The dust has settled. What does our intrepid group of panelists think of what transpired?
So the deadline has passed, and the Diamondbacks are an (expectedly) drastically different looking team.What move would you rate the highest?
DBacksEurope: I think the Naylor trade. Excited to see what Locklear can do. All other prospects we got back are just a lot of filler. We will throw at least 3 against the wall and hope at least 1 will stick as an uninspiring low-leverage reliever. The kids in AA and A+ … hopefully one of them turns out to be something at the highest level if the Diamondbacks haven’t botched their development before that. We did improve our farm ranking according to FanGraphs and that was Derrick Hall’s major goal. But an improved farm system doesn’t win you any games though.
Spencer: For me it’s a mix of Naylor and Kelly I think. I like the potential upside of Izzi and mixing that with the “safety” of the Kelly arms. I’ll be honest, I expect all to be relievers if they succeed at the MLB level, and the odds of all four even getting a cup of coffee are fairly low, but this is the closest to my goal of young upside and “old” filler that we got this year.
Makakilo: Trading Naylor for Brandyn Garcia (a long reliever immediately) and Ashton Izzi (a likely starter in 2027). Although it’s possible that the return for Suarez was objectively higher, my delight at this unexpected return for Naylor gave it my highest rating.
James: The Naylor trade is sneaky good, especially given the circumstances. I think I am far more bullish on Izzi than some others seem to be. I fully expect him to stick as a starter, albeit one with #3 upside. That’s a valuable pitcher though, especially in exchange for a 2-month rental of an OBP machine. The fact that a power lefty reliever was included in the deal is icing on the cake. I do think Garcia probably needs a bit more refinement before he sticks at the top level, but he’s almost there. With all the moves that were made at the deadline, I would not be surprised if he is back shortly to start getting work in against MLB bats so that he can adjust.
1AZfan1: I love the Kelly trade most. 3 starting pitching prospects at 3 different levels for 2 months of the Mainstay is awesome to me. Maybe none of them are blue-chippers, but this was the only trade that netted us a player who could conceivably be a starting pitcher in Phoenix in 2026. With our roster outlook and financial constraints as it currently stands, that alone is enough for this to be a win in my eyes.
Wesley: I think it’s a tossup between the Naylor deal and the Kelly deal, for the reasons the others have already stated.
Preston: In terms of the return, the Kelly trade was great. Three potential starters, each with potential to be mid-rotation guys? For two months of a solid mid-rotation guy? Incredible.
But getting a guy who I think has late inning reliever upside for Grichuk was also good value.
Ben: The consensus seems to be the Naylor and Kelly trade and it’s hard to argue against either of them. Garcia immediately moves into the bullpen for this year and next while Izzi is more of a project/lottery pick given his age and the level he’s currently playing at. Also have to love the symmetry in acquiring pitchers at every affiliate level!
And the lowest?
DBacksEurope: I think we all hoped for something more in the Suarez trade. With all prospects being tossed around for pitching I can’t help to think that Kelly could have netted something better in return. I also despise the Shelby Miller move. In general the returns were pretty underwhelming and won’t move the needle for this team long term. Maybe we should not have traded anyone and just try and hope for the best in the final months of the season. After all, we did sweep the Cardinals. FanGraphs calls us losers in their trade deadline review because we got zilch for our rental bats, as is the case for rental bats, according to them. Isn’t it more enticing to extend QOs and take the comp picks?
Spencer: In a vacuum I’ll rate the Shelby Miller move as the lowest. All it does is save a few million dollars. If this move was important to make, I have no faith there’s any money to spend for 2026. At least every other move brought back potential future value. The Miller one seems like a desperate money saving move that only saves negligible amounts. To say nothing of the weird optics of sending Montgomery to another team with two months left on his contract. I sincerely hope Milwaukee really wanted him and will sign him to one of those 2 year TJS pillow contracts now. Because otherwise we look like the biggest d!cks in baseball for how we treated a struggling pitcher our owner forced us to sign in the first place…
Makakilo: The trade that did the least to improve the team’s future was trading Shelby Miller and Jordan Montgomery for cash and possibly a player to be named. The upside is that when a Snakepitter wrote that it was the best trade ever, DBE wrote, “Is that you Ken?” and I laughed so hard.
