This one isn’t as simple as it initially appears.
Welcome to the ‘2024 Alternate Mets,’ a feature where we look at what could have been if the Mets had signed/acquired rumored players from the past offseason.
In the last week of 2023, reports were circulating that the Mets were interested in Gio Urshela, a veteran infielder who was entering his age 32 season, who logged time with the Yankees, Twins, Guardians, Blue Jays and Angels. At the time, it appeared that Urshela might have been considered for the starting third baseman job or, if the Mets decided to try one of their younger players, a utility infield position.
Urshela didn’t really blossom as a player in his first three years in the majors, only coming into his own on the Yankees, where he played for three seasons. His 2019 season was especially impressive, putting up a 133 OPS+ while playing in 132 games, hitting 21 home runs, and putting up 3.8 bWAR.
An average-ish third baseman, Urshela also logged innings at first, second, third, shortstop, and left field over his career, making him a valuable utility player with a little pop.
Urshela, instead of signing with the Mets, signed a one-year, $1.5 million contract with the Detroit Tigers. He was released by the Tigers on August 18th before being picked up by the Braves two days later.
Instead of signing Urshela, the Mets signed Joey Wendle to a one-year, $2 million contract. Wendle was a disaster for the Mets, appearing in 18 games, hitting .222/.243/.250, good for an OPS+ of 42. He didn’t look good defensively, making a game-losing error against the Cubs on April 29th, and was released less than a month later.
While Urshela was not a superstar with the Tigers, he was able to contribute to the team more than Wendle was for the Mets. In roughly five times as many games for the Tigers, Urshela hit .243/.286/.333 with five home runs and ten doubles.
If this was a simple ‘would the Mets have been better off with Urshela than Wendle’ question, the answer would very much be yes, without much discussion at all.
Urshela (2024): 461 PA, .250 BA, .286 OBP, .361 SLG, 82 OPS+, 0.6 bWAR
Wendle (2024): 37 PA, .222 BA, .243 OBP, .493 SLG, 42 OPS+, -0.1 bWAR
But there are two additional people that need to be considered: Mark Vientos and José Iglesias.
Vientos, as well all know, had an absolutely monster breakout season with the Mets, establishing himself as a key piece of their lineup in the future. If Urshela was on the Mets, even with his limited performance, the veteran might not have been as easily dismissed as Brett Baty was, which means that Vientos may not have had the chance to get as many innings at third base, and might not have led to his 3.1 bWAR season.
Similarly, if the Mets signed Urshela, Iglesias might not have played for the Mets at all in 2024. When Iglesias, who signed with little fanfare in December 2023, didn’t make the Opening Day roster, he met with Mets brass who assured him that he would be the first up when the Mets needed a middle infielder. If Urshela was on the roster, Iglesias might not have received that promise, or would’ve needed to wait longer to get that call, as Urshela could’ve easily shifted wherever he was needed on the infield to allow Baty and/or Vientos a shot.
Not only did Iglesias also have a three-win season (3.1 bWAR) for the Mets, but “O.M.G.” cannot be overstated in terms of its importance to the club from a chemistry/fun/momentum standpoint.
While one or both would’ve likely gotten some playing time, there’s a chance that if Urshela was a Met, the team could’ve lost 6.2 bWAR in the form of Vientos and Iglesias. Even if they lost half of that, they likely don’t make the playoffs. It is hard to imagine the 2024 Mets without Swaggy V or Candelita and frankly, I don’t want to. Plus, both players earned less than Wendle’s contract in 2024, and only slightly more than Urshela’s.
Vientos (2024): 454 PA, .266 BA, .322 OBP, .516 SLG, 137 OPS+, 3.1 bWAR ($740,000)
Igelsias (2024): 291 PA, .337 BA, .381 OBP, .448 SLG, 137 OPS+, 3.1 bWAR ($983,871)
Even in signing Wendle over Urshela, the Mets front office showed a lot of wisdom in the way they handled the situation with the players they did have under contract. The combination of promising Iglesias the first shot at the majors, the ease in which they cut bait with Wendle, and the confidence they showed in Vientos led to a bad signing leaving minimal damage. So even if Urshela would’ve been better than Wendle, almost no signing they could’ve made for a comparable player in 2023 could’ve worked out better than Wendle’s failure leading to Iglesias and Vientos.