The decision was finally made to pull Ketel Marte off the trade market. Was this the right move?
James: If the right price was not met, then there is no reason to trade him. I have no particular desire for the team to trade Ketel Marte. By the same token, if they were able to land good, controllable starting pitching in exchange for Marte, there is a strong case to be made that moving Marte would have been the right call. However, yes, it was time to stop with the insanity. Clearly no teams were willing to meet the price. It was time to pull him off the market and prepare to move forward with Marte as the team’s
starting second baseman for 2026.
Spencer: Right move? I don’t know. We don’t know what type of offers were coming in. Nor do we know what type of offer Hazen was willing to accept. Marte is one of my all time favorite players. I’d rather have him than not (even though there were certainly players I’d have been happy to have in his place as well). But trading a star from Arizona is near impossible. No fanbase will ever be pleased with a star’s trade return, but in Arizona especially, there’s a lot of unnecessary animosity because the Goldy situation was so misunderstood. Which in turn makes every deal he makes poorly analyzed and “negative” online.
DBacksEurope: I really never understood the trade-off between trading Marte, his relatively low AAV and All-Star production, getting some stuff in return and then adding an expensive, for this team, Alex Bregman, if at all. After the Nick Piecoro piece this summer and the whole Marte shopping, I wonder if the relationship between him and the team has soured and it’ll affect his production. So, to be fair, I think the Diamondbacks should have traded him because of that although I prefer seeing him play in Sedona red.
Jim: Yeah, I think so. It’s reasonable to listen to offers for any player, especially when the return could allow you to fill multiple holes. But there’s a point beyond which waiting isn’t going to make the price increase any further, and it feels like there was a significant gap between what Hazen wanted, and what he was being offered. You can’t have a player with a ‘For Sale’ hanging over them permanently, and it’s only fair to Marte to have certainty in this matter. I hope it doesn’t impact Marte’s performance, especially since he’ll now have full 10/5 trade protection.
Ben: The fan in me would have been extremely upset with a Marte trade and I found the entire saga to be somewhat tiresome too. He’s an excellent player, he’s signed to an incredibly team-friendly contract, and he’s been an incredible leader off and on the field to a still-young team. But if I switch to my hypothetical GM hat, trading Marte now made a lot of sense and might have been the better call on a longer time horizon. This is probably Marte’s sell-high point. At 32, he’s likely going to start seeing some signs of decline, he’ll soon reach his 10/5 rights which will make it more difficult to trade him, and the team still desperately needs some long-term answers on the pitching side. Clearly Hazen didn’t get the kind of offer he wanted and I don’t envy him for even having to entertain the idea.
Makakilo: In general, the Diamondbacks seem to do better in trades than they do in signing free agents. My take is that for some unknown reasons, GM Mike Hazen has great wisdom when trading players. I trust that the Diamondbacks’ lack of execution of any Marte trade reflects that wisdom.
ISH95: I never understood shopping him in the first place. It always felt like there was a piece of information that was missing as to why they were being so aggressive about it. Glad to see it over.
Nolan Arenado is now a Diamondback, completing furthering the Diamondbacks acquisition of the late 2010 Card’s infield. How much do you think he has left in the tank?
James: If he can stay above 1.0 bWAR for each of the next two seasons, I will be impressed. I do think that the move to Chase Field for his home games might have a small impact on his terrible 2025 batting numbers. Hopefully, Arenado takes a few more seasons before he is well and truly gassed. I think expecting him to be anything more than league average is probably wishful thinking. But, if it solidifies the defense and lights a fire under other potential third basemen in the system, I’ll take it.
Spencer: I was a notorious hater on Longo for too long. My initial reaction (and continuing one) for this move is not good. However, at the price point, it’s perfectly fine. I would rather have invested that money into the bullpen personally but the team disagreed. I’m sure the team is hoping his third base defensive ability can be taught to one of the young names we all know, but I suspect his real value is to Marte; both players have expectations of being clubhouse leaders from small(er) NL West clubs but aren’t that type of personality. We kept Marte; Colorado traded Arenado. Maybe, just maybe, he can instill some words of wisdom into Marte and the team on how best to move past a messy offseason.
