A Place To Talk About Giants Baseball

Finishing Touches on the 2011 team: Marc Kroon?

Posted in Uncategorized by Flavor on January 26, 2011

Unlike the Suppan minor league signing, this one is at least interesting. This dude did nothing before he went to Japan but apparently figured something out as he turned into one of the league’s better closers. And whatever you say about the competition, the fact is, closing is a hard job at pretty much any level. Lots of guys throw in the high 90’s (as “The Phoenix”—his agent’s nickname for him—does) and he’s probably a guy who has just been blowing the lesser Japanese competition away with his heat. But he would have had to solve his control problems either way or he would never have been successful. There’s very little innings on this guy’s arm…..I’m just sayin’,  not a bad flyer at all…….

 

49 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Kevin said, on January 26, 2011 at 8:05 am

    He is 38 years old, you would have to bring him in with greater that a 1 run lead IMO. Never know when that arm is going to be too tired to go. but what the hell, he is just invited to ST not like he has a contract.

  2. Nipper said, on January 26, 2011 at 8:59 am

    In the words of Chuck, “Oh Bleep this!”

  3. snarkk said, on January 26, 2011 at 9:07 am

    Mark Kroon? At least he’ll be the group leader when the Pen goes en masse to a Scottsdale sushi bar. Whatever…

  4. Flavor said, on January 26, 2011 at 9:27 am

    He’s got very little mileage on that arm. I like the signing, if it doesn’t work out it’s a non issue……

  5. snarkk said, on January 26, 2011 at 9:46 am

    I get it. You need arms to fill innings in ST. In the meantime, “Hey Mark, get me a California roll, a Yami Yami roll, and a big Sapporo — and whaddya think about their Unagi here?”…

  6. TedSpe said, on January 26, 2011 at 10:03 am

    Marc Kroon?

  7. Bozo said, on January 26, 2011 at 10:05 am

    Don’t know much about the guy, no harm in checking him out.

    Only a couple of question marks going in this year, but it seems they are with back-up plans in place.
    Spring training should have some interesting outcomes this year. Besides the Panda, DeRosa and Belt questions, there is the somewhat crowded OF. Nate is out of options and by keeping Ford on the PS roster is there something in the plans for him? I’m not sure Ishi can make the cut this year (also out of options), so what happens there?

    • snarkk said, on January 26, 2011 at 10:14 am

      If Belt looks at all like he’s a keeper for the Big Club sometime this year, IMO Ishi is gone in exchange for some minor league pitching talent…

  8. snarkk said, on January 26, 2011 at 10:11 am

    Baggarly’s blog is back on the Merc. And, surprise! He’s hawking a book he just wrote on the Giants road to winning the 2010 WS. It’s probably pretty good…

  9. zumarust said, on January 26, 2011 at 10:20 am

    Belt is the most intriguing question of Spring Training, IMO. It would be so cool if he has a good ST and wins a spot. The guy has good ABs. If he can hit just .260, he’ll have a good OBP because he can draw walks. He can be the kind of player that keeps rallies going.
    The problem with the Panda last year wasn’t so much his overall numbers, but that he killed so many rallies.

  10. zumarust said, on January 26, 2011 at 10:28 am

    Baggs says Lincecum will be on the cover of the next issue of GQ. I wonder if he’ll wear a bow-tie?

    • xootsuit said, on January 26, 2011 at 10:38 am

      Absolutely

    • TedSpe said, on January 26, 2011 at 11:03 am

      Not only is he on the cover, the article (or puff piece) is on the “coolest” athletes ever. Also profiled are the likes of Joe Namath, Kenny Stabler, Pete Maravich, Walt Frazier, etc. I wonder if the theme is coolest athlete or coolest nickname.

    • xootsuit said, on January 26, 2011 at 11:08 am

      Wow. Ali and Namath and Tim.

      • DJLoo said, on January 26, 2011 at 1:37 pm

        Oh my!

  11. xootsuit said, on January 26, 2011 at 10:45 am

    If anyone’s interested in the travails of Barry Bonds: Based on an order Judge Illston just isssued a few minutes ago in another case, it looks like she’s making room in February for the Bonds trial. Previously, she had expressed skepticism that the trial would go forward.

  12. Mega Flavor said, on January 26, 2011 at 11:16 am

    Seems like a fabulous way to spend tax payer $. What exactly is the purpose of the trial? To prove he lied?

    • snarkk said, on January 26, 2011 at 11:26 am

      That he lied to the Feds. All the potential jurors called should wear SF caps when called into the courtroom…

      • Kevin said, on January 26, 2011 at 11:54 am

        WS championship hats!!

