I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The Yankees had no valid reason to fire Joe Girardi as their manager a year ago.

Let’s address this immediately. It is technically correct the Yankees did not fire Girardi – his contract expired at the end of the 2017 season and he was not offered a new contract. But when you’ve had a manager for 10 years and you don’t offer him a new contract when he wanted to return, that’s the same as firing him.

The Yankees, even Hal Steinbrenner, the managing general partner, have said they had legitimate reasons, something to do with what they claim was Girardi’s inability to connect with the young players.

I recall speaking to a club executive last year and questioning the decision to fire Girardi, and he said, “You weren’t in the clubhouse.”

No, I wasn’t, but I saw the results. Girardi’s wild-card Yankees went to the seventh and last game of the American League Championship Series before succumbing to the Houston Astros, who went on to win the World Series. Girardi managed the Yankees to the 2009 World Series championship and to three other post-season appearances.

Nevertheless, the Yankees treated him as badly as they did his predecessor, Joe Torre, when his contract expired, except unlike Torre, Girardi didn’t get a contract offer he could easily refuse.

Girardi received no offers to manage this year but did get an offer to serve as an analyst on the MLB Network. He recently declined to say if any team had contacted him about managing next season.

Two jobs have already opened – in Toronto and Texas – and more openings are expected, in Baltimore, Cincinnati and Anaheim, to name a few.

Although Girardi spent much of the season talking on television, he was not verbose on the telephone last week. I asked him about his dismissal by the Yankees, and he said, “I don’t mean to be evasive, but life goes on. I’ve moved on. It’s the nature of the business. Teams make changes.”

I asked him about his future, and he said, “I’m not comfortable doing this. I’d prefer not talking about it. I’m not comfortable.”

And on another subject, he said, “I won’t comment on that.”

However, when I asked him if he was finished managing or wanted to continue, he said, “I do want to manage again.”

But he declined to say if any teams have contacted him since the Yankees fired him.

Ten years and out the door. Girardi was 53 years old and certainly young enough to continue managing, but he was too old and had far too much managing experience to fit the plans of General Manager Brian Cashman.

In today’s changing baseball world, owners want younger general managers (with a degree in or knowledge of analytics) and general managers want younger and less experienced managers whom they can manipulate and control.

In the first year of his third decade as general manager of the Yankees, Cashman has more freedom than most other general managers. He has grown up in the organization and has been more involved in the baseball operations whereas Steinbrenner has been intimately involved only since his father took ill and died in 2010.

About six weeks after Girardi was excused from further employment with the Yankees, Steinbrenner told reporters Girardi would have been fired even if the Yankees had won the World Series.

What nonsense. I’m not sure that George Steinbrenner would have had the nerve to make such a move or such a claim. According to a club official, the decision was left to Cashman, and Cashman’s explanation for his decision was summed up in this website headline:

“Brian Cashman let Joe Girardi go over inability to connect with players”

So there we have it. It was a connectivity problem, like you have sometimes in trying to connect to the Internet.

I, however, have a believability problem. Am I supposed to believe that a manager who was a win away from going to the World Series had a communications problem with the team’s players, especially its young players?

Searching the Internet, I found no writer questioning Cashman’s connectivity explanation for his dismissal of Girardi. If the absence of question or doubt or challenge means the writers believe Cashman because they were aware of the problem, why didn’t anyone write it?

If it was true, why weren’t the writers aware of it? That sort of thing is an important reason why newspapers have reporters covering teams, that is, all newspapers except my former employer, The New York Times.

Let me take a closer look at the Cashman excuse for firing Girardi (by the way, you’ll notice that the Yankees under Aaron Boone, a nice fellow from a good family, are no better off than they were a year ago at this time under Girardi).

Aaron Judge played 155 games, starting 151, hit 52 home runs, drove in 114 runs, scored 128, was named American League Rookie of the Year and was second in the A.L. MVP voting, etc., etc., etc. Was Judge one of the young players who had a connectivity problem with Girardi?

Gary Sanchez , a rookie catcher, hit 33 home runs and drove in 90 runs, winning a Silver Slugger award as the league’s best hitting catcher.

Luis Severino, a 24-year-old won 14 games and lost 6, compiling a 2.96 earned run average in his first full major league season.

If a more communications-connected manager had been managing the Yankees, would Judge have hit 62 home runs, would Sanchez have driven in 100 runs, would Severino have won 20 games, would the Yankees have won Game 7 of the A.L.C.S. and then beaten the Los Angeles Dodgers in the World Series?

Should Cashman have known sooner that he had a connectivity problem in the clubhouse and that Girardi was a dangerous element, a bat in the belfry? Why did it take Cashman six weeks of spring training and six months of the season to figure out he had a connectivity problem in the clubhouse?

I mean it often takes me an unusually long time to figure out that I have a connectivity problem with my computer, and when I do, I call my son. But I’m not a professional computer guy. Cashman is a professional baseball man. If his system becomes infested with a virus, he should be able to spot it quickly and eliminate it promptly.

Blame the Yankees’ failure last year on Cashman, not Girardi. Maybe young Mr. Steinbrenner, you should think about that virus and if you determine that it’s Cashman, spray him quickly with pesticide and wipe out the real virus. You may then want to invite Girardi to a meeting and figure out a way to make amends. Good luck in your quest to locate and eliminate that pesky virus.

First came the four-man rotation. Then the pitch-count limit of 100 pitches, which seemed to shrink constantly. The latest restriction being placed on pitchers is the most novel of all: start the game with a relief pitcher and bring in the starter after an inning or two.

The Tampa Bay Rays initiated this latest practice in May of this season. It wasn’t designed to preserve pitchers’ arms, as the other limits are, but it serves the same purpose.

The Rays and their young manager, Kevin Cash, deserve credit for their imagination and ingenuity, taking the team with the majors’ fourth smallest payroll ($77 million), to the eighth best won-lost record (86-68). Entering the last week of the season, the Rays had the same record as the American League Central champions Cleveland Indians and half a game better than the National League West-leading Los Angeles Dodgers.

There may be some irony in the fact that the Rays have done so well with their revolutionary pitching scheme while having the best starting pitcher in the league, if not the majors.

Blake Snell, a 25-year-old left-hander, who entered his third major league season with an 11-15 record, has produced the most impressive pitching performance of the season, compiling a 20-5 won-lost record and 1.97 earned run average in leading the Rays to a surprisingly strong season.

Snell, a strong contender for the A.L. Cy Young award, understandably has been excused from the Rays’ innovative use of their starters. He has pitched in 29 games, starting all of them.

The Rays differentiate between starting pitchers and those who pitch an inning or two at the start of a game, labeling the latter group openers.

Snell started last Wednesday against Texas, pitching six innings in a 4-0 victory over Texas. Diego Castillano opened the next game against Toronto, allowing one hit in 1 2/3 innings. Ryan Yarbrough relieved him and pitched four innings, giving up three runs in a 9-3 win.

Ryan Stanek was the next opener in a game against Toronto, giving up two runs in his one inning of work. Yonnie Chirinos relieved him and shut out the Blue Jays for 4 2/3 innings, giving up only one hit, but they won, 9-8.

Castillan opened again Friday with only one day off between openings and allowed two runs in one inning. Jalen Beeks pitched the next two innings and gave up two runs but was the winning pitcher in the11-3 win.

The Rays did not use an opener in Saturday’s game. Tyler Glasnow started and pitched six innings, allowing three runs in the 5-2 loss.

Before the season began, the Rays did not plan to be revolutionary. They had four pitchers set to start: Chris Archer, Snell, Nathan Eovaldi and Jake Faria. However, Faria got hurt, and the Rays traded Archer to Pittsburgh and Eovaldi to Boston.

Of their 154 games before Sunday’s game, the Rays had used an opener 51 times. Their record in games started by openers was 42-31 (575). In games started by traditional starters, their record was 44-37 (.543).

Before his scheduled start against Toronto Sunday, Blake Snell had already established himself as one of two standout pitchers in the major leagues this season. The other is Jacob deGrom of the New York Mets. DeGrom, though, is one of the strangest cases in pitching history.

He leads the majors with a 1.77 earned run average and is second to Max Scherzer (only four behind) with 209 innings pitched. He is fourth in strikeouts. Among National League pitchers, his earned run average is more than half a run lower than the second lowest, Aaron Nola’s 2.44.

But – and it’s a big but – he has a 9-9 won-lost record. Many observers would not find that a problem. He doesn’t give up many runs, but the Mets don’t score any runs. DeGrom can’t be blamed for the Mets’ lack of run support.

The analytics crowd contends that wins for pitchers are overrated and perhaps even meaningless. But I am not ready to give up Warren Spahn, Hal Newhouse, Bob Lemon, Bob Feller, Jim (Catfish) Hunter, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver, Phil Niekro, Ferguson Jenkins and a bunch I have left out.

Obviously, deGrom is a special case, and allowances can be made for special cases. My grandson, whom some of you may know as this site’s former writer, Zach Kram, now writing for The Ringer, asked me if I would vote for deGrom for the Cy Young award. Without much thought, I said yes, and he was somewhat surprised because he knew how I feel about the importance of wins.

But now, with more thought, I say yes. Give me a performance like deGrom’s and no really serious challenger, I can be reasonable.

Who’s the Evil Empire now?

That question has become relevant in these last weeks of the regular season because the Boston Red Sox are running away from the New York Yankees in the American League East and making the six games remaining between the teams irrelevant. In the last several weeks the rabid rivals simply haven’t played in the same ball park.

As the Red Sox have separated themselves from the Yankees, opening a 10 ½-game lead, largest of the season, the teams haven’t seemed to be close competitors. I suppose that’s what prompted a reader to ask who the Evil Empire is today.

The question alludes to the name attached to the Yankees 15 years ago when they snatched Jose Contreras, a Cuban free-agent pitcher, out of the Red Sox grasp.

“The Evil Empire extends its tentacles even into Latin America,” Larry Lucchino, the Red Sox president said to me at the time, coining a phrase that would go down in baseball linguistic history and outlive his tenure with the Red Sox.

I asked Lucchino last week if it was accurate, appropriate, or fair to turn the name over to the Red Sox.

“It takes years and years to earn that distinction,” he said in a telephone conversation.

Lucchino is no longer a Red Sox executive, having been invited three years ago to retire with the title President/CEO Emeritus by his partners, John Henry and Tom Werner, who apparently thought he was getting more than his share of credit for the Red Sox success. It wasn’t all success, though.

“When I came here,” Lucchino recalled, “I had my choice of telephone numbers and I took 2 2 2 2 because we were always finishing second to the Yankees in everything—standings, revenue, attendance. I think it’s safe to change my number now.”

Times and Red Sox fortunes have changed. The Red Sox have won the A.L. East title the last two years and three of the last five and appear set to make it the last three years and four of the last six. This will be the sixth successive season the Yankees haven’t finished first.

In another change-of-status development, the Red Sox began the season with the highest payroll in the majors, $224 million, while the Yankees were seventh at $167 million.

The Yankees have usually been at the top; they were, for example, from 1999 through 2013, the biggest spenders, until new owners of the Los Angeles Dodgers found that every dollar they had was worth spending on players.

But barring a splurge of Yankees spending, the Red Sox will finish the season No. 1 in player payroll as well as No. 1 in the A.L. East and No. 1 in number of wins. That’s a trifecta the Yankees would take, but they didn’t want to be No. 1 in payroll this season.

Of course, having the largest payroll doesn’t guarantee being No. 1 at the end of the year. The Yankees learned that fatal fact of life most of the years they had the largest payroll. Money produces no guarantee of winning.

Unlike the year the Evil Empire burst into prominence, the Yankees and the Red Sox were not competing last winter for the same free agent. The Yankees liked their young team and weren’t looking for expensive free agents. The Red Sox, on the other hand, wanted a slugging outfielder and found one in J.D. Martinez.

However, Scott Boras was Martinez’s agent, and it took until Feb. 26 for them to agree on a 5-year, $110 million contract.

A 20^th-round selection by Houston in the 2009 draft, the 31-year-old Martinez is competing with teammate Mookie Betts for the A.L. most valuable player award. Martinez is hitting .328 with 41 home runs, 106 runs scored and 122 runs batted in. Betts is hitting .338 with 29 homers, 118 runs scored and 71 r.b.i..

If the Yankees’ Aaron Judge hadn’t fractured his wrist when he was hit by a pitch, he may have been the default choice for m.v.p. because Martinez and Betts could split votes and cancel each other out.

CASH IS PURE GOLD FOR RAYS

As long as I have been watching and covering baseball, I still wonder at times how some teams can be consistently good and some consistently bad.

Look at the Tampa Bay Rays. They have always played in the worst ball park and have struggled with one of the lowest payrolls. The combination is enough to demoralize anyone. Yet with two weeks left in the season the Rays have clinched a .500 record playing in the majors’ toughest division.

Kevin Cash is a logical candidate for manager of the year.

Worst managing job of the year has to go to Dave Martinez of the Washington Nationals. The Nationals hired him after they fired Dusty Baker, under whom the team won two division titles in two years.

Whether the Baker decision belonged to General Manager Mike Rizzo or ownership, as has been suggested, the Nationals hierarchy might want to consider a do-over.

Meanwhile, Jerry Reinsdorf is the leading candidate as worst owner of the year.

Reinsdorf has one commendable quality but only one. He has long been baseball’s best owner with diversity hiring. It’s too bad Commissioner Rob Manfred doesn’t learn about diversity hiring from Reinsdorf. Instead Manfred tries gimmicks that never work.

Reinsdorf, however, seems to have lost touch with the successful way to run his baseball organization. He has allowed his front office to oversee six successive losing seasons, making the White Sox sweep of Houston in the 2005 World Series a faded memory of the distant past.

Finally, we come to the Yankees and the decision to fire Joe Girardi. I don’t say “their” decision because it was the decision of General Manager Brian Cashman, who was given that authority by Hal Steinbrenner, the managing general partner.

It’s possible Steinbrenner told Cashman to make the decision because he doesn’t like to fire people. He saw too much of that nonsense when his father operated the team.

But my question here is not who fired Girardi but why. Was there a valid reason to fire the man who had done a creditable job in the 10 years he managed the Yankees?

The only reason that has emerged from Yankee Stadium has been that the young players weren’t comfortable with Girardi. I suspect the real reason was Cashman was no longer comfortable with Girardi because Girardi’s veteran status prevented Cashman from telling him what to do as he would be able to with a younger, less experienced Aaron Boone.

Baseball is changing. Teams are hiring younger general managers, who are taking greater control of the team on the field. Will the new system work better than the old? I’ll have an answer to that question when a general manager fires himself for doing a poor job.