DBacksEurope: For the 11MM that Arenado will cost the next two years, it is a perfectly fine addition. He should still showcase some good defence at third base. I believe he is a better option there than a full season of either Blaze or Lawlar at that corner. I don’t think it is odd to expect a 2 WAR season of Arenado, which would be league average. Last season he was a bit unlucky, says BABIP.
Jim: Enough? As I noted before, the price here is very favorable, compared to what free agents with not much better projections have been getting on the open market. I don’t expect him to be All-Star level. But it does seem that the pool at Chase Field has acted like a fountain of youth the past few years, working its magic on the likes of Evan Longoia and Eugenio Suarez. But I do think his talents will be equally as valuable, if not more so, outside games. The team still needs a long-term solution at third, and whether it ends up being Blaze, Jordan or another prospect, you can’t have a much better mentor than Arenado.
Ben: If he can produce somewhere between his 2025 (1.3 bWAR) and 2024 (2.5 bWAR), it will be well worth the extremely reasonable price the team paid for him. Almost all of Eugenio Suarez’s value last year came from his incredible slugging year he had last season. Obviously, Arenado won’t provide the same kind of offensive threat, but he’s still one of the best active defensive third-basemen and he could be an invaluable mentor for the team’s young infielders.
Makakilo: He has a lot in the tank, both offensively and defensively. For more details, see my article which is scheduled to post on 20 January.
ISH95: Someone has to play third base, I guess, and the cost is basically nil if Arenado is the one who does it. He does still provide value with his glove, with curtails with the team’s stated goals for next season. Offensively, I’ll be happy for a tick below league average. Part of me also wants to read too much into this and try to glean information about what the team thinks about the Blazes, Lawlers, et al of the world, but I’ll resist the urge
Which of these moves were the most surprising to you?
James: Acquiring Nolan Arenado. Despite Jack’s article back in November, I honestly didn’t see Arenado agreeing to come to AZ. Also, with all the other needs the team has, I simply wasn’t focused on the team picking up yet another aging veteran star.
Spencer: Bringing back Merrill Kelly at market value. I never really doubted he’d be back (something was different about the way he discussed the desire to return compared to other players who do so with their first/most important teams), but I did expect a discount to help put a winner around him. That was not to be. Good for Merrill and good on the team. But man I do wonder how many games the bullpen and outfield are going to cost Merrill as a result.
If this was meant to just be between Nolan and Ketel, Nolan surprised me more.
DBacksEurope: I was surprised Nolan Arenado had included the Diamondbacks as one of the teams he would approve a move to.
Jim: I think the lack of moves to address the bullpen surprises me most, given how problematic it was last year. At time of writing, the only guaranteed MLB contract to a reliever is the return of Mr. Taylor Clarke. Still time though, and Jack’s semi-cryptic Tweet seems to indicate there will be further moves coming, somewhere. I’ll adopt my parental stance and say nothing more prophetic than “We’ll see.”
Ben: I’m not sure which moves this question is specifically referencing, but Arenado is much more surprising to me. He makes a lot of sense positionally for the team, but I’m with everyone else in my (pleasant) surprise that he agreed to a trade with them. There are plenty of contending teams making moves who would have benefitted from a short- or medium-term solution at third like Arenado including the Reds and the Mets.
Kyle Tucker and the Dodgers broke more records. Does this add fuel to the fire of Labor Strife or was it already maxed out?
