Jan 20, 2011, 7:41 PM EST
UPDATE, 7:41 PM: According to Mychael Urban of CSN Bay Area, this one is done. If Suppan manages to find a spot on the Giants’ Opening Day roster, he will earn a $1 million salary.
2:16 PM: From Andrew Baggarly of the San Jose Mercury News comes word that the Giants are nearing agreement on a minor league contract with veteran right-hander Jeff Suppan.
The deal will also come with an invitation to spring training, where Suppan will attempt to land a spot in the Giants’ bullpen as a long reliever. If that doesn’t work out, he’ll probably begin the year at Triple-A Fresno and serve as rotation depth.
Suppan, 36, posted a 5.06 ERA and 1.65 WHIP across 101.1 innings for the Brewers and Cardinals last season, fanning only 51 batters while walking 37. It was the final chapter of a ridiculous four-year, $42 million contract that he signed with Milwaukee in December of 2006.
His fastball velocity is poor and he shouldn’t be trusted as a regular member of any starting rotation, but Suppan is capable of eating some innings for San Francisco in the event of an emergency.
- 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” 32
- 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” (377)
- 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)