Baseball Remains Broken

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I don't disagree with your sentiment but it's easy to generalize and lose sight of specifics relative to how the disparity grew.  The fact that the owners are doing well is always the retort.  Is that relevant in the context of negotiating terms that widen the gap. It was very clear during the last CBA that it was the players holding out for a substantial increase in the luxury tax.   They even started with pushing for a reduction in revenue sharing.  So, when we talk about greed, they had no regard for fans or parity while framing their position as being about parity.  We should all be insulted they thought we are that dumb. 

We are that dumb. ?

I saw through the players immediately. Never bought what they were selling us. They want the biggest piece of the pie as do the owners and that is what we were held hostage over. 

Businesses in any industry must work under the conditions that exist. The conditions that exist were negotiated between the owners and the players. Now that the rules have been established... teams must operate under those agreed upon conditions.

Once again... the conditions state that the larger markets will have a substantial advantage. No change to those unfortunate conditions, when change was needed.  

I agree with you on what you are saying. I have no love to give to the players union. I hold them responsible. Our slight disagreement is going to be over the owners role. I have no love to give to them either. I also hold them responsible.    

[Brock Beauchamp]

Share local television revenue.

Problem solved. 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

We are that dumb. ?

I saw through the players immediately. Never bought what they were selling us. They want the biggest piece of the pie as do the owners and that is what we were held hostage over. 

Businesses in any industry must work under the conditions that exist. The conditions that exist were negotiated between the owners and the players. Now that the rules have been established... teams must operate under those agreed upon conditions.

Once again... the conditions state that the larger markets will have a substantial advantage. No change to those unfortunate conditions, when change was needed.  

I agree with you on what you are saying. I have no love to give to the players union. I hold them responsible. Our slight disagreement is going to be over the owners role. I have no love to give to them either. I also hold them responsible.    

Actually, I think we are in complete agreement.  I just emphasize the players role in this because most people are very biased in favor of the players.  Just looking to balance the blame.

[Major League Ready]

44 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Share local television revenue.

Problem solved. 

Agreed!  If only it were that easy.  Heck I would have taken any increase, but the players wanted less revenue sharing so there was no chance the players were going to accept more revenue sharing, right?  Of course, the big markets are not going to give up a major portion of their advantage either but it would have been nice to see it diminished a little.

[Brock Beauchamp]

3 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Agreed!  If only it were that easy.  Heck I would have taken any increase, but the players wanted less revenue sharing so there was no chance the players were going to accept more revenue sharing, right?  Of course, the big markets are not going to give up a major portion of their advantage either but it would have been nice to see it diminished a little.

My point is that owners are the only people who can "fix" baseball inequity. Until revenue is properly shared, this problem will continue to exist. As long as the Dodgers are getting $250m a year from a TV contract while the Brewers are getting $40m, baseball stays broken.

[Riverbrian]

9 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Actually, I think we are in complete agreement.  I just emphasize the players role in this because most people are very biased in favor of the players.  Just looking to balance the blame.

Marketing works. ?

[Mike Sixel]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Perhaps but is it possible the owners of the league are interested in growing or even maintaining interest in the game in all markets.  The motivation is still financial gain but what do I care if Billionaire owners or players making $100s of millions get more money?  I am interested in reducing or at least maintaining the current disparity in revenue for our mid-market team.

Will the small markets spend the money.  IDK for sure but the Twins spent more when their revenue went up.  Actually, again, why should we care if Pittsburgh spends the money.   A smaller increase in the luxury tax still reduced the disparity for our team as does an increase in revenue sharing.   The player's interests clearly did not align with the fans of mid-market teams during the last CBA.   Do we just want to hate rich people so much that we don't want them to succeed even when their interests align with our interest in greater parity?

For someone that claims not to care, I've yet to see you take the players side..... Once. Except paying minor league players a bit more 

Is baseball broken? Yes. But I'd argue that it isn't broken over money, but the actual play. The three true outcome game just isn't as much fun to watch as other entertainment options. That's a much bigger issue for baseball.

[Mike Sixel]

54 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Share local television revenue.

Problem solved. 

Share all revenue. That resolves the income inequality, but doesn't fix the game. It makes no sense to pay bad players more, as MLR rightly points out. 

[DJL44]

50 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Share local television revenue.

Problem solved. 

This would fix a lot of problems. It could also give MLB more power to negotiate better local TV deals.

Share all the media revenue; don't share any of the revenue generated at the stadium.

[Vanimal46]

5 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Is baseball broken? Yes. But I'd argue that it isn't broken over money, but the actual play. The three true outcome game just isn't as much fun to watch as other entertainment options. That's a much bigger issue for baseball.

Correct. Let’s not pretend that equal revenue sharing will create a utopia of balance in baseball. The same challenges will persist. The top free agents will still choose the desirable locations. Teams like Cincinnati and Pittsburgh will still be on the outside looking in… And get into bidding wars for the mid tier free agents. Thus overpaying for them. 

For 2+ decades in the share all revenue equally NBA, the Timberwolves have been required to overpay mediocre talent because that’s all they could attract to Minneapolis. In the NFL, the Jacksonville Jaguars have to wildly overpay free agents to get anyone interested in playing for them. 

Long story short, there‘s no perfect system. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

12 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

This would fix a lot of problems. It could also give MLB more power to negotiate better local TV deals.

Share all the media revenue; don't share any of the revenue generated at the stadium.

I think you proposed that awhile back in another thread. I really like that idea.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

My point is that owners are the only people who can "fix" baseball inequity. Until revenue is properly shared, this problem will continue to exist. As long as the Dodgers are getting $250m a year from a TV contract while the Brewers are getting $40m, baseball stays broken.

You have a point in that the Owners are the only people who can fix this problem but wouldn't you agree that requires the acceptance of the players?  Keep in mind that it was the players who insisted on a higher luxury tax threshold, and they wanted to reduce revenue sharing.  Did you want the owners to just hold out until the players agreed to keeping the luxury tax where it was or a small increase.  Is it reasonable to say the owners could have increased revenue sharing when the players wanted it reduced?

Business owners are far more motivated to serve the interests of their customers as compared to employees or players in this case.  It's understandable that a player looking at a very short window to earn an enormous amount of money could care less if the system is fair to small market fans.  Isn't it reasonable to think the owners are more concerned with the fans given they have much longer-term interests?  Their motivation is still greed but I think owner's interests are far more in line with fan interests as compared to players.

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, Vanimal46 said:

Correct. Let’s not pretend that equal revenue sharing will create a utopia of balance in baseball. The same challenges will persist. The top free agents will still choose the desirable locations. Teams like Cincinnati and Pittsburgh will still be on the outside looking in… And get into bidding wars for the mid tier free agents. Thus overpaying for them. 

For 2+ decades in the share all revenue equally NBA, the Timberwolves have been required to overpay mediocre talent because that’s all they could attract to Minneapolis. In the NFL, the Jacksonville Jaguars have to wildly overpay free agents to get anyone interested in playing for them. 

Long story short, there‘s no perfect system. 

Agreed

It is hard to justify paying even more money to a free agent who doesn't out perform the 600K talent readily available.  

The only justification is depth. You pay the free agent so you can keep the 600K talent in reserve. 

That is clearly a big thing broken and lying on the floor. 

 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

For someone that claims not to care, I've yet to see you take the players side..... Once. Except paying minor league players a bit more 

Is baseball broken? Yes. But I'd argue that it isn't broken over money, but the actual play. The three true outcome game just isn't as much fun to watch as other entertainment options. That's a much bigger issue for baseball.

I was very much in favor of a significant increase in minimum salary and present a plan that was higher than what was agreed upon.  I looked at the negotiating positions and sided with what I thought was best for the game.  Let me ask you ...

!) Did the significant increase in the luxury tax threshold increase disparity?

2)1) Would decreasing shared revenue as the players proposed improve parity?

3) Would decreasing the initial length of control hurt smaller markets?

Why would I take the players side when their position is bad for our team and any other team in the bottom two-thirds of revenue.  Do you disagree that the players were asking for things that were not in the interest of the fans of lower revenue teams ?

[Mike Sixel]

11 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I was very much in favor of a significant increase in minimum salary and present a plan that was higher than what was agreed upon.  I looked at the negotiating positions and sided with what I thought was best for the game.  Let me ask you ...

!) Did the significant increase in the luxury tax threshold increase disparity?

2)1) Would decreasing shared revenue as the players proposed improve parity?

3) Would decreasing the initial length of control hurt smaller markets?

Why would I take the players side when their position is bad for our team and any other team in the bottom two-thirds of revenue.  Do you disagree that the players were asking for things that were not in the interest of the fans of lower revenue teams ?

I don't love what the players wanted.... Which isn't really the point at all. I would like more money to go to more players. Especially the newer players and minor league players. But mostly I prefer players get money over owners keeping it. Well, all employees. I make no secret that I think capital gets to oo big a slice of the pie. 

[Major League Ready]

26 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I don't love what the players wanted.... Which isn't really the point at all. I would like more money to go to more players. Especially the newer players and minor league players. But mostly I prefer players get money over owners keeping it. Well, all employees. I make no secret that I think capital gets to oo big a slice of the pie. 

Mike, I don't want to put words in your mouth but it sounds like you took a position based on supporting the players instead of parity and the health of the game.  More importantly, the fans are the people paying those enormous salaries not the owners.  They don't take the money out of their pockets.  They take it from us, and pay the player along with many other expenses and keep a piece for themselves.  Shouldn't the people paying the toll be a key consideration, not just in LA and NY but everywhere?

[Mike Sixel]

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Mike, I don't want to put words in your mouth but it sounds like you took a position based on supporting the players instead of parity and the health of the game.  More importantly, the fans are the people paying those enormous salaries not the owners.  They don't take the money out of their pockets.  They take it from us, and pay the player along with many other expenses and keep a piece for themselves.  Shouldn't the people paying the toll be a key consideration, not just in LA and NY but everywhere?

You totally put words in my mouth. 

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

You totally put words in my mouth. 

Well, you did say you were more focused on players getting more money as opposed promoting parity.  I don't know how else to interpret what you said and your message has remained consistent.  I thought it was odd during the CBA negotiations that you took this stance then and it's still hard to understand that the interests of the players is more important to you than that of the fans.  

[Mike Sixel]

29 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Well, you did say you were more focused on players getting more money as opposed promoting parity.  I don't know how else to interpret what you said and your message has remained consistent.  I thought it was odd during the CBA negotiations that you took this stance then and it's still hard to understand that the interests of the players is more important to you than that of the fans.  

They are not mutually exclusive. I think you've made your point, and I've made mine. I think the bigger problem for the sport is three true outcome baseball. 

[Major League Ready]

10 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

They are not mutually exclusive. I think you've made your point, and I've made mine. I think the bigger problem for the sport is three true outcome baseball. 

Actually, I would appreciate it if you did make your point.  How are they not mutually exclusive.  I would love to hear your logic.  I know how increasing the luxury tax threshold, decreasing revenue sharing, and a shorter period of control benefits players.  Can there be any doubt these actions would further diminish parity? Please explain how this would not be mutually exclusive in the interest of parity, Minnesota Twins Fans or any other fan outside of the top revenue markets.  I will happily root for players getting all of these things if you explain how they would not widen the disparity.

[DJL44]

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Actually, I would appreciate it if you did make your point.  How are they not mutually exclusive.  I would love to hear your logic.  I know how increasing the luxury tax threshold, decreasing revenue sharing, and a shorter period of control benefits players.  Can there be any doubt these actions would further diminish parity? Please explain how this would not be mutually exclusive in the interest of parity, Minnesota Twins Fans or any other fan outside of the top revenue markets.  I will happily root for players getting all of these things if you explain how they would not widen the disparity.

Less revenue sharing means small market teams have to try to win if they want more profit. They can't just suck and cash paychecks.

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Less revenue sharing means small market teams have to try to win if they want more profit. They can't just suck and cash paychecks.

