by Andy McCullough, Brittany Ghiroli and Marc Carig
Earlier this month, as Tigers general manager Al Avila fielded questions about his club’s managerial vacancy, two names surfaced. Each one boasted the sort of resumes that might entice any executive. A.J. Hinch led his team to a title in 2017. Alex Cora won a championship in 2018. Both were also barred from stepping foot inside a major league ballpark in 2020. Their season-long suspensions in the wake of the Astros sign-stealing scandal ran through the conclusion of the World Series. At that point, Avila said, Hinch and Cora were free to pursue any openings in baseball. “I have them on my list,” Avila said.
Advertisement
The quote made headlines. One crawled across the bottom of a broadcast on MLB Network, where it caught the eye of many in the game. One major-leaguer professed shock at the expected reintroduction of those who held leadership positions during a lengthy cheating scheme.
“I remember reading that and being like, ‘I can’t believe that they would even interview them,’” the player said. “It just seemed early. It seemed really fast. And to me, it sends a tough signal, or maybe a bad signal, saying, they served their time, and now we’re just going to hire them?”
Only eight months earlier, after a lengthy investigation into allegations first raised last November, Manfred released a report implicating Hinch, Cora and general manager Jeff Luhnow for their involvement in Houston’s scheme to steal signs illegally during their World Series championship season in 2017. Astros owner Jim Crane fired Hinch and Luhnow, both of whom were suspended for the season. Boston fired Cora, who had been Hinch’s bench coach in 2017; Cora would later be suspended for a full season as well. The Mets dismissed Carlos Beltrán, who had just been hired to manage the club, after his role as a player in the Astros scandal became public.
The tumult rocked the sport through the winter and the spring. Yet there was always an expectation that Hinch and Cora would return to baseball. The player figured each would join a front office, something behind the scenes. “Because they’re smart guys, and they’re good baseball minds,” he said. He did not expect to see the duo granted the chance to serve as the face of a franchise. “To think that they could be sitting in a dugout, managing games next year, was, to me, insane,” the player said.
When the World Series ends, Hinch and Cora will be removed from Major League Baseball’s restricted list and be free to seek employment in any of the three current managerial vacancies. Avila had already expressed his interest. Red Sox chief baseball officer Chaim Bloom has not ruled out a reunion with Cora. When the White Sox canned Rick Renteria, general manager Rick Hahn said he sought a new manager with “recent October experience with a championship organization.”
Advertisement
It might not happen this winter. But when Hinch and Cora return to the dugout, a divided industry will greet them. Over the past month, The Athletic surveyed 20 current and former players, coaches, executives and agents on the subject. The stakeholders requested anonymity in order to speak freely. Their answers revealed a debate over the necessity and limitations of forgiveness, questions about how the sport should stomach an image rehabilitation for two men caught cheating, and lingering resentment over Manfred’s decisions.
Across the industry, shock was not the uniform reaction to the potential return of Hinch and Cora. Among front office decision-makers, there was a resigned pragmatism. Of course the two former managers would get another shot, some executives said. They had served their sentence. They had proven they could win. The cheating might hurt their case. But it would not be disqualifying.
“As a society, we are prone to giving people second chances,” one executive said. “We like a comeback story. And these guys are smart, likable guys with track records. With nothing else, you put those two pieces together and it probably ends up that they’re managing again at some point.”
Both Hinch and Cora declined comment when contacted by The Athletic last week. This much is clear: The reckoning within baseball about the ramifications of the sign-stealing scandal is ongoing. The re-emergence of Hinch and Cora may only tear open the wounds.
“The public comments from their friends will be very supportive: They paid their dues,’” one executive said. “But there is a huge underbelly in the game that’s got a big problem with this.”
Over the past three decades, few jobs in baseball have changed as much as that of field manager. The position once came with unfettered autonomy. The rise of analytics altered that balance.
Bolstered by insights gained through data, front offices wield more influence in the day-to-day choices that were once the province of the skipper. The manager fits on a continuum of decision-makers as the bridge between the executive suite and the clubhouse. The growth of regional sports TV networks also means that press briefings have become programming staples. From February to October, twice a day every day, managers face the cameras. The manager serves as the franchise’s primary spokesperson. These duties have been added to more traditional demands like running a bullpen and managing egos.
