Skip to content

Three top Yankees prospects land on disabled list

Apr 14, 2011, 6:40 PM EDT

New York Yankees v Boston Red Sox Getty Images

Catcher Gary Sanchez, right-hander Dellin Betances (pictured) and left-hander Manny Banuelos have all gone on the DL’s for their respective minor league teams, The LoHud Yankees blog reports.

Those three players were ranked second, third and fourth respectively on Baseball America’s Top 10 Yankees prospects list behind Jesus Montero.

Both pitchers have gone on the DL because of blisters, something GM Brian Cashman is blaming on the smaller seams founds on minor league baseballs.

Sanchez’s absence has yet to be explained.  The 19-year-old was hitting .238/.273/.476 with one homer in five games for low Single-A Charleston.   He made his most recent appearance on Monday.

In better news for the Yankees, Montero seems to be recovering just fine from his disappointing spring.  He’s hit in all six of his starts for Triple-A Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, going 13-for-29 with a homer and three doubles.

  1. sknut - Apr 14, 2011 at 7:36 PM

    At least Cashman didn’t blame the Mets for these DL stints.

  2. purdueman - Apr 14, 2011 at 8:00 PM

    The Yankees under the new management of Laurel and Hardy, er ah, I mean Hank and Hal appear to be adopting the pattern that the Angels were under when their GM was Bill Stone-less. Stone-less hoarded Angel prospects like they were all going to be the next Don Drysdale or Willie May and was scared to death of trading any of them over fear that he might in hindsight have gotten snookered.

    Two such prospects were power hitting third baseman Dallas Mac Phearson and “five tool can’t miss” guy (and no doubt the next Rogers Hornsby), SS Brandon Wood. Had Stone-less been willing to trade one or both of these “hot” prospects to fill critical needs on his 25 man roster in 2003-2005, he likely would have gotten the Angels to another world series or two (as they were just a veteran player or two away those years from getting over the hump).

    So what has been the return on the Angels investment for those two guys? Mac Phearson physically broke down and never made it as a regular and is now toiling on a minor league contract at AAA Charlotte. Wood is the 25th man on the Angels 25 man roster and would have been cut in spring training had he not been out of options.

    Point being, I don’t care how good prospects are… they’re just prospects. If Hank and Hal handcuff Cashman from trading 1or more of these three guys to land the proven veteran left handed starter the Yankees desperately need and it costs the Yankees the playoffs this year, Hank and Hal should be roped upside down after being stripped nude to the nearest tree and summarily given a free new suit of clothes worthy of an Emperor, made up entirely of hot tar and lots of chicken feathers!

    • iamnotacoolguy - Apr 14, 2011 at 8:37 PM

      Seems a bit extreme with the tar and chicken feathers and the stringing up. Although I do agree that prospects are just that, prospects. The Angels could have traded both those guys but at the time they were both hot shot can’t miss prospects. Young, cheap talent. Sometimes the best deals are the ones you don’t make and sometimes not making a deal will bite you in the ass.

    • hornetking2 - Apr 15, 2011 at 8:11 AM

      Cashman is the one who doesn’t really want to get rid of the prospects….

      • purdueman - Apr 15, 2011 at 9:34 AM

        that would mean that if Laurel (Hal), and Hardy (Hank), aren’t pinching pennies (as widely speculated), Cashman is soon going to be on life support if/when the Yankees look like they are about to fall out of contention.

  3. toddyballgame - Apr 14, 2011 at 9:10 PM

    forgot to mention Betances and Banuelos are on the DL for blisters due to the change of the stitches on the minor league ball vs the major league ball…but go ahead, try to act like it’s a big deal

    • purdueman - Apr 14, 2011 at 9:19 PM

      toddy… don’t always believe everything you read or what any organization wants you to believe. This is the first time I’ve EVER heard of there being ANY discrepancy in the specifications of minor league balls vs. major league balls, much less any that would cause pitching injuries. The report just strikes me as being a bit fishy.

      You did make one excellent point in my Angels under Stonem-less to Yankees under Laurel (Hal), and Hardy (Hank), though and that’s that the Angels saw Mac Phearson and Wood as being an influx of impact CHEAP talent. Over the past 15 years though have we EVER seen money be a consideration for the Yankees drive to build a winner before? The answer to that would be, uh, no.

      • pisano - Apr 15, 2011 at 12:13 AM

        Good point purdueman, people can say or think what they wanted about the Boss, but he sure wasn’t shy about putting his profits back into the team to make it better. I always felt because of his personality he never got the credit or the respect he deserved.

      • purdueman - Apr 15, 2011 at 12:32 AM

        psano: I’m not a Yankee fan and I hate what the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies and Cubs do to blow out any semblance of keeping baseball salaries reasonably in line, but I can’t help but admire the Boss… he was truly great for baseball and belongs in the HOF.