    • xootsuit said, on January 26, 2011 at 11:58 am

      Yeah, the purpose of the trial is to prove that Bonds responded evasively to poorly framed but aggressive questions from the prosecutors. It was a Grand Jury proceeding, so Bonds was alone — his attorneys were not permitted into the courtroom to object, etc., on his behalf. A scumbag lawyer from Sacramento who represented someone at BALCO leaked the confidential transcripts. Otherwise, no one needed to know what had gone on in the GJ room. (For this reason, I loathe the “deterrence” excuse for making an example of Bonds.) The local federal prosecutors thought they had no choice but to respond, I guess, so they went after him. Of course, Bonds’s evasive testimony did nothing whatsoever to impair the federal case against BALCO. It’s all a huge waste of time, public money and effort.

      • TedSpe said, on January 26, 2011 at 12:09 pm

        Is being evasive the same as lying? If I recall what I’ve read, Bonds basically stated he didn’t know he was using PEDs if he had been at all. Maybe disingenuous but isn’t it pretty tough to prove someone is lying if the say “I don’t know”?

      • xootsuit said, on January 26, 2011 at 12:34 pm

        I’m exaggerating, Ted. Mainly, he was evasive, but on a couple of occasions he was categorical enough to be “lying.” The indictment contains the questions and answers that allegedly support the perjury charge. Some of the questions are so sloppy and ambiguous I doubt that they’ll be able to stick Bonds with lying in response. Other questions, technically . . . perhaps. Still, without an admissible positive test result for Bonds, the case is fairly shaky.

      • TedSpe said, on January 26, 2011 at 12:42 pm

        Interesting

      • xootsuit said, on January 26, 2011 at 12:43 pm

        In other words, to answer your question directly: Bonds could say I didn’t know whether the stuff Anderson was giving me had roids in it or not. But Anderson could say, not only did I tell him what was in the cream and the clear, I told him I was switching him to those products because the stuff we’d been using before was testing positive. Here’s the positive test. I’d been giving him x, y and z, and they were detectable. He knew that; I showed him these test results. Here are the tests I took later, to be sure the new BALCO wonder roids were not detectable by mlb. I showed him this stuff, too.

        Let’s just say that were the testimony. Bonds’d be dead. But without Anderson to say all of that — uh oh, feds.

      • TedSpe said, on January 26, 2011 at 1:53 pm

        What if the witnesses they call who also got stuff from Anderson (Giambi, et.al.) testify that Anderson said something along the lines of “This is the same stuff I gave Bonds”? Would that just be hearsay? Or is that damning evidence?

      • xootsuit said, on January 26, 2011 at 3:09 pm

        hearsay, but with an exception, I think:
        def: a statement (oral or written), other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. FRE 801.
        however, one exception to the hearsay rule is “declarant unavailable” because he “persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement despite an order of the court to do so.” FRE 804(a)(2).
        So Giambi’s testimony or the oral statement probably would come in.
        Note that the real problem for the feds concerns documents. The documents — written records showing positive tests for roids — are hearsay. The feds need Anderson to authenticate the documents and to say that they are careful records he kept of roid test results, etc., etc. Then what is usually called the “business records” exception to the hearsay rule would apply, and the documents suddenly would become admissible. FRE 803(6); see also id. at (4)-(5). It would be that easy, if Anderson would cooperate.

      • TedSpe said, on January 26, 2011 at 3:42 pm

        I see. But apparently that’s not going to happen. It’s interesting to me but frankly I wish it would be over and done

      • xootsuit said, on January 26, 2011 at 4:33 pm

        Yep. Bonds should’ve had one or two more years as a DH and a respectable retirement. mlb screwed him over; the feds are screwing him over.

      • TedSpe said, on January 26, 2011 at 4:47 pm

        I completely agree.

  13. snarkk said, on January 26, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    I’m no big fan of Bonds as a human, nor from use of ‘roids. As a Giants fan, sure, I marveled at his skills, so I’d be up for a jury nullification vote. I’d vote to acquit based solely on the waste of my and your tax dollars on this silly effort. And, on his unreal ability to turn on the inside, high fastball…

    • xootsuit said, on January 26, 2011 at 12:37 pm

      I would much rather see a public trial of that unethical Sacramento lawyer who leaked the GJ transcripts. He should get retried every three years or so, pilloried and humiliated, and tossed back into jail to wait for his next trial. It would be a continuing legal education service for lawyers.

  14. xootsuit said, on January 26, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    Ok, back to the present. Brandon Belt is ranked 26th on the top 50 mlb prospects list. Exactly one year ago, Buster was number 4 and Bumgarner number 10. The bench is already very crowded. (Rowand, Burrell and DeRosa have their eye on exactly the same piece of pine, don’t they? And they’re blocking Nate’s view.) I will be astonished if Belt makes the roster out of ST.

