A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    There are some decent pitching options in the 2014 FA class. Lincecum for example if he is still there. Cano if he is still there. Granderson. Ellsbury may not even be worth a pick. The door is wide open for him potentially. He may be worth more if he doesn't cost a pick.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    For those posters who say it should be easy to replace the poor pitching by Cook, Dice-K, Beckett and other starters last year, I used the same logic last year and look where it got us...

     

    Here is what I wrote last winter at about this  time:

    It's true that better starting pitching can more than make up for a "weaker pen", and it's hard to imagine this rotation not being able to improve on this: (Numbers as starters only) Lackey 160 IP  6.41/1.619 WHIP Miller     58 IP  5.55/1.800 Weiland 23 IP  8.72/1.846 241 IP of awful pitching. and... Wake     137   5.31/1.398 Bedard    38   4.03/1.553 Dice-K     36   4.95/1.404 Aceves    21   5.14/1.571 Another 232 innings of not-so-great pitching.   These awful innings are likely to be replaced by: 140+ starter IP from Bard 100 IP more from Buchholtz   The 232 not-so-great IP will likely be replaced by... 140+ IP by Aceves (if not in the pen) or 140+ IP by Cook, Padilla, Mortensen, Doubront, Silva, Wilson, or someone else. 90+ IP more from Dice-K or someone listed above.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

     

    There are 2 reasons why Ellsbury is probably gone:

     

    1) He's probably worth more to the Yanks or Philadelphia

    2) He might be worth a #1 draft pick for the Sox.

     

    Look at the Bourn situation though. No one is knocking down his door because they would have to give up their #1 pick to get him. Ellsbury will hopefully draw a qualifying offer if he has a great year.  We may actually decide to offer him a solid deal and try to keep him. He's an exciting player and he can put up some outstanding numbers potentially. I wouldn't rule it out that we keep him. Maybe a 15-20% chance.

     



    I think the odds are less than 5%.

     

    BTW, a team in the top 10 picks does not lose a pick if they sign Bourn... or Ellsbury next year.

    I wonder why we didn't use this clause this year, if it was all about selling viewership.

    I'm not saying I like the idea, but we could have traded Ellsbury and then signed Bourn and not lost the top 10 pick.

     



    The Sox did say Ellsbury was the kind of player they would consider keeping earlier this winter. They don't appear to fault him for his injuries, which makes sense to me because I don't fault him for that either ). He keeps himself in great shape by going to the API every winter, which is exactly what I want from every player. He is a major fan draw. It looks like most teams don't even want to sign Bourn considering that it costs them a pick, cutting down the competition level for each player. Losing that pick can really be a disincentive for teams to offer a lot of money and lots of teams aren't going to pony up big money for any type of player of Ellsbury's worth assuming he is worth a qualifying offer ( big assumption in itself ). I think a 15-20% likelihood might even be conservative. Look at Michael Bourn, a very comparable player if not even better.

     

    It potentially takes a big market team to sign him, and the Redsox are one of the few big market teams. It depends in part how JBJ does next summer also but we will see. Who are the Redsox going to spend their money on?



    I never said the Sox were concerned with Jacoby's injury, but they did take issue with his recovery choices.

    I was not happy with this year's top free agents, but had we signed one, we would not have lost our top pick. That may not be the case next year.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    For those posters who say it should be easy to replace the poor pitching by Cook, Dice-K, Beckett and other starters last year, I used the same logic last year and look where it got us...

     

    Here is what I wrote last winter at about this  time:

    It's true that better starting pitching can more than make up for a "weaker pen", and it's hard to imagine this rotation not being able to improve on this: (Numbers as starters only) Lackey 160 IP  6.41/1.619 WHIP Miller     58 IP  5.55/1.800 Weiland 23 IP  8.72/1.846 241 IP of awful pitching. and... Wake     137   5.31/1.398 Bedard    38   4.03/1.553 Dice-K     36   4.95/1.404 Aceves    21   5.14/1.571 Another 232 innings of not-so-great pitching.   These awful innings are likely to be replaced by: 140+ starter IP from Bard 100 IP more from Buchholtz   The 232 not-so-great IP will likely be replaced by... 140+ IP by Aceves (if not in the pen) or 140+ IP by Cook, Padilla, Mortensen, Doubront, Silva, Wilson, or someone else. 90+ IP more from Dice-K or someone listed above.

