Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Mike Gillis on Team 1040 - 9/28/12


  • Please log in to reply
349 replies to this topic

#91 cIutch

cIutch

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,285 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:34 PM

yah hes really worth that giant waste of a contract he has now

40 mill for a guy who produced 30 points without the sedins

i understand we needed someone to man the point but we got that in garrison now , your all acting like erhoff is way better then he really was , he played a roll hes replaceable and gillis new this

Edited by cIutch, 28 September 2012 - 05:35 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#92 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,707 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:35 PM

Jason Garrison ring a bell? Yeah,Gragnani and Garrison are going to replace a 50 point offensive d man.
Let Salo go,let Ehrhoff go,now the Edler rumours.
Just who is going to pass the puck to our fabled offensive d men left remaining?
Wait,there are no offensive d men left if Edler goes.
So much for playing with Campbell potential players,Jason.


Salo CHOSE to go for a two year deal. Ehrhoff CHOSE money. Sometimes you just can't give what a player wants. Oddly it happens to other teams as well. Hence so many UFA's switching teams. You know, players lost for nothing.
  • 0
Posted Image

#93 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:37 PM

He was not offered an adequate contract.He stated he wished to stay in Vancouver but Gillis refused to adequately compensate him.


Not unlike what happened to Sami Salo.

Sorry, Sami, it's waaaaaaayyyy too risky to give you a 2-year deal, so we're instead going to give 6 years, and $4.6M per, to an undrafted 28 year-old coming off a breakout season where he played next to Brian Campbell. It's OK, he's from White Rock, so the locals will eat it up.
  • 0

#94 Monteeun

Monteeun

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,759 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 03

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:37 PM

We have a winner!

And I would absolutely, unequivocally, without much of a second thought choose Ehrhoff over Bieksa. And isn't it funny that money was apparently such an issue with Ehrhoff, yet 365 days later Mike Gillis throws a 6-year, $4.6M per deal Jason Garrison's way, an undrafted 28 year-old coming off of his lone decent NHL season. That's wise logic, if I've ever seen it.

Although Jason Garrison got 4.6 while Erhoff went for a front loaded 8 mil on the first year (I think it was 8). One could make the agrument that Buffalo made an offer he can't refuse. But at the same time if that's what hooked Erhoff then we would have to overpay to get him.

Edited by Monteeun, 28 September 2012 - 05:40 PM.

  • 0

#95 cIutch

cIutch

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,285 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:38 PM

lol @ someone comparing gragnani to garrison

LOL


LOL
  • 0
Posted Image

#96 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,707 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:40 PM

We have a winner!

And I would absolutely, unequivocally, without much of a second thought choose Ehrhoff over Bieksa. And isn't it funny that money was apparently such an issue with Ehrhoff, yet 365 days later Mike Gillis throws a 6-year, $4.6M per deal Jason Garrison's way, an undrafted 28 year-old coming off of his lone decent NHL season. That's wise logic, if I've ever seen it.


Which says a great deal about your lack of vision.

Ehrhoff is under contract until he's 40 while Garrett is under contract to 34. See a difference? Garrett hits, blocks shots and put up 40+ points on a team that lacks talent even close to the Sedins. I'd say MG got a deal. You simply can't see past your own personal biases.
  • 1
Posted Image

#97 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:41 PM

yah hes really worth that giant waste of a contract he has now

40 mill for a guy who produced 30 points without the sedins


Goes both ways.

Ehrhoff leaves, and Henrik's goal totals drop 26%, points drop 14%. Daniel's goal totals drop 27%, point totals drop 36%.

Coincidence?

Ehrhoff was a perfect fit for this team. M-I-S-T-A-K-E to not invest in him further.
  • 1

#98 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:42 PM

Salo CHOSE to go for a two year deal. Ehrhoff CHOSE money. Sometimes you just can't give what a player wants. Oddly it happens to other teams as well. Hence so many UFA's switching teams. You know, players lost for nothing.


By the same token, Gillis CHOSE to not offer Salo a two-year deal, just like he CHOSE to not concede to what Ehrhoff wanted.

Singularly blaming the players is a huge misrepresentation.
  • 0

#99 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,707 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:44 PM

What a stupid post. He's not in a shutdown role because he's not a shutdown defenceman.

The Sedin's probably wouldn't do much good in a shutdown role either, does that make them less valuable than a guy like Shawn Horcoff, who might be a more well-rounded player, in more facets?


What in God's name have you been watching the past two seasons? If a d-man is consistantly on the ice against the oppositions top scoring line what role does he have?