That option already exists.  They can field a team with a $40M payroll if there only interest is a profit.  What we know with absolute certainty is that reducing revenue sharing would make it even harder for the majority of low revenue teams that are interested in competing.  Does it make sense to penalize all the other teams receiving revenue sharing that are trying because Pittsburgh won't spend?

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

That option already exists.  They can field a team with a $40M payroll if there only interest is a profit. 

Revenue sharing is actually a disincentive for increasing local revenue through winning. For every dollar that comes in you send 50% of it to the league. You get your share of 50% of the revenue of other teams whether or not you win a game. 

Oakland has revenue around $210M. $60M of that comes from the national TV deal and $110M through revenue sharing for just $40M in local revenue. They send $20M to the league pool and receive $110M in return for a net +$90M. The Dodgers have revenue of $560M. They send $200M to the league and get back $110M.

Oakland probably can't generate more than $150M in local stadium and concessions revenue from that market no matter what they do so it is in the league's interest to maximize the revenue from large market teams. It would cost Oakland an additional $100M in payroll to maximize their revenue by winning but it would also increase their revenue sharing bill from $20M to $75M. They effectively spend $155M and increase local revenues by $150M for a net loss of $5M on the bottom line.

Imagine instead that all the TV contract money was shared (like the NFL). Frankly, I don't understand what a "local" cable TV station or streaming video partner is anyway. Teams would each get roughly $120M by sharing all the TV money equally no matter which market it comes from. My idea is they get to keep all of the locally generated revenue they create from ticket sales and concessions. Then the A's can increase payroll by $100M, increase local revenue by $150M and get a net ROI of 50%.

The Dodgers would see their $240M yearly TV deal come off that $560M number but they also wouldn't have a revenue sharing bill of $200M and still max out their potential local revenue at $250M instead of the A's $150M due to their market size.

The league as a whole would be incentivized to negotiate the best overall TV deal for the 2430 baseball games they have to sell every season. Teams would be incentivized to increase local attendance and concession sales. Expansion of 2 teams means 162 more games (3 hour TV programs) to sell to television and more local revenue.

--------

Now, would it be good instead for the A's fans to see even more revenue sharing? Suppose teams shared 75% of revenue. The A's bill increases from $20M to $30M but they get back $165M from the league instead. That's a $135M disincentive to ever try to put a winning team on the field. We've already determined that their max local revenue stream is $150M. They wouldn't spend more than $10M in additional payroll to maximize their overall revenue. I don't think they would even keep players through arbitration. More revenue sharing makes it even more important for the league to have the Dodgers and Yankees win all the time and have the A's and Pirates lose. It doesn't improve parity, it makes it much worse. It actually incentivizes contraction to a 16 team league where all the major media markets are covered (NYY, NYM, LAD, LAA, CHC, CHW, PHI, BOS, WAS, HOU, TEX, SFG, TOR, SEA, ATL, ???). I don't think the Twins even exist in that scenario. We're all stuck watching Cubs and White Sox games every evening or going to Saints games.

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Revenue sharing is actually a disincentive for increasing local revenue through winning. For every dollar that comes in you send 50% of it to the league. You get your share of 50% of the revenue of other teams whether or not you win a game. 

Oakland has revenue around $210M. $60M of that comes from the national TV deal and $110M through revenue sharing for just $40M in local revenue. They send $20M to the league pool and receive $110M in return for a net +$90M. The Dodgers have revenue of $560M. They send $200M to the league and get back $110M.

Oakland probably can't generate more than $150M in local stadium and concessions revenue from that market no matter what they do so it is in the league's interest to maximize the revenue from large market teams. It would cost Oakland an additional $100M in payroll to maximize their revenue by winning but it would also increase their revenue sharing bill from $20M to $75M. They effectively spend $155M and increase local revenues by $150M for a net loss of $5M on the bottom line.

Imagine instead that all the TV contract money was shared (like the NFL). Frankly, I don't understand what a "local" cable TV station or streaming video partner is anyway. Teams would each get roughly $120M by sharing all the TV money equally no matter which market it comes from. My idea is they get to keep all of the locally generated revenue they create from ticket sales and concessions. Then the A's can increase payroll by $100M, increase local revenue by $150M and get a net ROI of 50%.

