10
Loading video...
By Andrew Gould
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
An MLB star could land back on the hot stove following a topsy-turvy 2026 season.
USA Today's Bob Nightengale said on Foul Territory that the Arizona Diamondbacks will be "much more motivated" to trade Ketel Marte this offseason. While he noted that the All-Star second baseman has a no-trade clause, Marte may be willing to waive it for a change of scenery.
"He can reject anything he wants," Nightengale said Wednesday. "But if he feels like he's not wanted in Arizona, why would he want to come back?"
Read More on MLB
The Diamondbacks have dangled Marte before, but they ultimately kept the two-time Silver Slugger. He's batted .279/.352/.486 over 10 seasons in Arizona, belting a career-high 36 home runs in 2024 before registering an .893 OPS in 2025.
However, the Diamondbacks may wish they moved Marte sooner. His slash line regressed to .249/.316/.432 this season, and the 2023 NLCS MVP caused off-field controversy by no-showing a game at Fenway Park in August. Arizona placed Marte on the restricted list but later moved him to the 10-day injured list with a left knee issue.
...
Even if his trade value has decreased, Nightengale thinks the Diamondbacks could still find interested suitors for Marte. He identified the Tampa Bay Rays, who pursued the veteran last offseason, as a candidate to take another swing at Marte following their World Series appearance.
"I could see the Rays jumping back into this thing," Nightengale said. "Obviously don't have to give up as much as a year ago."
Nightengale pointed to Yandy Diaz as a clubhouse leader who could make the Rays more comfortable acquiring Marte. With five years worth $89.25 million remaining on his contract, including an $11.5 million player option in 2031, the 33-year-old is also a relatively cost-effective trade target for the small-market club.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines