Quantcast

Arismendy Alcantara (Scott Jontes/MiLB.com)

We open every minor league season with a list of players we know are good prospects and who we watch closely. For the 2012 Cubs, that list would feature names like Szczur, Jackson, Rizzo, and Lake. There is also usually a list of players we hope will take strides forward and upgrade their prospect status. This season, that list would contain names such as Wells, Golden, Jokisch, and Darvill.

But the success of a minor league season, and indeed of a farm system in general, depends to a large degree on a third list. That is the list of player who step out of relative obscurity and take their place in the prospect conversations. Already this season we have seen Patrick Francescon and John Andreoli take that step. Today, I would like to suggest that we add Arismendy Alcantara‘s name to that list.

Alcantara is a switch hitting shortstop out of the Dominican Republic, and he is having a breakout season. While he is still raw defensively (and that means lots of errors (and errors are OK for a young infielder)), the experts think he can stay at shortstop as he moves towards the majors. He features a nice mix of power (3 HR this season) and speed (12 steals) that should play well at short as well as at second or third. His production is fairly consistent from both sides of the plate, including his power numbers. His strikeout rate of 16% is perfectly acceptable, although his walk rate (4%) could stand to come up slightly. That walk rate has stayed fairly stable as he has moved up the farm system, but his strikeouts have fallen off precipitously as he moved into increasingly difficult leagues. That is a particularly good sign for a young player.

As you look over his numbers, keep in mind that he is playing for Daytona. The Florida State League is rough on hitters, but Alcantara is more than holding his own. He has always been a toolsy sort of player, but now it appears he is harnessing those tools and enjoying some success. If he can keep this up, I think we will be hearing a lot more about him over the next few years.

AAA – Iowa Cubs. 19 – 26
Iowa fell behind early and never did rally. As you might expect, that led to an 8-3 loss.

Brooks Raley made his first Triple A start of the season. He did absorb the loss, but given that this was his first start in a very hitter friendly league after working in the pitcher friendly Southern League, it wasn’t a bad game at all. He threw five innings and allowed five runs (three earned) on six hits and three walks to go with four strikeouts. I think we’ll see better from Raley once he gets adjusted.

Ryan Rowland-Smith struggled in his two innings of relief, but Mike MacDougal limited his damage to a solo home run. For MacDougal, that’s progress. Frankie De La Cruz had the only scoreless appearance for the Cubs.

Anthony Rizzo homered. At this point I think we are only surprised when he doesn’t hit a long ball. Or three. This bomb, part of a 2 for 4 day, was his sixteenth of the season. The demands for his promotion are no doubt going to get louder as he approaches and breaks the 20 HR mark, and those demands will likely be ignored by the Cubs. He’ll come up when the Cubs decide he’s ready to come up, and when the economics of the situation make sense, and not a day before. I suspect at this point the economics of player control and arbitration timings are all we are waiting on. He’s crushing both lefties and righties, he is now just ten home runs short of his career high for a season, and it seems he’s still getting better.

Josh Vitters is playing pretty well himself. He extended his hitting streak to seven games with a 3 for 4 showing that included a double. He got off to a slow start in April (normal for a player adjusting to a new league), but his OPS in May is up to .832.

BN’er Ced was at the game, and offered his insightful thoughts over at the Message Board. He discusses Raley, Rizzo, Jackson, and Vitters, among others.

AA – Tennesse Smokies. 20 – 27
A rare bad game from a starting pitcher doomed the Smokies to an 8-6 loss.

Nick Struck threw only 57 pitches and left after three rough innings (8H, 6R, 2BB, 3K). Casey Harman threw three innings in long relief and fared somewhat better (3H, 2R, 4K). Frank Batista put up zeroes in the final two frames.

Tennessee had 12 hits in this game, including two each from James Adduci, Junior Lake, Justin Bour, and Rebel Ridling. Lake, along with Matt Cerda and Michael Brenly, doubled in the contest. Ridling hit his fifth home run of the season, and Jae-Hoon Ha finally connected for his first of the year.

High A – Daytona Cubs. 18 – 26
Once again, Daytona lost a close game. This time the gloomy final was 8-7.

