Winners, Losers, and the In-Between: 2025-26 MLB Offseason Grades (All 30 Teams)

With pitchers and catchers reporting, the “hot stove” is basically done—and now we can judge the winter for what it was: some teams clearly fixed problems, some teams mostly maintained, and a few clubs left their fanbases wondering what the plan is.

Below is a full 30-team roundup with quick grades, plus my biggest winners and losers.

Biggest Winners (Offseason Champs)

• Teams that turned one weakness into a strength (e.g., Tigers, who attacked rotation depth)

• Teams that raised both the floor and the ceiling with a mix of stability and upside (e.g., Cubs, Phillies)

• Teams that bought options, not just names—depth, versatility, and matchup flexibility (e.g., Dodgers, Rays, Brewers)

Biggest Losers (What Are We Doing Here?)

• Teams that tried to “run it back”despite obvious warning signs (e.g., Twins, Blue Jays)

• Teams that sold without a clean pivot to the next core (e.g., A’s, Marlins)

• Teams that didn’t meaningfully change the outlook (e.g., Rockies, Angels)

Final 2025-26 Offseason Grades: All 30 Teams

AL East

Baltimore Orioles — B Kept the window open and stayed competitive without doing anything reckless. Solid, but not the full “push all-in” winter some fans wanted.

Boston Red Sox — B- mproved in spots, but the roster needs one more decisive move to match the division’s top tier.

New York Yankees — B+ A quieter winter than some expected, but the intent stayed win-now: retained key pieces and made targeted pitching depth adds (including the Ryan Weathers type of move). The main question is rotation durability over 162.

Tampa Bay Rays — B Classic Rays: value hunting, depth building, and staying annoyingly viable. The ceiling depends on health and internal breakouts.

Toronto Blue Jays — C+ There were steps forward, but the overall direction reads murkier than it should for a team that’s supposed to be in its prime window.

AL Central

Chicago White Sox — C A “stabilize and evaluate” offseason. That’s fine—if the next steps come quickly. Right now it’s more pause than progress.

Cleveland Guardians — B+ Smart, targeted work that fits their identity: pitching, defense, and cost-controlled upside. Not flashy, but it tracks.

Detroit Tigers — A- One of the more convincing “we’re ready to contend” offseasons. Big pitching upgrades around the core (the Valdez/Verlander type of adds) raised both the floor and the ceiling.

Kansas City Royals — B- Incremental improvements, but they remain one impact bat/arm short of truly changing the conversation.

Minnesota Twins — C+Not a disaster, but not the kind of winter that signals “we’re taking the division back,” either.

AL West

Houston Astros — B Kept the machine running. Maybe not their most dominant offseason, but they remain built to win a lot of games.

Los Angeles Angels — C A few moves help, but the roster continues to look like a team trying to solve five problems with two answers.

Oakland Athletics — C- Hard to get excited without a clearer “next good A’s team” timeline. This projects more like asset management than momentum.

Seattle Mariners — B- Did some things right, but the offense needs a more aggressive solution to match the pitching.

Texas Rangers — B+ A strong “reload” approach—enough to keep them in the thick of it without overcorrecting.

NL East

Atlanta Braves — B+ A steadier, quieter winter than the usual Braves standard, but the foundation remains strong. This reads more like smart maintenance than a major reset.

Miami Marlins — C- A cautious offseason without a clear “here’s the next leap” move. The path forward stays hazy.

New York Mets — B More coherent than some recent winters: better structure, better balance. The final grade depends on whether the big pieces actually fit.

Philadelphia Phillies — B+ Kept the contention core intact—bringing back Schwarber matters—and they’ll again bet on October experience. The risk is that “run it back” can look smart or stale depending on health and a couple aging curves.

Washington Nationals — C+ Some progress, but still in the “building the foundation” phase. The next step is turning promise into impact.

NL Central

Chicago Cubs — A- A strong blend of present and future. Adding a true centerpiece bat (the Bregman type of move) plus bullpen help makes the path to 90+ wins easier to see.

Cincinnati Reds — B- Plenty of upside, but the offseason suggests they’re waiting for the roster to fully arrive. Close—just not quite there.

Milwaukee Brewers — B Stayed true to their model: pitching, development, and smart roster churn. They’ll be in the mix again.

Pittsburgh Pirates — C+ Not enough urgency for a team that’s been waiting a long time to matter. The talent is coming, but the push looks delayed.

St. Louis Cardinals — B-Some needed corrections, but the roster seems to be searching for its next defining strength.

NL West

Arizona Diamondbacks — B+ Kept the pressure on the division and continued building a roster that can win in multiple ways.

Colorado Rockies — D+ A winter that doesn’t meaningfully change the outlook. Until the plan is clearer, the grade stays low.

Los Angeles Dodgers — A They did what the Dodgers do: add talent, add depth, and make it unfair—think impact additions in the Kyle Tucker + Edwin Díaz tier. The bar is a title—anything less will feel like a miss.

San Diego Padres — B A steadier, more practical offseason than some recent years. Still dangerous, still volatile, but trending more sustainable.

San Francisco Giants — B- Improved, but missing one true centerpiece move to shift the division hierarchy.

Final Tiers (Quick Summary)

A Tier (best overall winters): Dodgers, Tigers, CubsClear, high-impact upgrades that changed the shape of the roster—not just the headlines. They also sit near the top of most “most-improved”/projected value lists for a reason.

B Tier (strong, sensible, competitive): Phillies, Guardians, Rangers, D-backs, Astros, Padres, Orioles, Rays, Brewers, Yankees, BravesGood process and fit; fewer fireworks, but rosters that project to win.

C Tier (incomplete / unclear): Red Sox, Mariners, Mets, Nationals, Blue Jays, Twins, Reds, Cardinals, White Sox, Angels, Pirates, A’s, Marlins, GiantsSome helpful moves, but not enough to change the outlook—or the direction is still fuzzy.

D Tier (direction still missing): RockiesHard to see the path from “now” to “next.”

The Bottom Line

The best offseasons weren’t just about star power—they were about fit, depth, and clarity. The teams that knew exactly what they were and what they needed came out ahead. The teams that didn’t? They’re betting on luck, and luck is a terrible long-term strategy.