In what now seems like ancient history, Major League Baseball clubs were always careful during labor negotiations with the players union to avoid claiming that they were losing money. Had they made that claim, under labor law they would have been required to open their books. Opening their books was the last thing clubs wanted to do.

Last week half a dozen clubs had their books opened for them.

In as remarkable and stunning an exclusive baseball story as I have seen, a Web site, deadspin.com, disclosed the financial reports of half a dozen teams – Marlins, Pirates, Rays, Mariners, Rangers, Angels. Anything financial you might want to know is in those reports, and Deadspin posted them for everyone to read and download.

It’s an accountant’s dream but baseball’s nightmare. Just go to Deadspin and click on MLB confidential, and dive in.

In the immediate aftermath of the appearance of the reports, there were a lot of wild-eyed, off-base reactions in the news media. Many were off base and misguided because the writers leaping to conclusions lacked facts.

But while everyone else was focusing on the reports’ details and speculation of their ramifications, I prefered to peer behind the exclusive itself. Having spent many years developing exclusive newspaper stories and seeing others doing the same, I guess I am a fan of exclusives.

In this instance I was struck by two aspects of the exclusive – the content and the landing site, particularly the landing site. Why would financial reports of baseball teams appear at Deadspin?

“We’ve had this for a while,” said A.J. Daulerio, the site’s editor-in-chief the past two and a half years. “We had to show it to people to make sure we understood what we had.”

But why and how did they have it? Three people in baseball told me that baseball’s investigation of the leak led to the conclusion that the reports came from an insurance brokerage that writes insurance for club directors and officers.

Those people are required to have insurance to protect clubs against such things as tort claims, malfeasance, negligence and any violation of fiduciary responsibility.

Knowing which brokers wrote insurance for which clubs, baseball investigators were able to trace certain documents to certain brokerages and narrow their search for the person who leaked the reports.

At week’s end, the commissioner’s investigative team, which was initially formed to find steroids cheats, had not found its man, but it felt it had narrowed its search considerably.

Asked about the probe, Rob Manfred, MLB’s Executive Vice President for Labor and Human Resources said, “Arguably a crime was committed so we can’t say anything.”

When I presented the scenario to the Deadspin editor, he said, without confirming the source, “That’s very much how it went down. That’s pretty much all I can say. I don’t want to get the guy in trouble.”

Chances are strong that the leaker will be identified, fired and perhaps prosecuted. That’s a hefty price to pay for whatever his motive was in leaking the reports. But it has been a boon for Deadspin.

“This is not a typical story we do,” Daulerio said, “but we’ve gone this route before, maybe not to this extent. We’ve broken stories before, legitimate news stories. This is something we knew as soon as we got it that we have to be careful.

“Our hope from the beginning was to get this information out there and beat writers from different teams would take it from there. We felt the Pirates and Marlins would infuriate their fan bases and would be a nuisance for Major League Baseball. That’s what we do on an everyday basis.”

Having perused the Web site for the first time, I remarked to Daulerio that it seemed to be more raunchy than news oriented. “Yes,” he said. “We don’t shy away from a lot of things.”

But that explains why Deadspin was the beneficiary of the leak. The brokerage employee was most likely a fan of the Web site and delivered the reports to it. Somebody in or connected to baseball would have chosen a more typically baseball or news oriented outlet.

Deadspin is not exactly mlb.com or espn.com. It has baseball; Tony LaRussa and Terry Francona were subjects of articles that appeared simultaneously with the financial documents. But more routinely 5-year-old Deadspin has the kind of articles whose headlines adjoined “Baseball Confidential:”

Larissa Riquelme’s Boobs Now Holding Cellphones Professionally

Tiki Barber’s Young Girlfriend Pens Icky Memoir, Promptly Called Homewrecking Whore

The 10 Worst Masturbating Stories We’ve Ever Heard

“This has thrown people for a loop because it has generated a lot of talk,” Daulerio said.

Probably the most significant revelation in the reports is that the Marlins and the Pirates, supposedly the majors’ two poorest teams, made profits in the years covered in the reports.

In the immediate backlash, the Marlins suffered the most because government officials in the team’s home area responded bitterly, accusing the Marlins of misleading them in their difficult negotiations for a new ball park.