     



    It would be pretty hard to do worse than what we got out of that crew last year. Especially Cook and Dice.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    There are some decent pitching options in the 2014 FA class. Lincecum for example if he is still there. Cano if he is still there. Granderson. Ellsbury may not even be worth a pick. The door is wide open for him potentially. He may be worth more if he doesn't cost a pick.

     



    2014 has some guys that may be avaialble that are better than this winter's class...

    Pitchers:

    Shields, Lincecum, Kuroda, Garza, J Johnson, Vogelsburg, J Santana, Floyd, Hughes

    Catchers: McCann, Pierz

    !B: Morneau, Morales, Morse, Konerko, Reynolds

    SS: Jeter, Furcal, Ryan, Escobar, Peralta

    LF: Kubel, Murphy, McLouth, Iabanez, Reed

    CF: Grandy, Young, Crisp, Guttierez

    RF: Hart, Choo, Beltran, Pence, N Cruz

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to carnie's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    For those posters who say it should be easy to replace the poor pitching by Cook, Dice-K, Beckett and other starters last year, I used the same logic last year and look where it got us...

     

    Here is what I wrote last winter at about this  time:

    It's true that better starting pitching can more than make up for a "weaker pen", and it's hard to imagine this rotation not being able to improve on this: (Numbers as starters only) Lackey 160 IP  6.41/1.619 WHIP Miller     58 IP  5.55/1.800 Weiland 23 IP  8.72/1.846 241 IP of awful pitching. and... Wake     137   5.31/1.398 Bedard    38   4.03/1.553 Dice-K     36   4.95/1.404 Aceves    21   5.14/1.571 Another 232 innings of not-so-great pitching.   These awful innings are likely to be replaced by: 140+ starter IP from Bard 100 IP more from Buchholtz   The 232 not-so-great IP will likely be replaced by... 140+ IP by Aceves (if not in the pen) or 140+ IP by Cook, Padilla, Mortensen, Doubront, Silva, Wilson, or someone else. 90+ IP more from Dice-K or someone listed above.

     

     



    It would be pretty hard to do worse than what we got out of that crew last year. Especially Cook and Dice.

     



    I agree, but that's what I said last year about replacing Lackey, Weiland, Miller and Wake.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    For those posters who say it should be easy to replace the poor pitching by Cook, Dice-K, Beckett and other starters last year, I used the same logic last year and look where it got us...

     

    Here is what I wrote last winter at about this  time:

    It's true that better starting pitching can more than make up for a "weaker pen", and it's hard to imagine this rotation not being able to improve on this: (Numbers as starters only) Lackey 160 IP  6.41/1.619 WHIP Miller     58 IP  5.55/1.800 Weiland 23 IP  8.72/1.846 241 IP of awful pitching. and... Wake     137   5.31/1.398 Bedard    38   4.03/1.553 Dice-K     36   4.95/1.404 Aceves    21   5.14/1.571 Another 232 innings of not-so-great pitching.   These awful innings are likely to be replaced by: 140+ starter IP from Bard 100 IP more from Buchholtz   The 232 not-so-great IP will likely be replaced by... 140+ IP by Aceves (if not in the pen) or 140+ IP by Cook, Padilla, Mortensen, Doubront, Silva, Wilson, or someone else. 90+ IP more from Dice-K or someone listed above.

     

     



    It would be pretty hard to do worse than what we got out of that crew last year. Especially Cook and Dice.

     

     



    I agree, but that's what I said last year about replacing Lackey, Weiland, Miller and Wake.

     



    I actually kind of like the way the rotation is shaping up for this year. Well, as much as I can like any rotation with Lackey in it anyway. I especially like the depth both in the BP and in Pawtucket. Taz, Aceves, Morales, Webster, DeLaRosa and Wright are hardly Aaron Cook clones.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to carnie's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    For those posters who say it should be easy to replace the poor pitching by Cook, Dice-K, Beckett and other starters last year, I used the same logic last year and look where it got us...