James: The clear loser deal of the deadline is the Shelby Miller move that included the Brewers taking on $2 million of Montgomery’s salary. I highly suspect the move was designed to circumvent some technical issue and to clear Arizona from any sort of responsibility for Montgomery, while also moving the injured Shelby Miller off the roster as well. If Miller had proven himself healthy before the deadline, he probably brings back the biggest return for Arizona of any move made. However, he isn’t healthy yet, so getting anything at all for him was a modest “win” even if it was only some salary relief. With the narrow margins that Arizona has with payroll, I’m not against the team clearing that money from the books now. The one caveat to that is, now that they have cleared the money, they need to identify the right players and reinvest that money back into the roster. If they do that, unlike many others at the Pit, I am fine with Hazen protecting Kendrick’s pocketbook for now. The money will be far more important to spend next season than it will be for the remainder of this season.
1AZfan1: Would I have rather received a low-level, lottery ticket prospect than getting an extra $2 million dollars to play with in free agency? Probably, but I suspect Hazen was told that every dollar he saves for the rest of this year will be available to him in the offseason for free agency (not an ultimatum to slash payroll as some may suggest), and he decided that he wanted that $2 million instead. That’s fine. I’m happy with the prospects that we got back in every other trade. I know that not all of them will work out, but that’s the nature of baseball. I’ll certainly be paying attention to our spending this offseason and seeing how Hazen uses the extra $18 million he cleared from this year’s payroll.
Wesley: I actually don’t mind the Suarez trade. Locklear is probably being underrated and overlooked right now; with the changes he’s made to his swing I think there’s a chance he outplays his projection. The Miller trade is the worst, we gave him away to get rid of Jordan Montgomery.
Preston: I actually don’t mind the Miller trade. It’s not the best by any means, but it had extra layers of difficulty as far as his being injured. I believe what Hazen said in answer to my question: he wasn’t required to save money, but there were no players on offer that he liked more than he liked $2 million in savings. We don’t have access to Miller’s medical reports. The teams and the league do, and the league had to approve any deal because of his injury.
That said, it does nothing to improve the team in 2026, which was the stated goal. So it is the worst, but it’s not bad.
Ben: I also tend to agree that the Suarez trade was disappointing. I think Hazen gambled a little bit and lost out on some higher-end talent when the market shifted after the McMahon trade and the D-Backs continued to sink. I find the Miller/Montgomery trade bewildering. It did little to help Arizona in the short- or middle-term and feels more like a salary dump than anything else. But it’s such a small (relatively) amount that it doesn’t make much sense to me.
And were you surprised by any deals that you thought/wanted to happen?
DBacksEurope: I am so happy to see the Phillies, Mets and Padres loading up on players. The Padres have made terrific trades for their win-now season. This will amount to the thrill that will be the NL postseason. I am sure the Dodgers are shocked.
I was really looking forward to the hyped Luis Robert Jr trade. MLBTR had quite some articles on the worst right-handed platoon bat contract in the world. We were to believe that the White Sox had been contacted by 8 teams, all interested in a mediocre to bad center fielder who only hits lefties (92 PA over the season) though last year he couldn’t even hit those. He is making $20MM this year with a club option for next year. Who is the idiot that invents these rumours?!?! The White Sox will now pick up that $20MM option for next year, “they say”. What insane person would do that? If we didn’t get much for the best available rental bats Naylor and Suarez, what would “reporters” have expected what Luis Robert Jr should have netted? I’m still laughing!
Spencer: Minnesota tearing down completely wasn’t on my radar; I totally expected St Louis to have that type of day but they didn’t though. Neither was SF selling at the edges. I’m disappointed we remain stuck with Gallen but understand to an extent. Pittsburgh continues to amaze with their own moves (how on earth do they still have expiring contracts?!). I don’t think the Mets did enough; that rotation is laughable if you expect to actually win a playoff series.
Makakilo: This season, Gallen did not pitch very well. My concern is that his slump will continue next season, after he accepts a qualifying offer. Yes, he works his ass off, but in this case that is not enough for a QO. I would have been very happy if the Diamondbacks traded Gallen, even for a lottery-ticket prospect.
James: Mostly, I am shocked by some moves other teams did not make, especially the Pirates. How are Pham, McCutcheon, and Heaney still on Pittsburgh’s roster? The Minnesota teardown was quite surprising as well, given that they did not really seem to indicate they were interested in selling much before the deadline. However, I think I am less surprised by it than I am by Pittsburgh since the value the Twins were able to extract from the teardown was impressive.