There was also much consternation and gnashing of teeth in the news media. Dire predictions were immediately forthcoming. The reports, instant experts proclaimed, would cause serious problems on two fronts:

• Baseball would have difficulties internally as owners of high and middle-revenue clubs would rebel against low-revenue clubs (I have always preferred these designations rather than large and small markets; they are more accurate). The clubs’ revenue-sharing plan would come under assault and have to be changed.
• The union would rise up in fury and make demands in the next negotiating period for a new collective bargaining agreement (post-2011) for significant economic changes. Labor peace that has existed for an unparalleled period since 1996 would be imperiled.

The concerns of the news media, however, are overblown. It seems much of the reaction came with an absence of knowledge of the reality of the financial reports and other facts.

For example, a column on espn.com made a big point of saying the revelation about the Marlins would have a major impact on the Oakland Athletics’ attempt to build a new park. And then Billy Beane, the A’s general manager, said he pointed out to the writer that “there’s a huge difference. We haven’t asked for public funding. It’s apples and oranges.”

That was one conclusion that would have better not jumped to.

There were other significant flaws in news media reaction to the reports. Apparently unknown to most reporters, the financial data are provided or are available to owners and the union.

“The union has all this information,” Manfred said. “They get it routinely so none of it is a surprise to the union. The clubs know the information so there are no surprises there.”

However, an executive of one club said he wasn’t aware that the Marlins received $50 million in revenue sharing one year. “Forty million maybe,” he said, “but not 50 million.”

But when asked specifically about that figure, Manfred said, “That information is routinely available to the clubs so there are no surprises. There’s no reason why it should cause any problems.”

Stan Kasten, the Washington Nationals’ president, confirmed that reality. Asked if he thought disclosure of the reports could cause problems among clubs, he said, “I really don’t think so because teams have a fairly high level of understanding of the economics.”

Michael Weiner, the union chief, was reluctant to talk about the reports because, he pointed out, the union has a confidentiality agreement with the clubs. But he said, “We’re satisfied, even after the leaks, that we have received the information we’re supposed to get under the agreement.”

That’s not to say the union and the clubs won’t encounter thorny junctures in their talks, especially about revenue sharing and how the recipient clubs spend the money. But those moments were a foregone conclusion before Deadspin disclosed the reports.

Revenue sharing will be a major subject of bargaining, but it was going to be before the financial documents were disclosed. Anybody who didn’t know that hasn’t been paying attention. Another item on the union agenda next year will be the clubs’ manipulation of players’ major league service time.

Meanwhile, the clubs will have their own internal debates prior to negotiations with the union. They, too, especially the high-revenue teams, will want to discuss the way revenue-sharing money is spent. That was an item on their early agenda before the reports surfaced.

“I think there will be a big discussion in 2011 to get to what it was intended,” a club executive said of revenue sharing.

He also noted that the Pirates have said that they used their money to build a player academy in the Dominican Republic as a way of upgrading their player development system.

“Building an academy is a capital expense,” he said, suggesting that wasn’t what revenue sharing was meant for.

Few club executives wanted to talk about the reports. Not returning telephone calls or responding to e-mail requests for comments were Jeffrey Loria and David Samson of the Marlins, Stu Sternberg of the Rays, Frank Coonelly of the Pirates and John Henry of the Red Sox, who has been critical of the revenue-sharing system.

Chuck Armstrong, president of the Mariners, said the Mariners have nothing to hide. “The Mariners review this information each year with auditors for the PFD (Public Facilities District), so we have nothing to hide,” Armstrong said in an e-mailed statement. “The bottom line numbers are made public each year. But it is a confidential report, shared only under confidentiality agreements, which appears to have been stolen. We do not want to perpetuate what may be a criminal act by commenting further on it.

“In terms of the greater impact, that’s really a question for Major League Baseball.”

Major League Baseball is not answering many questions about finances these days.

 

PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT NEEDED

They just aren’t making these young pitchers the way they used to. On the same day last week, the Washington Nationals learned that Stephen Strasburg needed Tommy John reconstructive elbow surgery and the Cincinnati Reds put Mike Leake on the disabled list with a tired shoulder.

Leake, who has started 22 games, has been the model used by those who have questioned the Nationals’ overly cautious use of Strasberg. The Nationals insisted that Strasburg had to pitch in the minors early this season because they didn’t want him going directly from college to the majors.

