Jul 27, 2010, 9:18 PM EST
The Angels continue to fade in the American League West, but they received some good news about their newest acquisition Tuesday.
According to Ramona Shelbourne of ESPNLosAngeles.com, not only did X-rays on Dan Haren’s forearm came back negative, the right-hander said he “should be on track” to make his next scheduled start against the first-place Rangers on Saturday.
“The X-rays didn’t show anything. They looked pretty clear so it’s just a
matter of getting the soreness and swelling out of there,” Haren said
Tuesday before the Angels’ game against the Red Sox.”
“I guess I got lucky,” he said. “Dr. [Lewis] Yocum said that if it had
hit an inch lower it would’ve been on the bone and that wouldn’t have
been good, obviously.”
Haren was forced out of his Angels’ debut Monday night after a Kevin Youkilis’ liner hit him on his throwing arm. It didn’t look good at the time, but Haren reported feeling “pretty good” after throwing from 150-200 feet on Tuesday and is scheduled to throw a bullpen session Wednesday. The Angels are surely thanking their lucky stars right now.
- Hector Olivera’s camp denies any damage to ulnar collateral ligament 3
- UPDATE: Hunter Pence out 6-8 weeks with fracture in left forearm 28
- MLBPA: leaks are from people “who want to see Josh Hamilton hurt personally and professionally” 30
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 146
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 45
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 6
- Braves scratch Mike Minor from start with more shoulder problems 6
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” 376
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (376)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (146)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- That facts of Josh Hamilton’s case should not be a matter of public record (94)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (90)