking the risk and we'll pay him ~30M the next 2 years...so then you're paying around 4/170 and that's basically what he'd likely get as a FA this year IF the trend continues where the AAV for pitchers keeps going up and the length of the contract goes down).

Yeah, I don't think there's going to be much of a difference in trading them this off-season or next trade deadline. As others have pointed out, at the trade deadline, you get teams who've had injuries, who've had surprisingly good seasons and they're willing to pay more. And of course I agree, extend them if they'll accept. I'd go 3 FA years for the pitchers. As for #2, I think the more I look at it, the proposed deal from the Dodgers, would probably be too good of a deal to pass up(which also means they're likely not making it).

That's just when it became official. Selig has ALMOST no day to day involvement in the Brewers organization when he was the interim commissioner. Wendy Selig-Prieb, Laurel Prieb and Bando were running the day to day operations of the Brewers...it just wasn't made official until Selig was officially named commissioner. SHE represented the franchise at the owners meetings starting in 1992. So when she was officially named is of little consequence to me, she was the one calling the shots. Bud Selig didn't even know there was a problem with Molitor until a week or two before they had to decide to offer him arbitration and he stepped in at the last minute and tried to solve the problem, but the problems had been done. And I do not agree paying Rizzo would be a better idea than extending a young prospect. Vargas is projected to be worth nearly 1 more WAR next year...must less in 7 years when Rizzo(33) is 40 years old and Vargas(22) is 29. OBVIOUSLY these signings would come a couple months into the season, but it's hardly unprecedented. It's how the Braves have locked up half of their everyday lineup through 2030. The point is to sign the young players to team friendly deals early in their careers.

Exactly. Maybe I didn't articulate this as well as I could have. The trade packages aren't meant to be taken as gospel. They're outlines. The type of value you'd be expected to get back for these three players. Also, I was trying to ask IF you can't extend one(you try and extend all 3, Burnes, Woodruff and then Adames in that order) you either trade all 3 now or you keep all three together. It's purely academic as the Brewers aren't trading all 3 their 3 best players in the same off-season with 2 years of team control, but it was meant to gauge if fans on this board thought would rather maximize the return right now or go for it another year. But absolutely, it doesn't have to be Milller/Stone/Vargas/Pepiot for Burnes(which is again, probably an overpay and the Brewers would have to send something back or take a less 4th prospect in return for Pepiot). Just a package of that type of value. As far as your Alvarez idea, I haven't really watched him and don't know much about him, but it feels like the flameout rate for catches is a bit high. Of course he's a guy with a bat that'll play all over the place, but I'd prefer to spread out and mitigate the risk a bit. So if you get back the #1 prospect in baseball...you're lucky if you're getting anything other than a couple of lottery tickets after that. That makes sense if he's as good as people are saying, I'm just a bit risk adverse.

Fans are always upset when the season ends with the exception of 2008...and that was just the result of how insanely bad Wendy Selig-Prieb ran this team into the ground after taking over in the early 90's and immediately running out one of the two HOFers the Brewers ever produced out of town coming off a competitive year, and the other when they lost in 7 games in the NLCS because. Fans are happy with winning. They'd get over it if this team made the right trades, developed players and then put the money back into the team by locking up the young players they acquired. I'd start by extending Vargas almost immediately to a 7/82M type deal with a couple TOs(if he takes it). I think that's overstating it. Fangraphs has him as their projected opening day starter next year at 3B. The Dodgers apparently believe internally that he can handle playing 3B. Most scouting reports suggest he'll end up having to move off 3B as he fills out because he's not a great athlete, but he has a big am and good hands. He's MLB ready and will almost certainly be on a team next year and the Dodgers had him play the majority of his games at 3B last year and only 3 games at 1B. So that lines up with the reports that the Dodgers believe he can handle 3rd. At least for now. If the Dodgers thought he was "NOT an option going forward at 3B," it'd stand to reason...they'd get him more time at 1B(where they don't really have a long term solution).

Yeah...I kinda went back and forth and had Bruns in there as the 4th pitcher. He's probably more realistic and probably has as much upside. But I think that is probably too much for any player with just 2 years of team control. I should have stuck with that because while I didn't run any of these through the simulator, that both feels like too much and it's really not how the Dodgers do things. Especially not with pitchers. They're fine taking a starting pitcher and burning service time having him throw 80 innings out of the BP. So Madison Bruns/Walker Buehler. I still like that idea...let him rehab for a year and then IF he comes back by the end of next year like Glasnow did, try and extend him buying out a year of Free Agency. I'd also be happy to include another player going back to the Dodgers to facilitate Pepiot or even Bruns as I think you're probably right, Miller, Stone and Vargas is a very fair return for Burnes. I guess it comes down to how bad they want him. I also thought about doing the Phillies. They've got Nola and Wheeler, but it's pretty hard to argue against 3 aces. Though that's the exact type of team that overpays for a guy like Burnes in-season if one of those two guys goes down.

He's developing a nice little turnaround here and mid range game whereas MJ didn't REALLY perfect that fadeaway until he was ~27 or so. So he won't be a great shooter, but I don't think that'll be the reason. I just think you're talking about such an insanely high bar, that's why he won't get over it. He's gotta win...maybe 3 more Titles, and he has to keep this up for...a long time before it's even a discussion if he's in the top 2. I think he could easily end up top 10, top 5 maybe. But these are...just historic greats and he's still just entering his prime.