Advertisement
The job requires diverse skills. Few have proven more capable than Hinch and Cora in terms of tactical acumen, interpersonal savvy and telegenic presence. Before being outed for their roles in the sign-stealing scheme, both were seen as the archetype for the modern manager.
So while many within the game grapple with the ethics and optics of the duo returning to the dugout in short order, the view of baseball’s decision-makers has been shaped by another reality: Good, proven, modern-day managers are hard to find.
“I’m not surprised,” one executive said. “They’re both pretty well-regarded, and putting together a managerial search list is not easy. There’s a lot of interesting candidates, but the job has changed. Some people say it’s easier now. I think it’s harder now.”
Hinch, 46, spent parts of seven seasons as a big-league catcher. He served as a director of player development for the Diamondbacks before an ill-fated first crack at managing. He landed with the Padres as vice president of pro scouting before the Astros hired him in 2014. Hinch’s experience as an executive helped reduce the disconnect between the field staff and the front office.
Cora, 45, also brought the credibility of 14 seasons in the majors. He worked as a broadcaster with ESPN and was named general manager of his native Puerto Rico’s national team for the 2017 World Baseball Classic. As Hinch’s bench coach, he demonstrated a knack for understanding the numbers and connecting with players. In 2018, Cora parlayed that into his big break with the Red Sox, where he handled the outsize scrutiny of the Boston fishbowl en route to a title of his own.
Given those qualities, both men have been compared to talented but troubled players, whose proficiency is enough to merit glossing over past transgressions.
“There are plenty of teams that will say it’s worth it,” one executive said. “We’ll deal with the short-term PR hit to get a World Series-caliber manager in there.”
Advertisement
Another executive added: “I would bet there’s an owner out there that thinks these guys bring just enough to the table to warrant overlooking this baggage.”
The exact nature of the baggage, though, damages some of each man’s positive attributes. Cora forged deep bonds with his players. Manfred’s report also painted him as the conduit between the video room staffers stealing signs through an illegal outfield camera and the players receiving them at the plate. The signs were communicated in real time, often through someone banging a trash can.
Hinch positioned himself as a pillar of sanity while brushfires broke out around his organization. Yet some in the industry remember how Hinch handled an incident with the Yankees during last year’s playoffs. There were rumors about the Astros communicating stolen signs through whistling. Asked about the allegations, Hinch said he laughed. “In reality,” he said, “it’s a joke.” One executive conveyed his disgust with the “arrogance” expressed by the manager.
“It just had like a (tone of), ‘Fuck you guys, we’re just better than you. We’re so good we don’t need to exchange signals or signs. Because we’re just better than you,’” the executive said. “And then, oh, lo and behold, sorry, we were actually fucking cheating for a good portion of the time.”
According to Manfred’s report, Cora helped conceive the scheme. Hinch permitted it to exist. His objections were limited to smashing a monitor with a bat. Hinch told MLB Network in February that he regretted not calling a meeting to end the cheating. “I think there was just a catastrophic failure in leadership,” one non-Astros player said.
One executive wondered how a prospective hiring might reflect on the new team’s players. Say the club showed improvement at the plate, the executive suggested; the hitters took tough pitches and punished mistakes. Would those athletes be forced to answer for the prior sins of their manager?
“Every single ounce of sustained success is going to be scrutinized and questioned,” the executive said. “I feel like you’ve got to take that into account for those players, too. Like, they don’t want to deal with that shit. They don’t want to be viewed as, ‘Fuck, they think we’re wearing buzzers.’”
Advertisement
One executive questioned the wisdom of assigning credit to the success of the Astros and Red Sox to the dugout, rather than the diamond. When it comes to assessing the value of a big-league manager, it depends on who you ask.
“Those guys were really talented because they had talented players,” the executive said. “Cora is a great manager because he had great players. A.J. Hinch is a great manager because he had great players.”