Frank Del Valle struck out six in his five innings of work, but he also walked three and gave up two home runs as he allowed five runs to cross the plate. Joseph Zeller allowed two more runs to score in his two innings of work, but it was Tony Zych who was dealt the loss and a blown save.

Daytona scored their seven runs on just eight hits. Ronald Torreyes finally had a good game, going 3 for 3 with a double and a walk. Dustin Harrington tripled and Greg Rohan launched his seventh home run of the season. Arismendy Alcantara also had two hits.

Low A – Peoria Chiefs. 20 – 26
The Chiefs were shut out in a blow out, 11-0.

Nearly all the damage done was done to Jose Rosario in his three and two thirds innings of work. Rosario’s record now stands at 3-5 after surrendering nine runs on nine hits with two walks and five strikeouts. The two home runs he allowed did not help matters any. Austin Reed was a bit wild in his inning and a third of relief and allowed another two runs to score. Hunter Cervenka and Jeffrey Lorrick combined to pitch the final four innings in scoreless fashion.

There’s not much to report about the offense. The Chiefs finished the game with a grand total of five hits, all of them singles. Pin-Chieh Chen, Ryan Cuneo, and Anthony Giansanti each had one hit. Yaniel Cabezas had two.

  • Idaho Razorback

    No need to bring up Rizzo until we have that extra year of control of him. This season is over. It’s business. Just like it will be business when he leaves to another team as a free agent for 1.5 million more in a 6 year contract.

    • CastrotoBarneytoLaHair

      Can’t agree more. Most of us need to remember that Theo et al. let it be known that this year was going to be rough as they begin to put their plan in place. We are all die-hards and yes, losing sucks. However, most of us have not had the pleasure of having a regime that has a long-term plan. We have all been exposed to the quick-fix, pay whatever it takes philosophy that had us stuck with bad contracts. Patience, my BN friends !!!

  • fivetoolmike

    I’m not sure there’s too much service time consideration with Rizzo. He’s a first baseman who’s projected to be an above-average starter, but not elite. Rizzo isn’t the kind of player the Cubs should worry about getting too expensive through the arbitration process, and if he’s good enough to keep around when he becomes a free agent in SIX YEARS, then they’ll keep him. A lot can happen between now and the time he’s a free agent…I just don’t think there’s a spot for him right now, but I’d bet that’s being worked on.

    • Cubbie Blues

      There is also the extra year of control you have to consider.

      • hansman1982

        NOOOOO 15 days of playing time now > 1 year of control later

      • fivetoolmike

        See below.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      If the Cubs were even remotely in a race, I’d agree with you. But they’re not. There is absolutely nothing to gain by calling him up now, and there IS something tangible to lose (the fact that it comes in six years matters not).

      • fivetoolmike

        Right, I acknowledge that the potential for an extra year of control exists, but again, I don’t think it’s much of a factor given the Cubs place in payroll ranks. In five years, the Cubs will have a good enough idea of whether or not Rizzo is worth re-signing as a free agent or not. Also, Anthony Rizzo got about two months of MLB service time last year, which would put him in line for a late summer call-up IF service time were a consideration. That doesn’t fit with the June call-up being discussed.

        • Kyle

          Sorry, but resources are resources and it’s foolish to waste some just because it feels like you have a lot.

          I’m pretty sure a mid-June callup fits perfectly with the 68 days of service time he accumulated last year.

          • Mrp

            Yep, 100% agree. No need to just burn an entire year just so some people can feel better about things for a couple weeks.

            The date being thrown around as the cutoff for Rizzo’s service time is June 22nd. So he could be called up after that day and the Cubs retain the “extra” year.

          • fivetoolmike

            A mid-June callup would, more than likely, result in Rizzo being super-two arbitration eligible. I’m not advocating for or against calling up Rizzo. I don’t really care that much either way because I don’t have any power over it, and I don’t think it’s going to end up making much difference either way. I only wanted to point out the reasons why I don’t think service time has anything to do with whether or not Rizzo is in the majors.

            As you say, “resources are resources,” but those resources have different values depending on other conditions and it’s foolish to pretend like the Cubs aren’t a top 3-5 revenue team.