But that’s precisely what the Reds did with Leake, and he responded with an 8-4 record and a 3.78 earned run average until he was moved to the bullpen recently. Now the Reds hope he will be back on the mound before the end of the season to help them win the division title.

The Nationals will consider themselves lucky if Strasberg (5-3, 2.91 jn 12 starts and 68 innings) is back with them before the end of next season, but they will most likely keep him out until the 2012 season.

The Nationals say they were careful not to overextend Strasburg and that he tore his elbow ligament on a single pitch. But for all the precautions teams take with their young pitchers, the one thing they don’t consider is that more throwing may be more beneficial to a young pitcher than less throwing.

Not throwing 100 miles an hour, as Strasburg can do, but consistent throwing at moderate speeds. There aren’t many proponents of this theory left, but those who favor it – Tommy John was one – believe it is the best way to strengthen an arm. They believe that arms grow stronger from use and wither from lack of use.

Once upon a time young pitchers were allowed to pitch without being pampered. In their rookie years in the majors, for example, Don Sutton (1966) started 35 games and pitched 225 2/3 innings, and Tom Seaver (1967) started 34 games and pitched 251 innings. Sutton pitched 23 years, Seaver 20.

 

SPELLING LESSON

Names have always intrigued me, and three names of players jumped out of box scores last week: Marc Rzepczynski, Matt Tuiasosopo and Kila Ka’aihue. These are not Nellie Fox, Milt May and Ed Ott so study carefully. There may be a spelling test at the end of the column.

Marc Rzepczynski, who turned 25 Sunday, is a left-handed starting pitcher for Toronto. He’s a Californian whose name is pronounced Zep-CHIN-ski.

Matt Tuiasosopo is a right-hand hitting first baseman-outfielder for Seattle. A 24-year-old Seattle native, whose six-syllable name is pronounced TOO-ee-ah-so-SO-po, he is the son and brother of former National Football League players (Manu and Marques). The family is Samoan.

Kila Ka’aihue, a 26-year-old Kansas City first baseman, is a native Hawaiian. His name is pronounced KEY-luh kuh-eye-HOO-a, and his full name is Micah Kilakila Ka’aihue.

 

BASEBALL MAN SKATING TO HOCKEY

Donald Fehr, former head of the baseball players union, is on the verge of becoming executive director of the National Hockey League Players Association. When he and the union board reach agreement on a contract and the board elects him, Fehr will become the first person to head two professional sports unions. More on this development in the next column.

Will George Will be the next baseball commissioner? Will there even be a next baseball commissioner? Fay Vincent, whom Selig succeeded as commissioner, wrote a book that carries the title “The Last Commissioner.” But at the rate he is going, Selig may really be the last because he may not let anyone else have the job.

But let me get back to George Will because I didn’t throw his name up there just to have a name.

Will, a nationally known political columnist and seemingly permanent member of Selig’s special committees, was one of three names mentioned the other day by a person in Major League Baseball in connection with the commissioner’s job. The other names were Bob DuPuy and Selig.

The way it was related, DuPuy was preparing to leave the position he has held for eight years as president and chief executive officer. Why? Because Selig had declined to support him as his successor but instead was preparing to endorse Will.

When I sought reaction from the principals, there were denials all around. Will accompanied his denial with hearty laughter.

“That’s my response,” Will said by telephone from Washington. “I’ve heard nothing about Bob leaving.” And, he said, he had had no discussion about the commissioner’s job. “No, none,” he said. “Absolutely none.”

Furthermore, Will added, “I love my job as much as Bud loves his.”

DuPuy also said he knew nothing about Will and the commissioner’s job.

“Wow,” he said when I recited the scenario to him. “I was not aware of the latter so it wouldn’t be tied to that. That would be an interesting endorsement.”

He referred to Selig’s reported support of Will to succeed him. But notice DuPuy didn’t deny he would be leaving baseball, which he first served as a Milwaukee lawyer hired by Selig. He didn’t exactly deny it either in an additional comment.

“I have not made any commitments,” DuPuy said in a telephone interview. “I have no plans to leave. I have a contract and I plan to honor that contract.”

When does the contract expire? DuPuy wouldn’t say. “That’s between me and the commissioner and the executive council,” he said.