     

    Here is what I wrote last winter at about this  time:

    It's true that better starting pitching can more than make up for a "weaker pen", and it's hard to imagine this rotation not being able to improve on this: (Numbers as starters only) Lackey 160 IP  6.41/1.619 WHIP Miller     58 IP  5.55/1.800 Weiland 23 IP  8.72/1.846 241 IP of awful pitching. and... Wake     137   5.31/1.398 Bedard    38   4.03/1.553 Dice-K     36   4.95/1.404 Aceves    21   5.14/1.571 Another 232 innings of not-so-great pitching.   These awful innings are likely to be replaced by: 140+ starter IP from Bard 100 IP more from Buchholtz   The 232 not-so-great IP will likely be replaced by... 140+ IP by Aceves (if not in the pen) or 140+ IP by Cook, Padilla, Mortensen, Doubront, Silva, Wilson, or someone else. 90+ IP more from Dice-K or someone listed above.

     

     



    It would be pretty hard to do worse than what we got out of that crew last year. Especially Cook and Dice.

     

     



    I agree, but that's what I said last year about replacing Lackey, Weiland, Miller and Wake.

     

     



    I actually kind of like the way the rotation is shaping up for this year. Well, as much as I can like any rotation with Lackey in it anyway. I especially like the depth both in the BP and in Pawtucket. Taz, Aceves, Morales, Webster, DeLaRosa and Wright are hardly Aaron Cook clones.

     



    I don't like this rotation any more than I liked the 2012 rotation at this point in the winter, in fact, I was expecting Beckett to finally have a great "even year" due to having a "chip on his shoulder".

    I know we shouldn't count on as much going wrong this year as last. Last year was freakish in many ways, but I have been using the method of looking at what innings we are replacing from year to year to try and project how much we may improve, and year after year, I have come up short.

    I love our pen this year, and that may take some slack off the starters, but I guess I am just not convinced Doubront will step it up, Dempster will adjust to the AL and AL East, Lester & Buch will stay healthy and in stride all year, and lackey is the hardest of all to project. I realize there is potential in all 5, and things could go right in 4 of the 5 cases, a 6th starter could step up, and we could have a H3LL OF A YEAR, but I don't think the odds favor that happening.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    For those posters who say it should be easy to replace the poor pitching by Cook, Dice-K, Beckett and other starters last year, I used the same logic last year and look where it got us...

     

    Here is what I wrote last winter at about this  time:

    It's true that better starting pitching can more than make up for a "weaker pen", and it's hard to imagine this rotation not being able to improve on this: (Numbers as starters only) Lackey 160 IP  6.41/1.619 WHIP Miller     58 IP  5.55/1.800 Weiland 23 IP  8.72/1.846 241 IP of awful pitching. and... Wake     137   5.31/1.398 Bedard    38   4.03/1.553 Dice-K     36   4.95/1.404 Aceves    21   5.14/1.571 Another 232 innings of not-so-great pitching.   These awful innings are likely to be replaced by: 140+ starter IP from Bard 100 IP more from Buchholtz   The 232 not-so-great IP will likely be replaced by... 140+ IP by Aceves (if not in the pen) or 140+ IP by Cook, Padilla, Mortensen, Doubront, Silva, Wilson, or someone else. 90+ IP more from Dice-K or someone listed above.

     

     



    It would be pretty hard to do worse than what we got out of that crew last year. Especially Cook and Dice.

     

     



    I agree, but that's what I said last year about replacing Lackey, Weiland, Miller and Wake.

     

     



    I actually kind of like the way the rotation is shaping up for this year. Well, as much as I can like any rotation with Lackey in it anyway. I especially like the depth both in the BP and in Pawtucket. Taz, Aceves, Morales, Webster, DeLaRosa and Wright are hardly Aaron Cook clones.

     

     



    I don't like this rotation any more than I liked the 2012 rotation at this point in the winter, in fact, I was expecting Beckett to finally have a great "even year" due to having a "chip on his shoulder".

     

    I know we shouldn't count on as much going wrong this year as last. Last year was freakish in many ways, but I have been using the method of looking at what innings we are replacing from year to year to try and project how much we may improve, and year after year, I have come up short.

    I love our pen this year, and that may take some slack off the starters, but I guess I am just not convinced Doubront will step it up, Dempster will adjust to the AL and AL East, Lester & Buch will stay healthy and in stride all year, and lackey is the hardest of all to project. I realize there is potential in all 5, and things could go right in 4 of the 5 cases, a 6th starter could step up, and we could have a H3LL OF A YEAR, but I don't think the odds favor that happening.