The second part makes about as much sense as nuck nit.
  • 0
Posted Image

#100 Mayray2112

Mayray2112

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Joined: 26-July 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:44 PM

You can't even distinguish what type of d man Bieksa is.


coming from the guy that called him an offensive D man?

also you base your opinion on bieksa on what people around Vancouver say and yet Ehrhoff got a nickname as Errorhoff in San Jose and was worth being a cap dump by San Jose

Edited by Mayray2112, 28 September 2012 - 05:45 PM.

  • 1

#101 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:44 PM

Which says a great deal about your lack of vision.

Ehrhoff is under contract until he's 40 while Garrett is under contract to 34. See a difference? Garrett hits, blocks shots and put up 40+ points on a team that lacks talent even close to the Sedins. I'd say MG got a deal. You simply can't see past your own personal biases.


Are we speaking of the same person?

HE HAS NEVER PUT UP 40+ POINTS! Not in the NHL, not in the AHL, not even in the WCHA!
  • 1

#102 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:45 PM

also you base your opinion on bieksa on what people around Vancouver say and yet Ehrhoff got a nickname as Errorhoff in San Jose and was worth being a cap dump by San Jose


What's Daniel and Henrik's nickname again? The Sedin Sisters?

Right.
  • 0

#103 Mayray2112

Mayray2112

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Joined: 26-July 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:48 PM

What's Daniel and Henrik's nickname again? The Sedin Sisters?

Right.


from their own fans?

Right....
  • 0

#104 thema

thema

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 830 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:48 PM

Kesler (diving) - there was no list. just a discussion. the purpose is to make the game easier to officiate. everyone felt strongly but all kinds of players embellish. he came up because they showed a clip that he happened to be on. I was supportive of it, it has gotten out of hand in a lot of cases and it's time to reign it in.



What a crock; prior to Gilis landing here we weren't known as a team of divers. It is pretty obvious that part of his "thinking outside the box" strategy was to "draw" more power plays and what better way is there to do that than dive since almost nobody ever gets called for it. Unfortunately "the time to reign it in" was well before the series against Boston where the best refs in the league got so sick of watching us flop around that they simply put their whistles in their pockets. It will be a tough label for us to shake. Good luck on that MG.
  • 1

#105 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:54 PM

coming from the guy that called him an offensive D man?


MayRay,if you would follow the discussions with attention it was Baggins that calls Bieksa an offensive d man.
Bieksa is a tweener,not too good and not too bad.
  • 0

#106 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,707 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:56 PM

By the same token, Gillis CHOSE to not offer Salo a two-year deal, just like he CHOSE to not concede to what Ehrhoff wanted.

Singularly blaming the players is a huge misrepresentation.


Did these players not make a choice? I'm not blaming them at all. I'm simply pointing out that they made the choice.

MG promised Salo he'd sign him to one year deals as long as he wanted to play. Salo CHOSE to go to Tampa for a two year guarantee. His CHOICE.

MG offered Ehrhoff a fair deal that fit in with the other d-men. Ehrhoff CHOSE to go for more money.

That's not laying blame, it's the simple truth.

MG chose not to overpay Ehrhoff.

MG chose not to risk the injury prone Salo retiring after one year and leaving a year against the cap.

It's choices. Every GM makes them as does every player. It's not like MG refused to talk to them.
  • 0
Posted Image

#107 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,964 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:57 PM

Bieksa is currently our ONLY legit NHL right side D with a right side shot and an NHL body (which discounts Tanev).

Let's not over rate him; just simply point out how important it was to re-sign KB3! $4.6 is probably a pretty fair cap hit for Bieksa (he did score 39 points and play a top defensive pairing role).

Deals? Kevin got $6 or $7 mill his first year in the $23 mill deal. So maybe discount is also excessive. But its far better value than $40 mill for Erhoff, regardless of cap hit. Erhoff would have helped us win last year and this (next ? :huh: ). But we would had to have pulled a Philly (or Lou) and traded him with 8 years left in his deal. You can over pay and succesfully unload a contract as Philly has? That type of contract is a risk. Or you can get stuck, like with Souray, Dipietro, Huet, Redden, Yashin, even Pronger is still owed $20 mill! I'm willing to bet Erhoff's deal will not end well!

Neither signing Bieka nor loosing Erhoff are examples of mistakes by Gillis.

Bieksa took a discount? Again, maybe, but I'm not convinced that a lot of other teams would've been lining up to give him a 5-year, $23M deal. IMO, he's clearly the most overrated Canuck on the roster. If he had the personality of Aaron Rome, he'd be half as popular.

.And you're again bringing up a deal where, at the time of signing, it was not a "discount". Mike Gillis took a gamble on Burrows, when he signed. That was his breakout year, and Gillis gave him a 4-year deal under the presumption that the breakout would continue. In this case, he was right, and it was a great contract. But again, at the time, it was a gamble. Prior to that year, and even during most of that year, he was firmly entrenched on the bottom-six.

