Jul 21, 2011, 4:46 PM EST
It sounds like the Twins are ready to welcome Jason Kubel back from the disabled list after he went 3-for-5 with a homer at Triple-A yesterday and 1-for-3 with a walk there today.
Kubel has been out since May 30 with a sprained foot and his rehab timetable got delayed by setbacks several times, but Joe Christensen of the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that he’s scheduled to fly to Minnesota tonight and could rejoin the Twins’ lineup as soon as tomorrow.
Kubel was Minnesota’s most productive bat prior to the injury, hitting .310 with an .820 OPS in 52 games, and with Denard Span and Justin Morneau still on the DL the Twins’ lineup can certainly use a boost. Trevor Plouffe figures to lose the most playing time upon Kubel’s return, which while understandable is a shame because he was looking more and more intriguing as a potential late-blooming former first-round pick.
If the Twins can ever get healthy and stay healthy the rest of the thoroughly mediocre AL Central could be in serious trouble, as Minnesota is just five games back despite starting the season with an MLB-worst 17-37 record.
- Matt Harvey makes his return. And he was really impressive. 20
- 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” 36
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 147
- 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” (380)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (147)
- 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)