James: I think the likes of the A’s, Marlins, and the Pirates will have as much to do with the ongoing labour strife as the Dodgers. Noticeably, the Pirates and A’s have both been spending beyond their norms this winter. But I do think that Kyle Tucker landing in at $60 million per year is going to create yet more waves. Yes, many teams that are complaining about the Dodgers could help themselves by spending more. On the other hand, the Dodgers will be deferring more payroll than the entire net worth of many of the smaller ownerships, like Kendrick and Castellini. That sort of disparity is not sustainable, at least, not if MLB wants to continue to thrive. Something is going to need to be done to narrow the gap. Eliminating deferred payments will do precious little to help unless other changes are also made. Since even the deferred money still needs to be funded each year.
Spencer: For fans I think this pushes them to the brink. I work with a Dodgers fan who thinks this move cost the league the entire 2027 season (he’s not as upset by that as we are). I work with Reds fans who are actively advocating for 2028 to be reduced as well for massive change.
I don’t know what change will work or is the best middle ground. A true salary cap/floor isn’t the answer. But I’m sure some fans would be fine eliminating deferred payments for teams above the luxury tax would be amenable. And I’m not sure anyone is against adding a “poverty” tax line that would see Miami/Pittsburgh/Las Vegas pay into revenue sharing for coming in below [insert amount here] the way the Dodgers and Mets do. Forcing a sale of the Dodgers would be interesting. Options exist. But I’ve watched this league fumble many significant opportunities in my 32 years on the planet, so I expect we get next to no meaningful change and the sport as a whole continues to die the slow painful death they’ve been pushing for this millennium.
DBacksEurope: A salary cap will only hurt players. More concerning are all the deferrals. Ohtani’s deferrals are death for competition in baseball. Besides, in a healthy business model, kicking forward that much money is not sustainable since you are banking on the future to be still as bright as it is now (in the Dodgers case). The league should not allow that. The problem with these huge contracts is that players are trying to make up for all the money they missed because of that communist arbitration process. Alex Bregman won’t be the star he was six years ago nor the productive guy he was 3 years ago. Yet he is earning more money than in those years. Isn’t that the whole problem in baseball? That said, I don’t know why we force baseball players to play into their 40s. Maybe some age well, but the majority don’t. The Pujols I remember is the one from the 2015 season and on (before that I had pretty much forgotten about baseball) and though he wasn’t horrible, I think it is safe to say that he played for that long because he had a contract to fulfill.
Jim: My MLB interest has been a veritable roller-coaster of emotions over the past few years. After crashing during COVID and immediately after, it rebounded to an almost high during the 2023 run to the World Series. But since then, the realization the regular season is going to be a procession for the foreseeable future has all but killed enthusiasm, realizing the D-backs’ only hope of a division title lies in re-alignment. I don’t particularly blame the Dodgers. I blame Manfred for sitting back and letting them do it without any effective action. The fact that, including tax, the Dodgers’ payroll this year will now be $115 million more than anyone else is almost as ludicrous as Dodger fans bleating, “Any owner could do this!” If they could lock-out the 2026 season, I’d not mind.
Ben: It probably adds a little more fuel to the fire, but only marginally. I think it’s fascinating that Tucker turned down a much longer contract with the Blue Jays for a shorter one with a higher AAV. I understand fan frustration with the seemingly endless ability for the Dodgers to sign anyone, but I’m still unconvinced that a salary cap will adequately address those frustrations. I also don’t think it will address any lingering parity concerns either as I’ve detailed before.
Makakilo: The best resolutions to the labor strife will be the ones that contribute the most to the growth of baseball fans. While fans cheer for their favorite teams, they also like competitive/(evenly matched) teams playing so that underdog teams have chances. As I wrote my answer, an idea reached my awareness. If, instead of all teams starting at zero wins, maybe the teams at the bottom could start the season with ghost wins. That idea has the potential to add teams to the competition for the playoffs. And in the playoffs, sometimes a surprise team can play surprisingly well.
ISH95: This is just the two parties in the divorce fighting as they walk up the court steps. The decision to divorce/lockout has already been made, they’re just filling time now.