            • Mrp

              I thought I heard that Super 2 was was going away (or at least talked about). Maybe not till the next CBA though, can’t remember. Anyone know for sure?

              • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

                I would be stunned if Super Two ever went away.  I believe it actually expanded under the new CBA to cover more players, not fewer.

                • Mrp

                  Thanks for the info. Found what I saw and it was just that small market teams were upset about the change.

              • hansman1982

                they changed the requirements so more players become eligible

            • hansman1982

              While the Cubs certainly are a top 10 revenue team (the lack of $$$ from a TV deal hurts BIG time) that doesn’t mean that we should foolishly throw that money around.

              Think of it this way – if there is 0 harm in keeping Rizzo in AAA until his Super Two eligibilty expires then by all means you do it. That is an extra $2M we have to spend on free agents in 2016 and that # only goes up from there. Ask the Cardinals if they would like to have an extra $2M a year to have thrown at Pujols.

              • CubFan Paul

                The Cubs are all Top 4 revenue team, only behind the Yankees, Mets, & Red Sox

                • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

                  Even after the Angels new TV deal?

                  • Beer Baron

                    Here is a link to recent Forbes’ article “The Business of Baseball”. http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/

                    Per that, they were 3rd in revenue. But also 2nd worst debt ratio.

                    • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

                      I’m pretty sure those are last seasons numbers (they’d have to be, unless Forbes owns a time machine).  I suspect that the new TV deals will drop the Cubs to no higher than fifth, behind Anaheim and probably Texas.

                      Which is still plenty high.

                  • CubFan Paul

                    Hmmm good point. The cubs come in at a minimum of $270M a year. The Angels & Rangers are now up there somewhere ..gotta do some research

              • fivetoolmike

                I’m all for the Cubs being fiscally responsible with their personnel decisions, because not even the Yankees print their own money; however, in this case I think that it’s more important that the Cubs figure out what they have than worry about maybe paying a player a couple of million extra over the course of a few years (that they’ll only have to pay if he’s playing well enough to earn).

                Also, I was mistaken earlier about the difference between Rizzo’s Super-Two date compared to his service time date. He’d have to stay down ’til August to avoid being Super-Two eligible, but only the end of June to maintain an extra year of service time. I still don’t think it makes a big difference, but it does change my understanding.

                • CubFan Paul

                  The Yankees do print their own money, to the tune of $440Million plus a year ..that’s $100M plus more a year than anyone

                  • fivetoolmike

                    That’s still a real number, and not infinity. The Yankees are also trying to get under a $200M payroll and the luxury tax line.

                    • CubFan Paul

                      Who cares if the Yanks are trying to get under $200M? Well, actually they do because it’s more profit money for them out of the $400plus Million a year

                    • fivetoolmike

                      I don’t really care what the Yankees payroll is, but the fact that they’re trying to get under $200M is evidence that their payroll has constraints and that they don’t print money, counter to what you said.

            • Kyle

              Super-two is the difference of a few million over the course of his service time and probably unavoidable at any rate.

              But the extra year of service time could easily make a difference in the eight figures.

              The Cubs being a top-5 revenue team means they should be able to bludgeon the rest of the division if they use their resources well. All the more reason not to waste resources.

              • fivetoolmike

                I think that “easily make a difference in the eight figures” is an overstatement. Anthony Rizzo will more than likely not be a superstar. If he is, then the Cubs will have to pay him as such. If he isn’t, he probably won’t be a Cub as a free agent.

                • Kyle

                  I don’t think you are actually thinking through the results here. You are just eyeballing it and saying “doesn’t seem like much to me.”

                  Let’s say Rizzo comes up, establishes himself as a legitimate starting 1b, and enters his peak as a 4-WAR player. Not a superstar, but a solid, above-average starter. Here are some likely salary scenarios (using 2012 dollars, not accounting for the likely inflation):

                  No super-2:
                  2013: MLB minimum
                  2014: MLB minimum
                  2015: MLB minimum
                  2016: $3 million
                  2017: $6 million
                  2018: $9 million
                  2019 and beyond: Hits free agency, likely $12-15 million/year
                  2013-2019 cost: $30-34 million.

                  Super-2, but no early FA:

                  2013: MLB minimum
                  2014: MLB minimum
                  2015: $2 million
                  2016: $3 million
                  2017: $6 million
                  2018: $9 million
                  2019 and beyond: Hits free agency, likely $12-15 million/year
                  2013-2019 cost: $33-$36 million.

                  Super-2 and early FA:
                  2013: MLB minimum
                  2014: MLB minimum
                  2015: $3 million
                  2016: $6 million
                  2017: $9 million
                  2018 and beyond: Hits free agency, likely $12-15 million/year
                  2013-2019 cost: $43-49 million

                  If you want to provide an alternative set of numbers, I’d love to see them. But this is a lot more complex than just saying “it doesn’t seem like a lot to me.”

                  And that’s with your assumption that he doesn’t become an top-level first baseman, which I don’t think is at all fair. I think Joey Votto comps are beginning to become quite reasonable.

                  • fivetoolmike

                    I think the most fundamental issue in our disagreement is that you believe Anthony Rizzo will be a much better player than I do. I don’t scout MiLB games, nor do I watch them regularly. I do read a lot about prospects, though, and I’m not being negative, nor am I being pessimistic when I say I think people suggesting Anthony Rizzo’s career production will be near Joey Votto’s are wrong; I arrive at that opinion through reading people who scout players or talk to scouts and who have a published track record to show that they’re accountable. If you’re comfortable with the sources of that comparison of Rizzo to Votto, then cool, we disagree.

                • hansman1982

                  Even if the savings is only $2-4M if you do that with 2-3 players it becomes significant money pretty quickly. Watch the ounces and the pounds fall off comes to mind.

                  • fivetoolmike

                    It’s $2-4M with very good players. There aren’t 2-3 players with whom the Cubs COULD do this.

                    • hansman1982

                      Right now you have Soto, Marmol, Castro, Dolis, Russell, Rizzo, Vitters, Jackson that these things are all considerations on or that are directly effecting the Cubs. Heck you could lump Marshall and Garza in that mix as well. That is 10 players with 5 that are “coming due” this calendar year.

                      Seeing that Soto, Marmol and Castro all are hitting several millions in pay now, 30 days wait a few years ago may have pushed the extension decision back a year for Marmol, may have given us an extra year of control over Soto thereby increasing his value now, and gave us an additional year of control over Castro or would have allowed for him to miss out on Super 2 status.

                      Just as in baseball, finance is won on the margins.

                    • fivetoolmike

                      I agree that baseball is won on the margins. I just think you’ve got a vastly different understanding from me of what the margins are, in this case.

                      Teams get six years of major-league control; Super Two status only has to do with arbitration eligibility. The current arbitration system doesn’t reward relievers (or middle infielders) in nearly the same way that it does with power hitters.

                      Castro will hopefully be a star, and will get paid, but the arbitration system will still be light on his actual value. Soto’s value is low right now, regardless of how many years he has of team-control left. Marmol signed a multi-year deal, aka not in the arbitration system.

                      Regardless, bringing all of that in muddles the discussion of Rizzo and the fact that this is an individual situation. We hope that Rizzo will be a very good player and that this will end up making a bit of difference; for most of the other players you mentioned, that difference is much smaller.

                    • hansman1982

                      I agree but if you can consistently take advantage of these things you can consistently have more money to spend on free agents, facilities, etc…

                      At this point, we may need to walk away agreeing that we may be talking about 2 different things.

        • Beer Baron

          No matter where they are in revenue, the Cubs (all teams) always have a set operating budget for payroll. The higher revenue allows them to set that budget higher than the Pirates (for example) but doesn’t mean that they have unlimited resources, and that they shouldn’t look to save money where they can. If waiting a few weeks on Rizzo can save them $10million, that’s $10 million they could spend on relievers, or a 2nd baseman, or whatever it is they need circa 2018. There just is no logical reason to bring him up now – even if LaHair would get hurt I would advocate starting Mather or Baker there everyday for a few weeks rather than blowing the year of service time.

      • Dick

        I had the mispleasure of watching the Cubs the last two nights in Houston. They are an unwatchable team right now. If they want to have anyone show up at Cubs games, they need to get some hitting, and Rizzo is the obvious answer. As I’ve said before, fannies in the seats now more than pay for an additional year of control for one good player, although it is obvious that Theo and Co. don’t believe that. I’m looking forward to next year’s season ticket sales………

  • Andy

    Glad you’re not the GM

  • TonyP

    What makes High A Daytona and AA Tennesse “Pitcher Leagues” while AAA Iowa a “hitters league”?   I have my theories but would like input from the experts.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      There are a lot of reasons, but geography is the biggest one – the PCL has a lot of hitter-friendly parks in warm, thin air; the Florida State League is all moisty, which I understand impacts the distance the ball travels.

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

        That’s part of it.  The PCL, as I understand it, also features a number of phone booths and shoe boxes masquerading as ballparks.

        • RoughRiider

          Doesn’t one say Nike on the outside ?

  • Cedlandrum

    First I get referenced on this blog and then, and then Brett gets a question answered by Jim Callis. What a banner day.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

      That was a nice write up of the Iowa game.  Good, good stuff.

      • Cedlandrum

        Thanks Luke.

    • MoneyBoy

      Yes, Ced, very nice indeed.  Helpful to have someone with eyes on the game speaking about it.  TYVM

  • mark

    The Daytona lineup card seems to change quite a bit from day to day, but as the season has progressed it appears that Alcantara has been increasingly showing up toward the top of the order, with Szczur. Seems a nice combo, since among their other skills they’re 1-2 on the team in SBs.

  • mark

    Ced, great comments, esp. re Jackson and Vitters–given all the discussion yesterday, some firsthand observations (and not just extrapolations from numbers crunching) are welcome.

    • Cedlandrum

      Hey thanks. It had been a few weeks since I had been able to make a game, so i was interested to see Jackson again. Early when I saw him he was killing it a bit and now struggling I wanted to see what he looked like. In his first two AB’s he looked AWFUL. His last two he looked a lot better. He has a good fluid swing, but he was lunging and swinging at bad balls. He looked stereotypical of a guy struggling. Not swinging at the good ones and flailing at ones that were not strikes. Hope his last 2 ab’s will help turn him around.

      One thing i can’t emphasis enough is how athletic he looks, runs and plays. Very smooth athlete. If I was an old time scout I would say he looks like a big leaguer.

      • mark

        Everyone has always said how great Vitters looks at bat, how he uses all fields, has a great swing, easy power, etc. But at the start of this year when the various sites were evaluating prospects the CW was asking, is it time to give up on Vitters? and touting Jackson as MLB ready. As great as Vitters looks, his numbers still leave a fair amount to be desired, and as bad as Jackson’s numbers are (not all, but some important ones), he can still look MLB ready. Just goes to show, this game ain’t easy, and appearances (and stats) can be deceiving. I’ll go with management’s call on when Rizzo is ready. Tx again.

        • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

          I cannot begin to understand those who say the Cubs should give up on Vitters.  He is one of the youngest players in Triple A.  Every single team in baseball would to have a third base prospect reach Triple A at the age of 22.

          • Kyle

            It’s funny, because the people who want to get down on Vitters because of his lack of patience are themselves showing a lack of (a different kind) of patience.

            I don’t think we’re ever going to get the breakout you hoped when you drafted him No. 3 overall, but he remains on track to be an adequate major leaguer. If he just keeps improving every year, as he has, then he’ll be a 280/320/400 type hitter with average 3b defense. That has a ton of value, especially in his team control years. That’d make him roughly a 2-3 WAR player. Worth starting.

            That said, I don’t expect it to be with the Cubs. Vitters is going to get the full year in AAA this year, and he’s going to need to hit the majors sometime in 2014 full-time or else you start to worry about him stagnating. I don’t expect 3b to be open anytime in that time frame, and LF is getting crowded enough as it is.

            Vitters would make a ton of sense for a small-market team looking to take a chance on a cheap 3b.

            • mark

              This is all true, and too often people forget that teams stockpile players for deal making purposes. The promotion route being crowded is more of a problem for players than organizations.