DuPuy’s contract most likely runs out after the 2012 season. That’s when Selig’s contract expires, and that’s the last year of the contract held by another executive, Rob Manfred, executive vice president for labor and human resources.

“I’ve made no decision about leaving,” DuPuy said.

Often an executive in DuPuy’s position would be considered to be commissioner, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here. But George Will? Asked why Will’s name would surface, DuPuy said that with Selig’s contract scheduled to expire soon, “people would start speculating.” And speculation about Will? “His name has been floated in the past,” DuPuy said.

Reading between the lines of DuPuy’s comments and adding other, non-specific comment I have heard off the record, I believe DuPuy will leave M.L.B. When I don’t know and why could very well be linked to DuPuy’s conclusion that he cannot become commissioner, whether Will or someone else is involved.

The No. 1 question is will baseball need a new commissioner after 2012. That’s when Selig’s contract expires. Remember, though, that he is working on his third contract extension.

Back in the early 1990s, when he was acting commissioner, Selig denied that he was the acting commissioner. He was chairman of the executive council, which ran baseball in the absence of a commissioner.

Vincent, who replaced A. Bartlett Giamatti after he died in September 1989, had resigned under pressure in September 1992. The pressure was applied by a group of owners led by Selig, then the owner of the Milwaukee Brewers, and Jerry Reinsdorf of the Chicago White Sox. The owners planned to try to break the union in negotiations in 1994 for a new labor agreement, and they were afraid that Vincent would get in their way.

Though Selig denied that he was acting commissioner, everybody viewed him as such, and even his own office’s news releases subsequently referred to him by that title.

While he served as acting commissioner, Selig repeatedly denied having any interest in becoming commissioner, and woe to anyone who took him at his word. One was Len Coleman, the National League president, who expressed interest in the job and immediately landed on Selig’s unfriendly list.

In July 1998 Selig was elected to the position for a five-year term, and he was given three-year extensions in 2001, 2004 and 2008, the last taking him through 2012. His salary, set by the executive council, rose through the years to where it now is very likely over $20 million a year.

Throughout his extensions, Selig talked of retirement, but as long as he was healthy no one ever expected him to retire.

A day after the Brewers unveiled a seven-foot statue of Selig at Miller Park, I told him what I had heard about his good friend Will.

“Oh my,” he responded on the phone, “isn’t that an interesting rumor” and quickly added, “It’s not true.”

Selig, who acts and looks younger than his 76 years, doesn’t like to talk about his status or his plans, but when I asked if he thought he would retire after the 2012 season, he said, “I really believe I am going to leave. I believe I am finished after 2012. Does Sue Selig think I will be? No. Do the owners think so? No.”

I don’t think so either. But the idea of Selig endorsing George Will? “It’s absurd,” he said. “That is patently absurd.”

Will himself doesn’t believe Selig is going anywhere.

“I think most people who know Bud are convinced Bud will not leave. He’s well, he’s healthy, the industry is healthy.”

Roger Clemens and Pete Rose burst into the news on the same day last week. Can Barry Bonds be far behind?

Clemens, Bonds and Rose are Major League Baseball’s triumvirate from hell. Clemens, seven-time winner of the Cy Young award, was indicted by a federal grand jury, charged with lying to a grand jury about his use of performance-enhancing drugs. Bonds is scheduled to go on trial next March on a similar charge.

The Cincinnati Reds have received permission from Commissioner Bud Selig to honor Rose, who has been banned from baseball since 1989, at Great American Ball Park next month on the 25th anniversary of his breaking Ty Cobb’s career record for hits. The event will mark the first time Rose will appear on the Reds’ home field since he was banned.

Clemens, Bonds and Rose have a lot in common, including their superstar but disgraced careers, but the trait that links them in their ignominy is the cocky arrogance that prevented them from acknowledging, in a timely manner, the validity of the charges against them.

Clemens and Bonds have maintained their innocence in the use of steroids. Since they haven’t been convicted of anything, we should probably accept the American ideal that one is innocent until proven guilty. But darn, the circumstantial evidence is just too great against them.

The same was true with Rose. For 15 years he denied that he bet on baseball games, and then in 2004 he wrote a book and admitted that he bet on baseball games. Had he admitted it in 1989 I believe he would be in baseball and the Hall of Fame today.

