As the Yankees enter a long offseason, SNY MLB Insider Chelsea Janes opens up the mailbag to talk about who could be the manager in 2028 and the impending lockout...
Since Boone is in his last year, who is considered for the manager role in 2028? (And please don’t say they’re drawing Boone a new contract!) – Dyamondphillip on Threads
This is the question I always ask myself when I think about the Yankees moving on from Boone (or even Brian Cashman, for that matter): Who else?
Certainly, plenty of people would want to run the New York Yankees. But we know that doing so is unlike any other job in sports. The ongoing theory seems to be that running the Yankees requires preexisting understanding of what being a part of the organization is like.
And while Hal Steinbrenner is not as prone to making changes as his father was, managing the Yankees in the age of social media might provide an equivalent stressor: Boone is a constant public punching bag, even when the Yankees are winning. Whatever frustration the public has with that approach, his players respect it and people want to play for the Yankees, in part, because Boone takes the punches for them. So the Yankees need someone who understands the scrutiny, accepts that it is part of the job, and has a deep-rooted plan and personality capable of handling it. I think that list is a lot shorter than it feels sometimes.
Now, if the Yankees are replacing Boone, they are probably looking for someone who does things slightly differently. I would assume maybe a more disciplined approach, whether publicly or behind closed doors, might seem appealing if they have decided Boone’s more player-friendly style is not working.
Who are hard-nosed types with experience who understand what it means to be a Yankee and also want to manage?
Joe Girardi has already parted ways with this organization once. Alex Cora does not necessarily fit that exact description, and his tendency to speak his mind does not jive with a Yankees front office that is relentlessly buttoned up. Perhaps the Yankees wouldn’t mind that approach if he is still available when it is time to move on from Boone. But he never seemed like the clear-cut fit.
Could a former Yankee fit? Maybe.
Jorge Posada certainly aired his perspective earlier this week on Joel Sherman and Jon Heyman’s excellent podcast. But he has never managed before, and neither have any of his high-profile late-90s contemporaries. Again, the fit is not obvious.
Certainly, the Yankees could decide someone who hasn’t played for the organization would make sense, as long as they were sure that person could handle all that came with it. Carlos Mendoza is a former Boone bench coach. Luis Rojas has managed in New York before, too. But as Boone disciples, neither would necessarily represent a change in direction.
Obviously, this is all hypothetical, as is the premise of your question. But I do feel that, for all the completely understandable angst around Boone after another playoff failure this year, it is not as easy to replace him with someone who will steer them to the playoffs every year as it might seem. Perhaps that is why the Yankees front office did not prioritize a change ahead of a strange offseason. Perhaps they believe Boone is one of the few people who can handle the job reliably at this unique moment in the history of the franchise.
Is there going to be free agency activity before the lockout? @Buffan1712
Yes. How much? I don’t know. But I would absolutely plan on moves getting made. Last time around, Corey Seager, Marcus Semien and others signed massive deals in a flurry before the collective bargaining agreement expired. Certainly, the possibility that this CBA will yield a salary cap might give some teams pause about moving before knowing the rules.
But in talking to people in front offices around the sport, the expectation is that any salary cap would be phased in over many years, rather than be implemented immediately with drastic consequences for those who overshoot its limits. Plus, a cap in any form is no guarantee: The union is vehemently opposed to it. A middle ground of some kind seems like a possible outcome, though no one negotiating could possibly admit that now.
I think some teams will be careful. The Dodgers, for example, might have to have some clarity about the rules before making too many financial commitments simply because they have so many, over so many years, already. The Yankees certainly have their fair share of money committed, too.
Maybe that creates caution in free agency, though frankly, free agency does not necessarily seem like the best way for them to address their needs for a more versatile lineup and some bullpen depth.
The Mets have enough money coming off the books next year that they likely do not have to wait, either. And remember: the owners talk. Steinbrenner, for example, is on the labor committee. He and others will know what the plan is for negotiations and what they could potentially be looking at in terms of rule changes. And they probably won’t agree to deals or CBA changes that would leave them scrambling when the lockout ends.
Will the World Series matchups and outcome affect the owners' bargaining positions post-2026 season? Will it affect the players association? – jrobelen on Threads
The main impact I think the World Series matchup will have is on public opinion. The owners have been planning to push for the cap for years. They, via their representatives at MLB, have had arguments spun for all scenarios for years, too. The one they will use to address the fact that two small-market teams are in the World Series is as follows: “A small-market team had not won the World Series in over a decade (Kansas City, 2015). Before that? The Marlins in 2003. Is that often enough to constitute true competitive balance?” Again, their argument, not mine.
As for the players association, I do think this World Series will offer some fresh public credibility to the argument they’ve been making all along: That the owners do not care about competitive balance at all, and are instead pushing a cap purely to limit their own expenses and pocket a greater, guaranteed share of revenue so they have more cash in the short term and higher franchise values long-term. Union head Bruce Meyer and his staff have been making that argument for years anyway.
But at its heart, I don’t think this World Series changes much because as it picks apart competitive balance arguments, it exposes the fact that those arguments were never at the heart of these negotiations to begin with.
Obviously, the owners want to make more money. That is their incentive. Obviously, the players association will never want to agree to a salary cap because it limits what their stars can make. That is a huge incentive. So neither side entered these negotiations prioritizing the health of the game, whatever they say to the contrary. They are protecting their right to make money, then trying to frame those arguments in a way that suggests their way is better for the sport.
But remember: The best thing for the sport is not to have a lockout in which players and owners fight over millions of dollars while non-team employees who rely on the sport miss much smaller paychecks and, in some cases, lose jobs. Not to mention the fans who struggle to get by while watching public arguments over millions and billions. The best way to ensure competitive balance is…well, to have competition, not spend the spring arguing in boardrooms.
So no, I don’t think the World Series affects anyone’s positions. If anything, it affects the battle for public opinion, which could matter as time goes on. The owners will push for a cap because it benefits them financially. The players will fight it with all their might because a cap limits their earning power over time. At its heart, this CBA negotiation was never, and will never be, about competitive balance anyway. And I do not think the Brewers or Rays have done anything to change that.
Baseball by June: Agree or Disagree. @lee_w18
Agree. But I have never been less sure of how something will end than I am these negotiations.