    That's why they play the games. :-)

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    That's why they play the games. :-)

    Yes, and that is also why winters are supposed to be used to improve your odds at winning when you actually do  "play the games".

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    If we had signed a top FA we would have lost our 2nd round pick, which is pretty significant in itself.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    If we had signed a top FA we would have lost our 2nd round pick, which is pretty significant in itself.



    Yes, but maybe it would be better than losing a 1st pick next year.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I believe there were only 9 QO this year and I expect that certain teams will be even more cautious who they offer one to. There will be plenty FA to be had that wont have a compensation pick attached to them like this year.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    I believe there were only 9 QO this year and I expect that certain teams will be even more cautious who they offer one to. There will be plenty FA to be had that wont have a compensation pick attached to them like this year.



    Actually, I think they may be less cautious after seeing what some of these non QO guys ended up getting paid.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Now that the roster is about set, I'm going to start Part II soon.

    Pretty quiet these days.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    MLBTraderumors had this to say about Napoli, 

    "Napoli was shocked to learn of his avascular necrosis diagnosis, but feels the condition will not stop him from having a productive 2013 season..."

    I wonder how the Texas doctors missed it. (Or, did they?)

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    IMO the Red Sox season basically lies on the shoulders of 3 players. Lester - Buchholz- Lackey. While none has to win a CY, they at least need to pitch up to their capabilities and stay healthy all year. Close to 200 IP and have a season that we know all are capable of. Lester 18 wins Buchholz 17 wins Lackey 15 wins. Believe Doubront will take another step in his developement [cut down on BB's] and should be good for 13 wins, Dempster will need to continue to give IP's and hopefully can pitch to low 4's era and win 12. Bullpen has a chance to be REALLY good, offense while not to 03 standard should be good enough. It all falls on Starters who have been terrible for 2 straight seasons. Should one of the starters go down have to feel more comfortable this years backups vs. previous seasons Morales-De La Rosa much better prepared if one goes down than the Cooks -Weilands of previous seasons.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to garyhow's comment:

    IMO the Red Sox season basically lies on the shoulders of 3 players. Lester - Buchholz- Lackey. While none has to win a CY, they at least need to pitch up to their capabilities and stay healthy all year. Close to 200 IP and have a season that we know all are capable of. Lester 18 wins Buchholz 17 wins Lackey 15 wins. Believe Doubront will take another step in his developement [cut down on BB's] and should be good for 13 wins, Dempster will need to continue to give IP's and hopefully can pitch to low 4's era and win 12. Bullpen has a chance to be REALLY good, offense while not to 03 standard should be good enough. It all falls on Starters who have been terrible for 2 straight seasons. Should one of the starters go down have to feel more comfortable this years backups vs. previous seasons Morales-De La Rosa much better prepared if one goes down than the Cooks -Weilands of previous seasons.



    I agree. I am not very optimistic that most of this will happen, but there is hope. Having Morales & de la Rose (or maybe Taz or Mortensen) to fill in if needed is better than we have had in recent years (on paper).

    GO SOX!!!! 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Much has been spoken about our starter depth and lack of top quality starters, but we may need the depth...

    Number of starts by our 6, 7, 8, 9+ starters over recent years:

    2012: (assuming Dice-K was #5 if healthy)

    6) Bard 10

    7) Cook 18

    8) Morales 9

    9) Stewart 2

     

    2011 (assuming Dice-K was #5)

    6) Wake  23

    7) Miller 12

    8) Weiland 5

    9) Bedard 8

    10) Aceves 4

     

    2010:

    6) Wake 19

    7) Doub 3

    8) Atchison 1

     

    2009:

    6) Wake 21

    7) Smoltz 8

    8) Masterson 6

    9) Byrd 6

    10) Tazawa 4

    11) Bowden 1

     

    2008:

    6) Colon  7

    7) Byrd 8

    8) Masterson 9

    9) Pauley 2

    10-11) Bowden/Zink 1 each

     

    In total, we have seen 39, 52, 23, 46, and 28 GS'd by our depth starters over the last 5 seasons. That's about 38 starts on average-- 46 avg the last 2 years, not even counting Lackey as the 5th starter in 2012. If you count Lackey and make Doub the 6th starter, the 2 year avg would be 60 GS'd per season by our 6th or lower starters over the past 2 years!