As for Ehrhoff, and your "see how it turned out for him so far" comment, his team only played 5 less games than the Vancouver Canucks did, so I guess it's been a flop for both sides, no?


  • 0

#108 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 28 September 2012 - 06:01 PM

Are we speaking of the same person?

HE HAS NEVER PUT UP 40+ POINTS! Not in the NHL, not in the AHL, not even in the WCHA!


Not only that but the point Baggins makes on Ehrhoff's contract is baseless/incorrect.It is structured insomuch he gets paid up front and the final 3 years of his Buffalo contract will not be played or paid.
Adtually,he could play only six years and collect $34 million or play seven years and collect $37 million.
  • 0

#109 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 06:01 PM

Did these players not make a choice? I'm not blaming them at all. I'm simply pointing out that they made the choice.

MG promised Salo he'd sign him to one year deals as long as he wanted to play. Salo CHOSE to go to Tampa for a two year guarantee. His CHOICE.

MG offered Ehrhoff a fair deal that fit in with the other d-men. Ehrhoff CHOSE to go for more money.

That's not laying blame, it's the simple truth.

MG chose not to overpay Ehrhoff.

MG chose not to risk the injury prone Salo retiring after one year and leaving a year against the cap.

It's choices. Every GM makes them as does every player. It's not like MG refused to talk to them.


I'm not saying that the players didn't also make a choice, but the point is, and what you need to acknowledge, is that Mike Gillis is equally culpable.

Sami Salo wanted a 2-year deal; Mike Gillis did not want to give him that. Sami Salo said that he'll leave if he's not offered a 2-year deal. Mike Gillis took in that information and still decided to not offer him a 2-year deal.

See how it's both parties?

Ehrhoff wanted $X, Gillis wanted to pay him $Y. Gillis chose to trade Ehrhoff instead of signing him to $X.

If you think Mike Gillis just threw up his hands and said "well, I did all I could, it's out of my hands!", you're just wrong.
  • 1

#110 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 28 September 2012 - 06:06 PM

No,Baggins.

Gillis over paid Bieksa and low balled Ehrhoff.Ehrhoff makes near double what Bieksa makes in the first two years of his contract.

That is a hose job and insult not a respectable offer.

Gillis low balled Sami and Sami took the best offer elsewhwre.

Players get hosed by the NHL and the players sometimes have to take the best deal offered.

Your version of the truth is not reality.
  • 0

#111 Monteeun

Monteeun

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,759 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 03

Posted 28 September 2012 - 06:20 PM

No,Baggins.

Gillis over paid Bieksa and low balled Ehrhoff.Ehrhoff makes near double what Bieksa makes in the first two years of his contract.

That is a hose job and insult not a respectable offer.

Gillis low balled Sami and Sami took the best offer elsewhwre.

Players get hosed by the NHL and the players sometimes have to take the best deal offered.

Your version of the truth is not reality.


Giving Salo a reasonable offer at Salo's history and age is not low ball.

Your version of truth is also not realistic.

Edited by Monteeun, 28 September 2012 - 06:21 PM.

  • 1

#112 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,707 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 28 September 2012 - 06:28 PM

Are we speaking of the same person?

HE HAS NEVER PUT UP 40+ POINTS! Not in the NHL, not in the AHL, not even in the WCHA!


My mistake. A little dislexia there. But he did score 16 goals. Now put him on the PP with the Sedins. What do you think will happen in the assist department?
  • 0
Posted Image

#113 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,707 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 28 September 2012 - 06:35 PM

Not only that but the point Baggins makes on Ehrhoff's contract is baseless/incorrect.It is structured insomuch he gets paid up front and the final 3 years of his Buffalo contract will not be played or paid.
Adtually,he could play only six years and collect $34 million or play seven years and collect $37 million.


What did I have wrong about the Ehrhoff deal? The front loading part, the runs till he's 40m part, or the ends with cap reducers part? I didn't mention anything about retiring early as every player can do that.
  • 0
Posted Image

#114 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,707 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 28 September 2012 - 06:49 PM

WHAT?!?!?

You're telling me that you think there's a team out there that offered Garrison (Jason Garrett is the head coach of the Dallas Cowboys, by the way) a 6-year deal, at $5.5M per?!? The term is critical - on a 1 or a 2-year deal, sure, maybe. But over 6 years, $5.5M per? Is that what you're actually saying?!?

BTW - Garrison broke the 30-point barrier this year, for the first time in his short NHL career. He is not a "40+ point" defenceman.


No I'm not saying that as term was never reported. It was reported however he turned down more money. Understand? But when was the last time you saw a 28 year old UFA sign a one or two year deal? You can figure the offers would have been 4 or more as is typical for that age.