        King George in my opinion was the second most entertaining owner in the history of major league baseball… just behind HOF’er Bill Veeck (1a and 1b if you will).

        Unfortunately for Yankee fans, Hank strikes me as being a bit of a fumblebutt chain smoking uptight loser and Hal strikes me as being a rich, tight fisted bean counter. Hank was green with envy when he drove by Jeter’s new mansion that’s under construction in Tampa, commenting: “He’s got more money than I do”; that doesn’t sound like a guy committed to spending whatever it takes to keep winning.

      • Alex K - Apr 15, 2011 at 8:47 AM

        purdueman- From your past postings is it correct to think you’re a White Sox fan? If so, their salary is higher than the Cubs. Just saying…..

      • purdueman - Apr 15, 2011 at 9:43 AM

        Alex, the difference between the salaries of the 2011 Cubs and White Sox is little more than a rounding error (see link below). While it’s true that the Cubs new owner has yet to show his hand as to which way he’s going to ultimately take the Cubs payroll, with a captive ticket brokerage scalping service that needs to be kept few and more seagulls than fans in the bleachers for some games already this year, my bet is that it’s going to go up… in fact, WAY up.

        Prior to this season however, the former Cubs owners (The Tribune Company), let GM Jim Hendry spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

        If Pujois hits the open market, it’s the Cubs who I expect to throw a cool $300M his way and then partially offset that by letting Pena, Ramirez and Fukudome all walk as free agents. On the south side of town, Edwin Jackson will be gone at the end of the season and possibly Buerhle too (if not before), so this year is an aberration in Chicago.


      • Alex K - Apr 15, 2011 at 10:06 AM

        purdueman, As a Cubs fan I am totally aware of how Hendry has spent money in the past. I don’t think the payroll will go way up, at all. Yeah, they will probably throw money at Pujols (he’s going to look GREAT in blue oinstripes), but as you stated Fukudome, Pena, and Aramis are all coming off the books. They already have an in house replacement for Fukudome (Colvin) and Pujols will replace Pena. That leaves 3B, 2B, and pitching as the only place where the Cubs would spend a lot of money. I don’t think that there is anyone at those positions that they will throw money at.

        While it is a small difference in payrolls, the fact is, the White Sox is higher. So it seems a little odd that you mentioned a team with a lower payroll as one that throws salaries out of line.

      • purdueman - Apr 15, 2011 at 10:50 AM

        Alex K: My post wasn’t out of line; it sounds to me like you’re still smarting a bit because despite all the money that Hendry’s thrown around, he still hasn’t gotten the Cubs to baseballs promised land, much less won there, as the White Sox of course did in 2005 (ouch!).

        Like I said, the difference between the Cubs and Sox payrolls this year is only around 2% which is statistically insignificant (ever hear of the Harris Polls? The results that they publish always say that they are “plus or minus 3% (or more)”, and we’re talking about less than that here.

        Let’s just keep it friendly and agree to disagree on this, ok?
        Let’s discuss the real dilemma faced by the new Cub ownership. What too few fans realize is that billionaire owners don’t become or remain billionaires by emotionally spending instead of managing their finances. The Rickets’ financed and paid around $825M for the Cubs, Wrigley Field and the property under Wrigley Field. Folks, that’s called a mortgage, same as you or I would have if we bought or own a house.

        The cost of the financing isn’t free; it’s part of the Cubs on going operating budget and is a significantly higher amount than what the cross town White Sox pay in rent to the not for profit Illinois Stadium Commission (do the math; even at 4% interest that’s almost $4,000,000 PER MONTH including an annual tax bill of 30,000 amortized in the Cubs are financing; the White Sox average rent (no real estate taxes),at the Cell has averaged around only $2,000,000 PER YEAR).

        Wrigley Field will be 100 years old in 2015 and is badly in need of repair. Think about it… a concrete and steel building exposed to the harsh Chicago winters and pressure washing 80 to 100 times a year for almost 100 years. That really takes it’s toll, as evidenced by all of the chicken wire now that has been put in place to keep chunks of concrete from falling and conking unsuspecting fans in the head.

        Rickets’ tried to sucker city and state politicians to finance the estimated $250M needed to refurbish Wrigley Field, but he picked the wrong time in the wrong economy and was quickly given a wedgie and shown the way out the door. Point being, Wrigley Field is PRIVATELY OWNED so no public money should be used for any reason on it.

        This means that Rickets has to plan to finance the needed renovation out of his own pocket, and that of course would be the equivalent to one of us taking out a second mortgage which, once again is going to roll into the Cubs depleting operating budget.