1AZfan1: If we’re talking across all of baseball, I was very surprised that the Padres were able to swing a trade for Mason Miller. I think that was extremely smart; they still have him for 4ish years on the cheap and I was in favor of exploring a trade for him this offseason directly after the Burnes signing. For the D-backs specifically, I was hopeful that there would have been some way for Hazen to thread the needle, either by pairing Geno and Naylor together or by taking advantage of some desperate front office somewhere, to net one blue-chip pitching prospect. The market didn’t quite materialize the way I hoped.
Wesley: I’m surprised there were no takers for Gallen. No, he hasn’t been very good, but he does have a solid track record and I do think his struggles are fixable.
Preston: I was surprised that Jalen Beeks wasn’t dealt. He seemed more moveable than Miller, and teams were spending on relief help. Part of me would have liked to see Gallen moved, but he’s more likely than Kelly to get a draft pick compensation. Hazen likes his draft picks, and found a top-100 prospect there in 2024. He’ll try to do that again.
The Twins nuked the city of Minneapolis from orbit. Is such a rapid deconstruction a symptom of the haves and have nots, or is it a harbinger of more bad things to come in MLB?
DBacksEurope: I am totally flabbergasted by the Minnesota Twins. The Twins had a bad start of the season but were 7 games up at the middle of May and were above .500 until mid June. They were just 2 games below .500 at the All Star break. That means their team wasn’t that bad to begin with, right? I would say they were probably a few players and a few bouncebacks away from contending. It is incomprehensible what the Twins’ Front Office has done. They traded away their entire team in just a few days. They salary dumped their record signing Carlos Correa, who is struggling but was very good last year. Can the have nots be more like Milwaukee and Tampa? Maybe the Twins’ ownership wanted to clean the ship to sell the team. That would explain a lot. If this were European football, hooligans would have thrashed the offices and the GM would resign out of fear for his and his family’s lives.
Spencer: Neither. I think this is all about a team on the margins saving as much money as possible in preparation for a sale. Leadership recognized the team as is, has failed to stick the landing multiple years in a row. Leadership is also actively looking for a new ownership group. One way to maximize value in a sale of a team is to let the new owner/GM dictate the future money-wise. In spectacular fashion, that’s the future that’s been set up for whomever wants to buy the MLB team most likely to be an icicle on Opening Day… shout out to Byron Buxton for sticking to his guns though; I’m confident ownership told him what the plan was and he still refused to waive his no trade clause. Dude must love the Twin Cities; I respect that.
Makakilo: Key to understanding what the Twins are:
- They peak every 3 or 4 years, then do a deep rebuild. They won the AL Central in 2019 & 2020, and again in 2023. Perhaps they will peak again in 2027/2028.
- They are preparing to sell the team, so giving the new owner a clean slate could be a good thing.
“They were able to shed a lot of payroll while also adding significant talent to the farm system, which sets the organization up for future success and its eventual sale.” – Jim Bowden
James: While I did not see the total teardown coming, I am not completely shocked either. MLB has been trying to help the Twins find new ownership for a while. Also, there is a very strong chance that there is little or no season in 2027, the year that would have represented more or less the last chance for that assembled roster. Given how little payroll room the team had to work with, it isn’t like they were going to be in a position to retool around the edges to extend that window. Once the grossly inflated prices for relievers became apparent, the Twins leaning into that and using those deals to supplement the lesser deals for the rest of the roster made a ton of sense. Moving on from Correa feels much more like Minnesota trying to give Correa a possible out from the rebuild. He made it clear he was either staying or they would need to make a deal with Houston. Given that Minnesota is eating quite a bit of salary, it feels an awful lot like Minnesota trying to do right by Correa while also attempting to be financially responsible. They now have a massive warchest for the upcoming winter and have about six to eight weeks to evaluate their best prospects to see where they need to invest their newfound payroll wealth.
1AZfan1: I was not aware of the potential franchise sale subplots until reading the responses above. I wasn’t even tracking that the Twins traded away 10(!) players until Saturday morning. I’m not necessarily sure it’s a symptom of the have-nots, but I will contrast what’s happening there with what is happening in Arizona. While the Twins have cleared the deck, possibly in preparation for an ownership change, the D-backs have agreed to several extensions which, by that same logic, would indicate Kendrick doesn’t see himself giving up ownership of the team anytime soon.