Cash is not relevant, cap hit is. Suter's cap hit is $7.5M. There's a chance that Edler could've got $7M if he was a UFA this year, but I doubt it. He's just not at that level. He's not even an established #1 on our team. Ryan Suter and Shea Weber carried Nashville on their backs, along with Pekka Rinne. Alex Edler is not at their level.


Of course it's relevant. You cannot compare the cap hit on a four or five year deal to the cap hit on a till death do us part deal. You're comparing apples and oranges. You have to compare the actual salary when comparing a standard contract to cap evading contract. Otherwise your putting the blinders on and ignoring the truth of it. Maybe you missed the part where I said Edlers cap hit would be lower than Suters is his deal was the same term. He'd still be getting paid 7m though.
  • 0
Posted Image

#115 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 06:57 PM

Good take.

He could be used along with Luongo to get quite the package out of Toronto, if Luongo would actually waive his NTC to go there, which I personally find difficult to believe.

I'd love to bring Phaneuf to Vancouver, personally, though I'd think that the odds of getting him out of Toronto would be very low.


Lol I dont know if you are trolling me....

Lu and Edler for Neon Dion is quite the overpayment...

I think Burke would be ecstatic to do an Edler for Phaneuf straight up. Or even an Edler + Raymond for Phaneuf
  • 0

#116 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 07:02 PM

No I'm not saying that as term was never reported. It was reported however he turned down more money. Understand? But when was the last time you saw a 28 year old UFA sign a one or two year deal? You can figure the offers would have been 4 or more as is typical for that age.


Well, I'm sticking to one of the following two stories:
  • A pure fabrication
  • "More" money was immaterial, and certainly not even in the same ballpark as the 20% that you alluded to

Of course it's relevant. You cannot compare the cap hit on a four or five year deal to the cap hit on a till death do us part deal. You're comparing apples and oranges. You have to compare the actual salary when comparing a standard contract to cap evading contract. Otherwise your putting the blinders on and ignoring the truth of it. Maybe you missed the part where I said Edlers cap hit would be lower than Suters is his deal was the same term. He'd still be getting paid 7m though.


It's not relevant. As fans, all that we should care about in a cap environment is cap hit. Of course the deal differs if it's for 4 years or if it's for 12. I acknowledge that. But whoever gets paid more up front, or however much they're earning in the last 2 years, whatever, not relevant.
  • 1

#117 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 07:04 PM

I think Burke would be ecstatic to do an Edler for Phaneuf straight up. Or even an Edler + Raymond for Phaneuf


I doubt that. Captain of the team. A very "Brian Burke" player (although he's Canadian).

And you might be surprised to be reminded that Phaneuf is only a single year older than Edler.

And no, I was not suggesting Lu + Edler for Phaneuf. Of course not.

Edited by King of the ES, 28 September 2012 - 07:06 PM.

  • 0

#118 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 07:06 PM

Well, I'm sticking to one of the following two stories:

  • A pure fabrication
  • "More" money was immaterial, and certainly not even in the same ballpark as the 20% that you alluded to


It's not relevant. As fans, all that we should care about in a cap environment is cap hit. Of course the deal differs if it's for 4 years or if it's for 12. I acknowledge that. But whoever gets paid more up front, or however much they're earning in the last 2 years, whatever, not relevant.



I agree, as a fan, I could give 2 sh!ts whether Acquilini front loads a deal or not. (It's not my money and Acquman can deal with the adverse affects of front loading a deal against inflation. What I care about is the overall cap hit.
It's only an issue in the case of long term contracts like Luongo who will be in his early forties when the contract is finished...
  • 0

#119 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 07:09 PM

I doubt that. Captain of the team. A very "Brian Burke" player (although he's Canadian).

And you might be surprised to be reminded that Phaneuf is only a single year older than Edler.

And no, I was not suggesting Lu + Edler for Phaneuf. Of course not.


I dont want to go off on a tangent but trading for Phaneuf is essentially trading for a riskier version of Edler who in my opinion is already too inconsistent for my liking.

Him being Captain of the laughs doesnt mean much when the team is pretty crappy.
Canucks dont need another leader (I dont even know if hes a good leader), they need a bonafide number 1 d-man
  • 0

#120 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,707 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 28 September 2012 - 07:27 PM

Well, I'm sticking to one of the following two stories:

  • A pure fabrication
  • "More" money was immaterial, and certainly not even in the same ballpark as the 20% that you alluded to


It's not relevant. As fans, all that we should care about in a cap environment is cap hit. Of course the deal differs if it's for 4 years or if it's for 12. I acknowledge that. But whoever gets paid more up front, or however much they're earning in the last 2 years, whatever, not relevant.


When comparing contracts you have to look at the entire picture not just the cap hit. Just because a player signs a lifelong deal with cap reducers does mean his cap hit is the market value on a standard 4 or 5 year deal.
  • 0
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.