              An interesting comparison to Vitters is DeWitt. You can go back a few years and read people saying similar things about DeWitt’s swing. Obviously the Cubs thought he’d develop more than he ever did, that he’d be a major offensive upgrade at 2B. Lots of “can’t miss” guys do miss. But, hey, DeWitt worked out OK for the Dodgers.

          • Edwin

            Luke,

            I understand that Vitters is young for his league, but that doesn’t mean he is above criticism. From my post yesterday, last year in AA he put up a wRC+ of 99. That’s below average. His OPS compared to other 3B in the league was below average as well.

            I understand that Vitters is young for his age, but from 2006-2012 there have been 27 seasons by a player age 22 or younger. Vitters current season ranks him 23rd in wRC+ and OPS. He didn’t make it to AAA by age 22 because of his talent, he made it because of a lack of depth in front of him. There is a reason why his prospect stock has been dropping. His numbers throughout his career aren’t good, and scouts don’t seem to be that excited by him.

            I don’t think the Cubs should give up on Vitters. There is no reason to. He’s young, doesn’t cost much, and still has time to get better. He’s not blocking anyone yet. But until he starts to actually get better, he’s not that interesting of a prospect. He is having a good May, and if continues to build on his May, great. Until then, he’s a fringe top 15 prospect for the Cubs.

            • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

              I have no problem with justifiable criticism of any player, including Vitters.

              But I still cannot understand the calls by many fans (not including yourself) to give up on the guy.

              • Cubs Dude

                I think the main reason fans are so disappointed with Vitters is because he was drafted so high. He seems to me, to be the Soriano of the minors. People can’t help but get pissed at Sori because he makes so much money and way underperforms, and people can’t help but be disappointed in Vitters because of where he was drafted. It’s really neithers fault, but just products of things that were handed to them.

              • mark

                Those calls aren’t just coming from fans. They’re also coming from well known pundits. As CD and Edwin noted, those calls are, above all, a measure of frustration at high expectations falling short–so far. For the record, I have no opinion. He IS still young, he does have unquestionable skills, and nobody can be sure what’s going on inside him.

            • mark

              I think that’s a great point about why he was bumped up to AAA. Yes, he had a pretty good year at AA, but every year he has underachieved expectations and, when you dig into his numbers a bit, potential problems become apparent. I believe I’ve read that the org was hoping that keeping him together with Jackson and Rizzo might help light a bit of a fire under him.

        • Drew7

          “Just goes to show, this game ain’t easy, and appearances (and short-term stats) can be deceiving.”

          There, fixed that for ya ;)

          • mark

            Yep, I can agree with that. The tricky part is this: what’s long and short term can vary quite a bit among individuals. Some people are fast learners, some are slow learners, and some never learn. Which group they fall into will be reflected in their stats, but we may never know for quite a few years. GM’s get hired and fired for making those calls. :-( Of course, they get paid for making those calls, too. :-)

  • mark

    Theojed must be doing cartwheels at Lake’s start–at the plate. You could hardly ask for a better statistical profile from him.

    • RoughRiider

      Except for the errors. Too many for the number of games played.

      • mark

        Yep–that’s why I specified “at the plate.” But with that bat, and with his speed and arm, they’ll find a place for him if this is the real Junior Lake.

  • Patrick

    Any word on when Whitenack is coming back? I played college ball against him and just started following the Cubs minor leagues a lot this past season. I’ve heard good things about him I wonder how far he will go

    • rcleven

      Is playing now in AZ extended spring training.

      http://www.thecubreporter.com/site/cubs-extended-spring-traiining

      • Patrick

        Thank you

        • rcleven

          Don’t feel bad you missed it. Average attendance at games are about 13. AZ Phil does great coverage.

    • Ryan G

      He’s actually heading back to Daytona. He has pitched very well in rehab so far.

  • Dick

    I have a question for Brett and Luke – is there any money reason why most of the Cubs top prospects are still in extended spring training? Baez, Vogelbach, Jeimer, Baptista, and others must be better than some of the guys on Peoria. Are they just trying to get an undefeated team at Boise?

  • nkniacc

    Its going to be interesting with the Cubs having a bunch of intriguing ss prospects and with Castro so young will they maybe move one this coming offseason

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+