Dec 11, 2012, 8:49 PM EST
Interesting stuff from FOX Sports’ Ken Rosenthal:
Could Mike Napoli‘s deal with the Boston Red Sox be in jeopardy?
The Red Sox anticipated introducing Napoli at a news conference Tuesday, according to major-league sources, but did not go forward with the event.
Napoli agreed to a three-year, $39 million contract with the Red Sox on December 3, then underwent his required pre-singing physical examination in the past couple of days. The guess here is that it didn’t go very smoothly. Napoli missed time in 2011-2012 with quad and oblique strains, and experienced some shoulder problems during the early part of his tenure with the Angels. He also injured his left ankle in Game 6 of the 2011 World Series at Busch Stadium in St. Louis.
Red Sox general manager Ben Cherington and Napoli’s agent Brian Grieper did not respond to Rosenthal’s requests for comment. You’d have to think there will be more information revealed in the near future.
UPDATE, 8:51 PM: A source clarified to Rosenthal that Napoli began taking his physical on Monday morning. So the deal should be announced by the end of this week if everything checks out fine.
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 121
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 40
- 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” 368
- Blue Jays sign Dayan Viciedo to a minor league deal 8
- Chris Sale will be sidelined for three weeks with foot fracture 11
- Aramis Ramirez says 2015 will be his last year 33
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (368)
- If addiction is an illness — and it is — Josh Hamilton shouldn’t be suspended (308)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (120)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (85)