Sep 29, 2012, 10:03 AM EST
UPDATE: Anthony McCarron of the New York Daily News reports that Cano is in today’s lineup against the Blue Jays, playing second base and batting cleanup.
9:31 AM: Nothing official from the team yet, but Meredith Marakovits of YES Network hears that X-rays were negative on Cano’s hand. However, it’s not clear whether he will play today.
9:30 AM: Scary moment for the Bombers last night, as Robinson Cano was hit in the left hand with a pitch during the sixth inning. He stayed in the game and even had an RBI single in the eighth inning, which is a pretty promising sign, but Mark Feinsand of the New York Daily News reports that he was sent to a Toronto hospital after the game for X-rays.
Cano actually underwent a fluoroscope exam at Rogers Centre, but it came back inconclusive. Yankees manager Joe Girardi is optimistic that it’s nothing serious, but they just want to rule out the possibility of a fracture. Test results are expected to be available this morning.
Cano went 2-for-4 with an RBI and two runs scored last night and is hitting .301/.371/.526 with 30 home runs, 83 RBI and an .897 OPS in 156 games played this year.
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 99
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 38
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 5
- Braves scratch Mike Minor from start with more shoulder problems 4
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” 366
- 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” (367)
- If addiction is an illness — and it is — Josh Hamilton shouldn’t be suspended (307)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (103)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (85)