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Much has been spoken about our starter depth and lack of top quality starters, but we may need the depth...

    Number of starts by our 6, 7, 8, 9+ starters over recent years:

    2012: (assuming Dice-K was #5 if healthy)

    6) Bard 10

    7) Cook 18

    8) Morales 9

    9) Stewart 2

     

    2011 (assuming Dice-K was #5)

    6) Wake  23

    7) Miller 12

    8) Weiland 5

    9) Bedard 8

    10) Aceves 4

     

    2010:

    6) Wake 19

    7) Doub 3

    8) Atchison 1

     

    2009:

    6) Wake 21

    7) Smoltz 8

    8) Masterson 6

    9) Byrd 6

    10) Tazawa 4

    11) Bowden 1

     

    2008:

    6) Colon  7

    7) Byrd 8

    8) Masterson 9

    9) Pauley 2

    10-11) Bowden/Zink 1 each

     

    In total, we have seen 39, 52, 23, 46, and 28 GS'd by our depth starters over the last 5 seasons. That's about 38 starts on average-- 46 avg the last 2 years, not even counting Lackey as the 5th starter in 2012. If you count Lackey and make Doub the 6th starter, the 2 year avg would be 60 GS'd per season by our 6th or lower starters over the past 2 years!




    definitely liking out depth guys much better this year than in years past. Morales, Ace, Taz, RDLR, Wright and maybe even moretenson. such good guys waiting in the wings could facillitate a trade of a starter.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    definitely liking out depth guys much better this year than in years past. Morales, Ace, Taz, RDLR, Wright and maybe even moretenson. such good guys waiting in the wings could facillitate a trade of a starter.

    As I have said before, we have too much quantity at several positions, but not enough quality.

    A 2 or 3 for 1 trade is called for at some point.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    definitely liking out depth guys much better this year than in years past. Morales, Ace, Taz, RDLR, Wright and maybe even moretenson. such good guys waiting in the wings could facillitate a trade of a starter.

    As I have said before, we have too much quantity at several positions, but not enough quality.

    A 2 or 3 for 1 trade is called for at some point.




    if we're talking about BP then i disagree. we have both quality and quantity. But if we could trade Doobie/Morales (as a starter of course) along with a BP arm or 2 for an upgrade in the rotation then i would definitely jump on it. We could stand to trim down the BP just a hair AND we could always bring in guys like Hill and Atch to bolster our BP if a trade leaves us short handed. But targets?? i have no clue

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    definitely liking out depth guys much better this year than in years past. Morales, Ace, Taz, RDLR, Wright and maybe even moretenson. such good guys waiting in the wings could facillitate a trade of a starter.

    As I have said before, we have too much quantity at several positions, but not enough quality.

    A 2 or 3 for 1 trade is called for at some point.

     




    if we're talking about BP then i disagree. we have both quality and quantity. But if we could trade Doobie/Morales (as a starter of course) along with a BP arm or 2 for an upgrade in the rotation then i would definitely jump on it. We could stand to trim down the BP just a hair AND we could always bring in guys like Hill and Atch to bolster our BP if a trade leaves us short handed. But targets?? i have no clue

     



    Yes, your names mentioned was what I had in mind. I'd also consider trading Doubront and Ells and/or Salty for a much better SP under team control for 3+ years.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    SouthPaw, I think you have the Bard situation nailed to a T.  I'm just hoping this year's coaches can restore him to his former self.  That could be a huge addition.

    Moon, I think you've referred to last year as "the perfect storm."  Your projections of last year's pitching were probably quite reasonable.  Who would possibly see that demise?  Just think, the year before we were being touted as sure to make the WS...how quickly things fell apart.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to Critter23's comment:

    SouthPaw, I think you have the Bard situation nailed to a T.  I'm just hoping this year's coaches can restore him to his former self.  That could be a huge addition.

    Moon, I think you've referred to last year as "the perfect storm."  Your projections of last year's pitching were probably quite reasonable.  Who would possibly see that demise?  Just think, the year before we were being touted as sure to make the WS...how quickly things fell apart.



    Yes, but this has happened for several years in a row... overestimating our rotation's value.

    Last year, I did say we needed a solid starter to be a top favorite for a WS ring. That hasn't changed with the replacment of beckett with Dempster.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share