The Dodgers would see their $240M yearly TV deal come off that $560M number but they also wouldn't have a revenue sharing bill of $200M and still max out their potential local revenue at $250M instead of the A's $150M due to their market size.

The league as a whole would be incentivized to negotiate the best overall TV deal for the 2430 baseball games they have to sell every season. Teams would be incentivized to increase local attendance and concession sales. Expansion of 2 teams means 162 more games (3 hour TV programs) to sell to television and more local revenue.

--------

Now, would it be good instead for the A's fans to see even more revenue sharing? Suppose teams shared 75% of revenue. The A's bill increases from $20M to $30M but they get back $165M from the league instead. That's a $135M disincentive to ever try to put a winning team on the field. We've already determined that their max local revenue stream is $150M. They wouldn't spend more than $10M in additional payroll to maximize their overall revenue. I don't think they would even keep players through arbitration. More revenue sharing makes it even more important for the league to have the Dodgers and Yankees win all the time and have the A's and Pirates lose. It doesn't improve parity, it makes it much worse. It actually incentivizes contraction to a 16 team league where all the major media markets are covered (NYY, NYM, LAD, LAA, CHC, CHW, PHI, BOS, WAS, HOU, TEX, SFG, TOR, SEA, ATL, ???). I don't think the Twins even exist in that scenario. We're all stuck watching Cubs and White Sox games every evening or going to Saints games.

I totally agree there are better ways.  I don't know the level of motivation of owners to improve the system but I sincerely doubt that matters.  Concentrating the wealth is good for the top players and based on the last negotiations it's hard to imagine the union would accept more revenue sharing.  The enormous contracts that were just handed out proved their strategy and made it even harder to ever get them to consider parity.

I think your revenue model has some flaws.  You are assuming Oakland would need to more than double what they were spending to get better.  Oakland has the 6th best win percentage in MLB since the turn of the century and they are doing that spending less than $100M in total.  It's a real stretch to suggest they would need to increase spending by another $100M to make significant improvements.  They have literally spent half of the dollars per win compared to many other teams so there is no basis to assume they would have to double their payroll to produce more wins.  They could use that money like Tampa did to retain Wander Javier.  There is a great deal of angst on this site over retaining players because of our revenue disparity.  Just imagine if we could only spend $90M instead of $140. Those fans deserve better IMO.

Win Percentage since 2000

Yankees	0.583
Dodgers	0.563
Cardinals	0.559
Red Sox	0.553
Braves	0.541
Oakland	0.537
Angels	0.524
Giants	0.523
Astros	0.511
Phillies	0.506
TWINS	0.501
Mets	0.500
White Sox	0.499
Cleveland	0.498
Cubs	0.498
Mariners	0.497
Tampa	0.491
Brewers	0.490
Rangers	0.488
Nationals	0.488
Blue Jays	0.488
Dbacks	0.483
Padres	0.473
Reds	0.470
Rockies	0.466
Marlins	0.465
Tigers	0.463
Pirates	0.446
Orioles	0.445
Royals	0.440

[DJL44]

26 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Oakland has the 6th best win percentage in MLB since the turn of the century and they are doing that spending less than $100M in total.  It's a real stretch to suggest they would need to increase spending by another $100M to make significant improvements.  They have literally spent half of the dollars per win compared to many other teams 

They have to. They get half the revenue per additional win compared to the other teams. The Dodgers spend twice as much per additional win because they get twice as much revenue per additional win. That does put a lid on how much better they can make their team.

My point is if Oakland received MORE revenue sharing they would get ZERO additional revenue for an additional win. More revenue sharing makes it more likely a small market team will run a minimum payroll. More revenue sharing is an absolute disaster for a fan of a small market team.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

They have to. They get half the revenue per additional win compared to the other teams. The Dodgers spend twice as much per additional win because they get twice as much revenue per additional win. That does put a lid on how much better they can make their team.

My point is if Oakland received MORE revenue sharing they would get ZERO additional revenue for an additional win. More revenue sharing makes it more likely a small market team will run a minimum payroll. More revenue sharing is an absolute disaster for a fan of a small market team.

This is a tough medium for this type of discussion.  If I understand you correctly, you are saying the additional wins will cost them at least as much as the revenue generated.  If this is the case, why should any small market team try to win?  I think you are equating the cost of wins via free agency.  The other possibility would be to keep players with extension like Cleveland did with Jose Ramirez.  He produces more WAR than Correa for 58% of the cost.   Correa produced roughly 1 WAR for $7M where Rodriquez produces 1 WAR for every 3.5M.  Tampa kept Javier because they were able to extend him giving them much better odds to similar value as compared to signing a free agent.  This is great for Tampa and Cleveland fans!

IDK what Cleveland's salary capacity but let's just say it's $120M.  Rameriz represents 16.67% of that capacity where a free agent like Correa would represent 29% of payroll capacity.  If revenue sharing increased by $20M, those percentage go to 14.3 and 25% respectively.  Basically, the difference is that a team up against their spending limits could keep Jose Rameriz instead of having to trade him away.

[DJL44]

30 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

If I understand you correctly, you are saying the additional wins will cost them at least as much as the revenue generated.  If this is the case, why should any small market team try to win? 

They shouldn't.

Quote

IDK what Cleveland's salary capacity but let's just say it's $120M.  Rameriz represents 16.67% of that capacity where a free agent like Correa would represent 29% of payroll capacity.  If revenue sharing increased by $20M, those percentage go to 14.3 and 25% respectively.  Basically, the difference is that a team up against their spending limits could keep Jose Rameriz instead of having to trade him away.

I'm talking marginal additional revenue for a winning team. If the revenue sharing goes up there is less marginal benefit for having a winning team. The Guardians could keep Ramirez, win more games and get better attendance but it won't get the team any additional revenue. It will reduce the amount they earn through revenue sharing by almost the same amount as they earned through ticket sales. The only way to make more money is to reduce operating expenses and payroll. Revenue is a constant.

If you look at the NFL they let the home team keep 60% of the ticket revenue and 100% of the concessions, parking and corporate sponsorships. Teams pay for all stadium expenses (rent). All TV, licensing and merchandise money is shared evenly. This incentivizes teams to sell out their home games.

Imagine how much more exciting a baseball game would be if teams were incentivized to sell out all the tickets. Instead, they're only incentivized to sell out all the expensive tickets. That means keeping prices for bleacher seats artificially high to avoid undercutting the expensive seats.

[Major League Ready]

13 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

They shouldn't.

I'm talking marginal additional revenue for a winning team. If the revenue sharing goes up there is less marginal benefit for having a winning team. The Guardians could keep Ramirez, win more games and get better attendance but it won't get the team any additional revenue. It will reduce the amount they earn through revenue sharing by almost the same amount as they earned through ticket sales. The only way to make more money is to reduce operating expenses and payroll. Revenue is a constant.

If you look at the NFL they let the home team keep 60% of the ticket revenue and 100% of the concessions, parking and corporate sponsorships. Teams pay for all stadium expenses (rent). All TV, licensing and merchandise money is shared evenly. This incentivizes teams to sell out their home games.

Imagine how much more exciting a baseball game would be if teams were incentivized to sell out all the tickets. Instead, they're only incentivized to sell out all the expensive tickets. That means keeping prices for bleacher seats artificially high to avoid undercutting the expensive seats.

I hear you but the shared gate is only one form of revenue sharing.  The other form of revenue sharing that would be more effective would have been to keep the luxury tax threshold near where it was and increase the escalation.  If my memory is correct the owners wanted the increased the escalation.   That would have reduced the amount l;arge markets could spendon one end and increased the amount distributed on the other end.  Regardless, they could no doubt find a better plan for revenue sharing but the players would have to agree and which they don't appear inclined to do.

[Steve71]

Correa to Mets, Mets luxury tax exceeds the Twins entire payroll, and no one in MLB management gives a damn.

Verdict is in:  Broken.

I think I am going to find a minor league team to adopt..

[ashbury]

This was the outcome at our local hoops contest last night. I'm starting to feel MLB is headed the same direction.