Mar 4, 2013, 10:27 PM EST
John Danks returned to game action this afternoon for the first time since he required season-ending shoulder surgery last August. After limiting the Giants to one run — a solo homer by Joaquin Arias — over two innings, the 27-year-old southpaw expressed relief to Dan Hayes of CSNChicago.com.
“This is the first hurdle,” Danks said. “Obviously the couple of weeks leading up to this was important. But the first game, get that out of the way and we really start focusing on the pitching side of things. Just excited to get back out there and see what kind of improvements I can make from now.”
Danks worked in the 85-89 mph range with his fastball while one scout described his stuff as “fair.” However, the White Sox aren’t focused on his velocity at this point, as he’s still in the process of building up arm strength. For what it’s worth, he has typically sat in the low-90s with his fastball during his career.
Danks owns a 4.12 ERA over six seasons in the majors, including a 5.70 ERA in nine starts last year. He is owed $14.25 million in each of the next four seasons.
- Hector Olivera’s camp denies any damage to ulnar collateral ligament 3
- UPDATE: Hunter Pence out 6-8 weeks with fracture in left forearm 27
- MLBPA: leaks are from people “who want to see Josh Hamilton hurt personally and professionally” 29
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 145
- 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)