Jun 25, 2012, 9:10 PM EDT
Shaun Marcum initially downplayed the tightness in his right elbow and hoped to return as soon as he was eligible this weekend, but it’s increasingly clear that won’t happen.
According to Todd Rosiak of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Marcum acknowledged that he still felt soreness in his elbow while playing catch this afternoon.
“Still sore,” Marcum said shortly afterward. “Going to shut it down until it gets better, I guess. A little bit (better). Some of (the soreness) could have been 10 days without throwing, some of that stiffness and stuff in there. Hopefully it goes away and we’ll be good to go.”
Marcum missed the entire 2009 season following Tommy John surgery, but recent tests ruled out any structural damage in the elbow. However, he has compared his current soreness to an injury back in 2010 which caused him to miss a start. While he remains hopefully that his absence will be brief, he isn’t against resting through the All-Star break if necessary.
The Brewers might be in decent shape if they decide to play things safe for the next two weeks, as rookie Michael Fiers has a 2.78 ERA in five starts and Marco Estrada is set to return from the disabled list tomorrow.
- 2015 Preview: Cincinnati Reds 4
- The average Major League Baseball salary this year will be more than $4 million — a record 11
- 2015 Preview: Tampa Bay Rays 17
- The Cubs assign Kris Bryant and Addison Russell to the minors, option Javier Baez as well 70
- 2015 Preview: Arizona Diamondbacks 8
- 2015 Preview: Toronto Blue Jays 69
- Mariners prospect Victor Sanchez has died 26
- 2015 Preview: Chicago White Sox 15
- Ex-Cardinals outfielder Curt Ford was assaulted in St. Louis and told to “go back to Ferguson” (122)
- David Ortiz: “Nobody in MLB history has been tested for PEDs more than me” (118)
- The MLBPA releases a statement on Kris Bryant, mentions possible litigation (90)
- Rob Manfred says it would be hard to reinstate Pete Rose in a limited way (89)
- Did David Ortiz admit to more than he realized with his Players’ Tribune editorial? (88)