Bonds may yet escape a guilty verdict. I once predicted that he would wind up in prison before he was in the Hall of Fame, and there’s still a chance of that happening. But if Bonds’ steadfastly loyal former trainer, Greg Anderson, continues to refuse to testify against him, Bonds could escape conviction.

The evidence against Clemens, especially the Andy Pettitte affidavit in which the pitcher says Clemens told him he used illegal drugs, could spell trouble for one of the greatest pitchers of all time.

But whatever happens in the Clemens case, he has only himself to blame. He didn’t have to be in this position.

Intent on convincing the public that he did not get drug injections from his former trainer, Brian McNamee, as McNamee told the Mitchell investigators, Clemens was as noisy as he could be on whatever public stages were available.

Clemens was so loud in his denials that his words reached the ears of the oversight committee of the House of Representatives. Still the committee wasn’t set on holding a hearing.

“Neither Waxman or Davis wanted to have a hearing,” said a Washington insider, referring to the committee chairman, Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, and the ranking member, Tom Davis, Republican of Virginia. “They demanded that they have it.”

He referred to Clemens and his lawyers, Rusty Hardin of Houston and Lanny Breuer of Washington.

In a near coincidence that would have linked Clemens and Rose, Hardin, the very vocal Texas attorney, approached John Dowd, a Washington lawyer, about serving as Clemens’ attorney for Washington matters.

Dowd, who investigated Rose for baseball in 1989, recalled that about a month or so before the hearing Hardin approached him about representing Clemens. Dowd, however, declined the job.

Asked why, he said in a telephone interview, “I didn’t have control of the case. Hardin was unwilling to relinquish control. I’m not interested in working for Hardin.”

Dowd saw bad days ahead for Clemens, “It’s a terrible, terrible thing that happened,” he said. “It just shouldn’t have happened. It’s a shame that he ever opened his mouth.”

Dowd always felt that it was a shame that it took Rose 15 years to open his mouth about his betting. Although some people criticized Dowd at the time for his Rose investigation, he did a solid, well documented job and left no doubt what Rose did. That’s why Rose would have been smart to have acknowledged his guilt and moved on to a better life, including likely entry into the Hall of Fame.

His appearance in Cincinnati next month will surely create a new salvo of cries for Rose’s reinstatement, which is why Selig’s decision to make the exception was most likely a mistake. In 1999, Selig allowed Rose to participate in the all-century team promotion at the All-Star game, and he received the biggest ovation.

“That was a big mistake; this is a bigger one,” said former Commissioner Fay Vincent, who was deputy commissioner when A. Bartlett Giamatti banned Rose. “This is going to cause Bud terrific agita. People are going to ask him does this mean he’s coming back.”

It does not mean that, but people don’t need more than that to think this is the first step on the road to reinstatement. Selig, however, has no thought of allowing Rose to return.

The Reds, however, swayed Selig by emphasizing that it was an important moment in the club’s history, and that it would be only a one-shot event. The problem, as others see it, is that players banned from baseball are not permitted to use team facilities, and Rose’s appearance at Great American Ball Park will violate that rule.

“When the keeper of the rules breaks the rules,” Dowd said, “there are no rules. It’s just a terrible thing. The rules mean nothing under this commissioner.”

METS PITCH AND HIT SHUTOUTS

Pathetic was the word Jerry Manuel used. “This is pathetic,” the Mets’ manager said. “We gotta do better.”

The Mets had just lost a 3-2 decision to the Houston Astros on one swing of Carlos Lee’s bat that wiped out the Mets’ 2-0 lead. The Mets did not score again. Two runs are about the Mets’ maximum these days.

“We have to do more offensively,” Manuel said. “It was a very poor performance on our part offensively. We put good players out there but they don’t perform. Nobody’s driving in any runs. We don’t have any production. You always feel that whatever they have done historically you will get. But we’re not hitting at all and that’s too bad because we’ve put together some good outings.”

Before the season, the Mets usual critics questioned their starting pitching, saying the team lacked sufficient starters to contend, maybe even to compete. They needed another starter, maybe two starters. The Mets were criticized for not signing one or two pitchers who were available as free agents.

But here we are with only six weeks left in the season, the Mets are falling or have fallen out of the division and wild-card races and no one can blame it on the starting pitching. The starters have been phenomenal, namely Johan Santana, R.A. Dickey and Jonathan Niese.

Mike Pelfrey had a solid first half and recently, with a 1.64 earned run average in his last three starts, has looked as if he is returning to the level of pitching he displayed then. Hisanori Takahashi also contributed strong stretches of starting.

The most interesting and impressive aspect of the Mets’ pitching has been the staff’s penchant for throwing shutouts. The Mets lead the major leagues with 18.

Earlier this month the Mets pitched two 1-0 shutouts in the space of three games, including one against the Philadelphia Phillies, the National League’s second most prolific run scorer over whom the Mets earlier in the season had three successive shutouts in a three-game sweep.

However, the won-lost records of the starters don’t reflect all of that nifty pitching. That’s because the team’s offense, as the manager said, has been pathetic, not to mention putrid.

In 15 of his 27 starts (through Sunday) Santana has allowed no runs or one run in pitching at least six innings. He has been the winning pitcher in nine of those games but emerged with no decision in the other six.

Dickey has permitted no more than two runs in six or more innings in 10 starts and has a 5-1 record in those games but also has four no-decisions. In 13 starts in which he has pitched at least six innings and given up a maximum of three runs, he has a 7-2 record with four no-decisions.

Niese has pitched at least six innings and allowed two runs or fewer 10 times; he has a 6-1 record with three no-decisions in those games. He has pitched six or more innings and has permitted three runs or fewer 13 times; he has a 7-3 record with three no-decisions in those games.

He has pitched three other games in which he has given up only one run each in 5 to 5 2/3 innings, winding up with one win and two no-decisions.

The Mets just don’t score enough runs to support their pitchers and give them a chance to win more games. They are 13th in the National League in runs scored and 14th in batting average and on-base percentage.

Their run differential is not much over .500, 501 runs scored, 480 given up through Sunday, and the only reason they are on the plus side is the effectiveness of their pitchers. Their 3.61 earned run average is the league’s fifth lowest, not far off San Diego’s league-leading 3.27.

Then there is the matter of one-run games. The Mets have a 17-25 record, second worst in the league. But what, if any, correlation is there between leading the league, or the majors, in shutouts and getting to the playoffs?

In the past 10 years, there has been a much stronger correlation in the American League than in the National. In those 10 years, five A.L. teams that were shutout leaders have won division titles and three others have been wild cards. Among the 10 N.L. shutout leaders, three have won division titles and none has been a wild card. The 2006 Mets, who tied with Houston for most shutouts, are the only N.L. shutout leader since 2002 to reach the playoffs.

On a major league-wide basis, two teams that led the majors in shutouts won division titles and two won wild-card spots.

STAN AND SCOTT

Stan Kasten, the Washington Nationals’ president, likes the team’s acquisition of Stephen Strasburg and Bryce Harper as the first selections in the last two June drafts, but he’s ready to give someone else a chance.

“I’m looking forward to never having it again,” Kasten said of the No. 1 pick.

The Nationals paid abundantly for Strasburg ($15.1 million) and Harper ($9.9 million), and, Kasten said, “We’re happy with our deals. We’re happy with what we’ve added. Whether it’s sensible is to be debated at another time.”

Until recently, teams could not draft first two years in a row because the leagues alternated each year, with the worst team in each league going first. But in 2005 the format was changed to eliminate the alternating system and base the order of selection on the won-lost records of all 30 teams.

Maybe next year someone else will have the pleasure of dealing with Scott Boras, the agent who represented Strasburg and Harper. But Kasten said he and Boras go back a long way.

“You are aware of the numerous and lucrative deals I’ve done with Scott over the years,” Kasten said, asked about the difficulties of dealing with the agent. “We do what we have to.”

Discussing Boras’ negotiating style, Kasten added, “You know he’s going to have supreme command of all the actual facts. He’s going to be articulate and creative in presenting his facts in a light most favorable to him. But there’s expertise on our side of the table. It comes down to what is the team willing to do and what is the player willing to accept. You start out that both sides want the same thing.”

Both sides also start out knowing their negotiations will go down to the midnight deadline of the designated day.

“It shouldn’t be that way,” Kasten said, “but that’s how it has become with the deadline. I think it has to be changed. It has now become the practice clearly to do it, which means we have institutionalized taking young kids at the prime of their development and putting them on the shelf for a whole season.”