        Bottom line what does this likely mean in terms of the Cubs future payroll budget for players? Well, all I gotta say is that Rickets didn’t I’m sure buy the Cubs with the idea of losing a ton of money on them every year so the answer to that question seems fairly obvious.

      • Alex K - Apr 15, 2011 at 11:43 AM

        Just to clarify, I never said your post was out of line. I said that you used a team with a lower payroll than your own to say that they throw SALARIES out of line.

        It seems to me that you’re still smarting from th Cubs being more popular than the White Sox, and feel the need to put them down in any way you can. I pointed out a fact, that is all.

        As for all the other stuff, it’s not my money. The Cubs make plenty of money. The Ricketts may raise payroll, or they may not. I don’t care how much money the players make as long as they win (which they haven’t been doing a lot of, admittedly).

      • purdueman - Apr 15, 2011 at 12:17 PM

        Alex: I still think you are splitting hairs here. Once again, the difference between the Cubs and the White Sox payrolls this season is only about 2% which is statistically insignificant.

        I was referring to teams that have caused a disproportionate escalation of players salaries in general, and if the Cubs giving Soriano an 8 year, $18M/year deal wasn’t an example of that at the time they signed him, other than Vernon Wells deal I don’t know of another case that was worse.

        Yes, the White Sox have the highest payroll this year in team history, but there isn’t one single player who the White Sox went out and overpaid for against the market; that’s what destroys baseballs salary structure. The White Sox also have done a nice job of avoiding having to pay out a lot of “dead money” from big contracts too (like Fukudome being paid $12.5M as a part time player on the Cubs).

        And finally, yes, the Cubs make plenty of money. Not only do they job their fans by having the third highest average ticket prices in baseball (behind the Yankees and Red Sox), but then they add insult to injury by skimming off the cream of the single seat tickets before the public on-sale for their captive ticket scalping service too.

        About the only way to further squeeze their fans is to put in pay toilets and urinals, but Rickets’ hasn’t yet found a loophole in the Illinois State Law that bans them… at least not yet anyways.

      • Alex K - Apr 15, 2011 at 12:38 PM

        purdueman, I may be splitting hairs, but I was also just stating a fact, that’s all.

        The Cubs overpaid for Soriano, but they didn’t grossly overpay. Someone would have given him money somewhere near what he is making now. Wells was actually given his contract the year before, by the way. Fukudome hasn’t been a train-wreck, just not what people expected. He gets on base a a very solid clip, and he’s a solid defensive player. He’s overpaid, but that wasn’t aparent at the time.

        As for ticket prices, I haven’t bought a ticket from the Cubs (knowingly) in quite a while. I usually just buy tickets on Stubhub. If they happen to be tickets from the team, oh well. I don’t generally plan my visits more than a day or so in advance. And if there was a way to have pay toilets EVERY owner would jump on that bandwagon!

      • purdueman - Apr 15, 2011 at 12:46 PM

        alex… I may be splitting hairs too, but unless you can find another team or two to jump in on the bidding, or if you have a GM dumb enough or desperate enough to play Scott Bor-ass’ little head games, player salaries won’t escalate out of control. As I recall at the time, the Cubs decided to get into a bidding war against another big spending team and therein lies my complaint.

        In the case of Soriano, it wasn’t so much about the dollar value of the contract as the length of the contract that became a problem for other clubs trying to retain their own players. The Angels were equally guilty by throwing in an extra guaranteed year when they signed Colon and then Hunter, as were the Giants for throwing in an extra guaranteed year for Zito too.

        As for pay toilets and urinals, it just wouldn’t work so well in Philly because the boys/men there would simply just go out to the ramps, whip it out and use the wall instead (LOL!).

  4. Jonny 5 - Apr 15, 2011 at 9:03 AM

    When it comes to pitching, Can the Yankees catch a break? Damn.

    • purdueman - Apr 15, 2011 at 9:46 AM

      No, but the Yankees have become experts at catching the waiver wire, those designated for assignment by other teams and of course, raiding old folks homes in search of former major league pitchers!

  5. dafixisin - Apr 15, 2011 at 10:48 AM

    I’m sure I’m wrong about this, but methinks the Yanks are getting ready to pull off some kinda trade. Better not be for King Felix, even though Pineda looks a lot like a future ace. We need to hoard these ace types in Seattle, being that we have NO offense.

    • purdueman - Apr 15, 2011 at 11:01 AM

      dafix… whatdayamean you got no offense? What do you think that Yankees are paying Jeter $15M this year for? Whoops! Never mind…

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (2672)
  2. B. Crawford (2479)
  3. Y. Puig (2374)
  4. G. Springer (2238)
  5. J. Fernandez (2069)
  1. D. Wright (2068)
  2. C. Correa (2064)
  3. J. Hamilton (2056)
  4. H. Ramirez (2030)
  5. H. Pence (1974)