Wesley: The Twins firesale is 100% a result of the team being for sale and them trying to reduce debt. They now have the smallest payroll in MLB, and that’s a bad look in my opinion.
Preston: Yes, it’s a bad look, but we see this more often in sports that do have a salary cap. Basketball, for example. Manfred will use this as part of his push for the salary cap, but that’s not a great reason.
That said, the Marlins did much the same thing last year, and nobody batted an eye. This keeps happening, and will keep happening because owners are greedy.
So, at the beginning of the season, Jim asked us to predict total wins. Want to revise those?
DBacksEurope: Wow, many were way off! I see Spencer and I had the lowest predictions of them all so we were way more conservative than others but still a swing and miss. The offence was good until recently but the pitching has let us down. Until very recently I think an 87-win season was probably a reach but this team could have ended above .500. Let’s hope they go out and make the most of it and will set the stage for a nice bounce back in 2026.
Spencer: Big yikes. I definitely don’t expect 87 wins anymore. But no, I won’t revise because that roster is very different from the one we ever actually fielded. It took a Dodgers-level injury catastrophe to bring the team Hazen compiled to the edge of contention. Few would’ve been upset if he’d chosen to have a KC deadline and bought at the edges last week. That’s such an impressive feat. It’s just unfortunate that it derailed what could’ve been an epic season for us all. I’ll stay optimistic for now and say Arizona somehow does get 87 wins! But man I expect my 2026 number will be significantly deflated. Thank you Mr. Kaplan; I will never forget your impact on this team.
Makakilo: As is often the case, my prediction of 90.3 wins was optimistic, perhaps even wildly optimistic. My optimistic prediction is now 71 wins (it could be worse). Key points:
- In the last 10 games they scored 1.4 runs per game and allowed 5.0 runs per game.
- In the last 10 games their only win was by a score of 1 to zero.
- The best use of the remaining two months is evaluating players with little to no experience in the Majors.
James: My original call was for 90 wins. That was long before the injury bug hit and before the team. If the team had been able to keep Burnes, Moreno, Miller, and one of Puk/Martinez healthy, I think they are probably buyers at the deadline and that 90 wins would still be possible. Now, I think the team probably finishes in the 78-80 win window. I would really like to see them still finish .500. But in order to do that, they need another arm in the rotation before next week.
1AZfan1: I was right at the top of the list, calling for 92 wins. Welp. My logic then was I felt the bullpen/starting pitching would improve enough to offset the downtick in offense I expected. Beyond that, I felt that some improved injury luck over 2024 and better luck in extra innings games would lead to a 3 win improvement over last year. Somehow, the injury luck worsened and our record in extra innings is 4-7 (it was 5-8 last year). My revised guess is we’ll probably play around a .400 clip the rest of the way which would work out to around 71 wins at the end of the year. I hope I don’t look back at that .400 winning percentage as too optimistic!
Wesley: The problem is that I try to be as positive and optimistic as possible, even if my gut instincts tel me otherwise.bI should have just been serious about the initial sarcastic pessimistic prediction. No they’re not going to have 152 losses, but it does feel like they’re just as close to 90 wins as they are to 90 losses.
Preston: I was off, but at least I was off for the right reason. It should have been the best pitching staff in franchise history. It wasn’t. They have to figure out the medical issues. If it’s not hamstrings, its
Ben: Wow, we were an optimistic bunch back in March. Not only was my optimism misplaced, but my talk about “Gallen and Burnes being the best one-two punch in franchise history” looks laughable in hindsight. I won’t revise my prediction since I have way more information now than I did then, but I will make a new one for 71 wins. After today’s game against the Athletics, they have just 10 games remaining against teams below .500 (seven of which are against the Rockies). They also have a brutal end to the season with consecutive series against the Phillies, Dodgers, and Padres with one off day. I’m hopeful they can gel together better than that, but they’ve given me little reason to do that so far.
ISH95: Well, I don’t think they’re making 100 wins this season. I mean, never say never, 47-2 just seems… unlikely. Even .500 is going to be hard, taking 29-20. I think they’re going to be better than most of us are giving them credit for, but probably not a winning team. I’ll say they finish with 77 wins.