If you're a Mets fan scanning the shortstop depth chart and not exactly thrilled by the names Grae Kessinger or Jackson Cluff, you're not alone. With Francisco Lindor’s Opening Day status still uncertain, the conversation has naturally drifted to a familiar face: Jose Iglesias. And while the idea of bringing him back might tug at the heartstrings, the question is whether it makes any baseball sense for a team trying to turn the page.
Let’s start with the obvious-Lindor is the guy. If he’s healthy, he’s starting.
But with lingering doubts about his readiness for the start of the 2026 season, the Mets are staring down the possibility of needing a short-term fill-in. That’s where things get tricky.
The front office has shown no signs of panic. This isn’t a team that makes emotional moves to satisfy fan nostalgia, especially when it comes to temporary depth pieces.
But that hasn’t stopped fans from floating Iglesias’ name like it’s 2024 all over again. The veteran shortstop is still sitting in free agency, and on paper, he checks a few boxes: experienced, familiar with the clubhouse, and capable of handling the position defensively.
But here’s the rub-2024 might’ve been a one-off. Iglesias hit just .229 last season with the Padres, and his underlying metrics weren’t exactly flattering.
His Baseball Savant page was a sea of blue, indicating a sharp decline in offensive production. He did manage a respectable 3 Outs Above Average at shortstop, so the glove still plays.
But if Lindor’s absence is only going to last a couple of weeks-as is currently expected-does it make sense to bring in a player who’s likely to be cut the moment your star returns?
That’s the central dilemma. Signing Iglesias might feel like a safe move, but it also locks the Mets into a roster decision that has a very short shelf life.
He’s not a bench bat. He’s not a utility guy.
And the rest of the infield is set with everyday players. Once Lindor is back, there’s no clear role for Iglesias, which makes the idea more of a temporary emotional boost than a long-term solution.
There are other internal options, too. Vidal Brujan, for example, might not have the same name recognition, but he offers more flexibility and could fill in without disrupting the roster’s future balance.
The Mets have made a concerted effort this offseason to reset the tone in the clubhouse-bringing in players with strong reputations and moving on from those who didn’t quite fit the new direction. That doesn’t mean they’re unwilling to look backward, but they’re doing so with a clear eye on fit and function.
Reuniting with Iglesias would be a feel-good move, no doubt. It would check the nostalgia box and probably earn some early-season goodwill. But like a bouquet of Valentine’s Day roses, it’s a gesture that looks great in the moment-and wilts just as fast.
Baseball has a way of pulling at the heart, but the Mets are trying to build something sustainable. And as much as fans might want one more run with a familiar face, the smarter play might be sticking to the plan and trusting that Lindor won’t be out long enough to justify a move that feels more romantic than rational.