There were also questions about the message that might be sent to the rest of the industry. The minor-league pipeline is stacked with coaches who dream of managing in the majors. Those hopefuls draw inspiration from the promotion of lifers like Braves manager Brian Snitker and Blue Jays manager Charlie Montoyo. For those who view the minors as baseball’s lifeblood, Hinch and Cora returning with a top job will rankle.
“I don’t think anyone would say, you can’t earn a living for your family,” one executive said. “Managing the White Sox is going to pay you $1 million a year. Managing in (Double-A) Birmingham is not.”
“Has MLB thought through any of this stuff? Are you allowed to drop right back into the highest level of your profession, or is there any thought to working your way back up?”
MLB has no further plans for discipline, according to a person familiar with the commissioner’s office’s line of thinking. The onus will be on individual clubs to make those determinations.
On one topic, the majority of those who spoke to The Athletic agreed: Luhnow faces a thornier path back into baseball than his former manager and bench coach. That is, if Luhnow even intends to return. An engineer and business executive before taking a job with St. Louis in 2003, Luhnow was already a polarizing figure before this scandal, fellow executives said.
His recent attempt to explain his side of the story — much like his approach in baseball operations — was met with skepticism. Luhnow told a Houston television station last week he had been mistreated by Astros ownership, but if another baseball opportunity came up, “and I wanted to do it again, I know I could. I’m good at it.” He also referenced his budding interest in a range of fields from football to basketball to soccer to esports.
Advertisement
In that same interview, Luhnow reiterated he had no knowledge of any illegal sign-stealing in the Astros organization. Those claims were either misleading or inaccurate, sources familiar with MLB’s investigation told The Athletic last week.
Luhnow was the only non-uniformed Astros employee to receive punishment from Manfred. While Red Sox replay operator J.T. Watkins received a one-year suspension for his involvement in Boston’s 2018 sign-stealing scheme, MLB did not levy any penalty on those who worked in the Astros replay room or in the video department. Crane retained those staffers.
“I didn’t think that was equitable or fair,” said one executive, while several others voiced a similar refrain about how many of Luhnow’s lieutenants during that time frame remain employed either by Houston or with other organizations.
And then there is Beltrán. He was the only player named in Manfred’s report, which depicted him as the originator of the banging scheme along with Cora. He retired after the championship in 2017 and took a job within the Yankees front office. Like Hinch and Cora, Beltrán was seen as a model citizen in baseball. He was a nine-time All-Star and Roberto Clemente Award winner. There were countless stories of Beltrán buying suits for young teammates and counseling them on the rigors of big-league life. When the Mets hired Beltrán to manage in November 2019, the franchise reunited with one of its most prolific and respected players.
His tenure ended without a day spent in the dugout. Beltrán has not spoken publicly, outside of a written statement, since he parted ways with the Mets three days after Manfred released his report. He did not respond to an interview request made through one of his representatives.
It is unclear if he will seek another managerial opening. To some, his legacy as a player is now in question.
“He has tremendous experience and is a Hall of Fame candidate,” a former executive said, “and I don’t know if this will hurt him (being inducted) or not.”
In the 10 months since Cora and Hinch were dismissed, each has kept a low profile. Neither has been subject to the same scrutiny as their former players. But within the game, their potential return has dredged up lingering resentment toward both the Astros and Manfred.
The players themselves still bear much of the scorn. The grievances against the commissioner are numerous. Some executives believe the Astros were far from alone in pushing boundaries with the technological capability found in the video room. Some players remain irritated that Manfred and the Players Association offered the Houston players immunity during the investigation. (Manfred has maintained that without immunity the investigation would have been less successful.) Others carp that Crane got off lightly in losing draft picks in 2020 and 2021, plus a $5 million fine, the maximum allowed by MLB’s constitution. The championship banner hanging at Minute Maid Park still grates on some.
Advertisement
“You can’t make everybody happy, because there’s going to be a lot of unhappy people if you vacate the championship,” one player said. “But what does that say when you don’t? That this is OK? That we’re going to allow this to happen, and then let it continue on?”
While some executives believe Hinch and Cora should receive the same clemency afforded players who returned from performance-enhancing drug suspensions, others are less understanding.
“This isn’t an isolated pitcher on a team who took steroids,” one executive said. “(This was) guys who were in leadership positions of an orchestrated team-based cheating scandal that resulted in a championship. There are significant questions throughout the game about the precedent that is being set here, compared to steroids and Pete Rose.”
Rose was barred from the game for gambling in 1989. Eight members of the Black Sox were also banned after they were accused of throwing the 1919 World Series. A case could be made that “what the (Astros) did was worse” than Rose, one former manager said. Others questioned how many other owners would sacrifice $5 million and some draft picks for a title.
“At some point don’t you have to decide what the game stands for?” one executive said. “I am all for second chances, but I am not sure anyone feels like dues were paid here.”
For some, Hinch and Cora are symbols of this disgrace. For others, the impulse toward forgiveness provides a counterbalance.
One current manager said he’d have no problem seeing either in the dugout next season, noting they were “guys you never heard a bad word about before this, and I caution anyone to just throw a blanket on them and say, ‘it’s all bad’ now,” the manager said. “I do think they deserve a second chance and I hope they get one.” One player, who said it was “embarrassing to me that the league and the Players Association didn’t want to punish the players,” acknowledged that Hinch and Cora had “served their time.”
Advertisement
“Those who celebrate and have a strong opinion whether they should not be back in the game, after they have served their suspension, I think they have a problem, too,” one executive said. “I just think, ‘Let it go. Move on.’”
Likability has shaped the perception of both men.
Last January, shortly after MLB released its findings, the Red Sox announced a deliberately worded “parting of ways” with Cora as their manager. During a somber news conference, Red Sox owners described meeting with Cora the previous day. Though Cora would not be suspended until April, he admitted that he could no longer lead the team. The decision-makers agreed. The anguish of that reality was clear.
Principal owner John Henry called Cora “a tremendous manager for us, on all levels,” and declared he would be missed. Chairman Tom Werner said Cora admitted wrongdoing but acknowledged the organization continues to be “very fond of Alex.” A question was posed to the owners: “Do you think Cora deserves a second chance to manage again in the majors?”
Five seconds of silence followed as members of the braintrust glanced at one another. Finally, CEO Sam Kennedy leaned forward. Kennedy called Cora an “extreme talent” who would soon undergo “a process of rehabilitation.”
The hesitation from the Red Sox owners to answer the question was commentary in and of itself. Months later, with Cora’s name being floated to fill the Red Sox’s managerial opening, it looks even more relevant.
“I was really shocked when I saw that even Boston would be interested in bringing Cora back so soon,” one executive said. “It’s almost like as an ownership group, they didn’t think he did anything wrong. It was almost like they were like, ‘Go sit in the corner for 15 minutes, and we’ll bring you back.’”
Since the suspensions, Cora has conducted two interviews, one with ESPN and the other with the Boston Globe, while Hinch only spoke during an appearance in February with MLB Network. One executive groused that Hinch fielded “all softball questions” during the interview, and that the appearance was more about image rehab than genuine contrition. That Hinch’s sit-down was granted to the league’s own media outlet also did not go unnoticed. “It’s like he had sponsorship,” the executive said.
Advertisement
Hinch, like Cora, has never fully discussed details of the scheme. Even so, the perception exists among some in baseball that both issued sufficient mea culpas, a testament perhaps to the media savvy that helped make them sought-after managers.
“They did the right thing,” another executive said. “They sort of accepted, apologized, maybe explained their way through it a little bit. But they weren’t defiant in a way that Luhnow was and still is. For some reason as a society, we get past it when somebody admits it, owns up to it, acknowledges that they made a mistake. We like a good redemption story.”
Is baseball ready to welcome back Hinch and Cora? Is redemption possible for either? Is it deserved? Those answers remain complicated. Ready or not, their return to the sport that once cast them out feels inevitable. The only question that remains is the timing. It might not happen for the 2021 season. But, those in baseball believe, it will happen.
“The longer it goes, the easier it gets to hire them,” one executive said. “This fall is the hardest fall to do it. The next fall is the next hardest. With each passing year, it becomes easier and easier.”
— The Athletic’s Jen McCaffrey and Rustin Dodd contributed to this report.
(Illustration: Adrian Guzmaná / The Athletic / Getty Images)