  15. DJLoo said, on January 26, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    I don’t see Huff in the outfield at all.

  16. Unca Chuck said, on January 26, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    Yeah, the true asshole in the deal was the Sacto lawyer who leaked the names in the 1st place. Once leaked, the whole thing should have been tossed out as a breach of ethics or tainted evidence.

    I mean, all the guys that testified were to do so under immunity.

    THAT should have been the beginning and the end of the deal.

  17. PawlieKokonuts said, on January 26, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    Gil Meche is passing on $12 mil for 2011. You can look it up, as Casey Stengel almost said (cf. Ralph Keyes, “The Quote Verifier”).

    • snarkk said, on January 26, 2011 at 3:45 pm

      Wow. That’s a lot of coin left on the table. He and Andrew Luck can start a new club. Either the Stand Up Ethical Guy club, or My Head Is Up My Ass club. I’ll go with the former….

  18. Unca Chuck said, on January 26, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    It’s just flat ridiculous that this has gone on for so many years now. Who stands to gain anything in this?

    Surely not the taxpayers of the State of Ca.

    • xootsuit said, on January 26, 2011 at 3:44 pm

      It’s bullshit. The new US Attorney for the Northern Dist. of Calif. is a liberal democrat more interested in nailing securities fraud assholes than drug dealers or users (that’s the main difference between dem and repub US Attys, far as I can tell). The new US Atty is tough. She likes baseball, tho (her kid plays LLeague in our league). But she’s sort of stuck with the case now. I’ll be interested to see what she does.

    • snarkk said, on January 26, 2011 at 3:54 pm

      The judge’s recent ruling allowing in the testimony of the other major leaguers associated with Balco was a plus for the prosecution. Still, it’s circumstantial. With Greg Anderson not talking, they can’t directly link records to Bonds. Plus, the feds probably have hearsay issues blocking other evidence. So I think a conviction is a stretch…

  19. zumarust said, on January 26, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    Xoot, the Giants have said Belt will only make the team this year as a starter. So, if he has a terrific Spring, it sounds like he’s in.
    I think that leaves Burrell and Rowand as the reserve outfielders, and DeRosa (if he can play) as either a utility back-up infielder or the starting thirdbaseman, if Sandoval can’t play well enough in Spring Training to stay out of AAA. I don’t see Sandoval being a reserve again in ’11. If he’s not a starter out of Spring Training, I think it’s Fresno for him, so he can play everyday.
    It would leave the Giants with their usual lack of speed on the bench. The problem, of course, is the Rowand contract. They’d dump that guy in a second, except the contract dictates that he stays.
    If Belt makes the team, then Ishi doesn’t, it sounds like, unless DeRosa can’t play. If DeRosa can’t play, then I think they keep Sandoval around no matter what, and Ishi is safe again.

    • xootsuit said, on January 26, 2011 at 4:56 pm

      Posey had a terrific spring last year, but the crowded roster sent him down the road to Fresno while everyone else jetted to Houston for the season opener.

  20. Mega Flavor said, on January 26, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    Xoot, I appreciate the detailed analysis of the bonds case from someone who understands and works in the field….
    Here’s the deal: between belt, sandoval, de Rosa, just one of them has to work out.

    • xootsuit said, on January 26, 2011 at 8:36 pm

      done

  21. Mega Flavor said, on January 26, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    And the odds are crazy good that at least one works out

  22. Flavor said, on January 26, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    it was last August, not news now. I know most of you heard about it….very heart-wrenching read in SI though if you are interested……
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1179942/index.htm

  23. xootsuit said, on January 26, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    Isn’t it more complicated than tha? If all three are great in ST, you have to go with Sandoval. Belt is unproven. He wasn’t even in camp last spring. And DeRosa’s wrist may last through ST and then fail. Sandoval has to screw up to get left behind. Belt has to have a great spring and someone else has to get hurt. Otherwise, AAA and wait, for him.

  24. Sportdude said, on January 26, 2011 at 10:44 pm

    Can derosa play short? If the Panda comes back, and I hope he does, then Derosa is back up short, 3rd, of. Hopefully he is back for real, and he is a starting of with Ross and Torres. We need the 2009 Panda cause that is a weak of!

  25. Unca Chuck said, on January 27, 2011 at 6:30 am

    DeRosa has payed there, just not much lately. He’s played 3 innings there since 2007.

    Ahhh, Skid Row. King (?) of the hair bands . . .


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: