Seattle Mariners Managerial Search: Was it Odd to Have Players Involved?

On Monday morning, Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic called the Seattle Mariners' managerial hiring process "far from typical."

Perhaps he's referring to the end result, in which the Mariners hired 36-year-old Jason Kanzler, who was certainly an outside-the-box candidate.

But it seems like he's definitely referring to the nature in which the search was done, referencing the fact that the Mariners had players as part of the process, at least at the end.

A select group of Mariners players, veterans who are considered clubhouse leaders, participated in the final managerial interviews, according to sources briefed on the process who were granted anonymity for their candor. Members of the team’s coaching staff also were involved, as previously reported by MLB.com.

Rosenthal noted that players typically have "no input" on managerial hires.

There's a lot to unpack here, but I'll just say up front: I have no specific knowledge of which players were involved in the managerial process, but I do not find this particularly weird or egregious.

So, let's start unpacking.

Speaking on Nov. 4's edition of the "Brock and Salk" show on Seattle Sports 710, ESPN MLB Insider Jeff Passan said that players were involved in this, met the candidates and spent time with them. So, we already knew that players were involved in this search.

I think we're supposed to think that the M's are doing something that no other team does and we're supposed to think negatively about them for doing it that way, but Passan didn't raise any red flags about this, and neither did Brock or Salk. And I heard no negative backlash about this over the weekend, so it seems to me like most people don't have an issue with this. Maybe they will after Rosenthal's report, but I never heard any prior worry about this.

In fairness to Rosenthal's reporting, it is OK to acknowledge the pitfalls of letting players in the process. 

1) Do the players feel entitled with the manager? Some sort of "We helped get you the job, so you can't tell us what to do?"

2) Does the manager feel indebted to the players? "You helped get me the job, so I can't tell you what to do?"

3) Player empowerment has become a thing in the NFL and the NBA, and we're seeing it in the NHL now too. If you start giving players too much of a voice, in anything, does it upset the balance of a clubhouse or the balance of the sport?

It sounds extreme, but today it's managerial searches, tomorrow it's trade demands. It's a fair concern if you have it.

4) And then, finally: Did all the players involved agree? What if there some players that had different opinions than others? Does anyone's voice feel less heard? That could be a concern.

Again, I don't have a list of names that were a part of this, but I can presume. If the Mariners kept the player contingent to guys that have long-term contracts, then I don't see the problem in this.

Cal Raleigh has four years left on his contract, so does Josh Naylor. Julio Rodriguez has many more than that when you factor in contract options, etc. Colt Emerson has eight years left after his big deal. Even a guy like Bryan Woo has three years.

Each of these players (again, just examples), are invested in the long-term success of the Mariners. And they will be here for a long time. I understand asking their opinion in the same way I'd understand asking a star quarterback for some input on an NFL coaching hire.

And again, this was at the end of the process. The Mariners didn't ask these players to be involved in every step of the process, and nothing indicates the players actually came up with these names.

If the Mariners whittled down the group to 2-3 finalists and then brought the players in, I do understand that.

We'll have more thoughts on this on the next "Refuse to Lose Territory" podcast, which is set to come out on Tuesday morning. You can catch up in the YouTube player below: