The pros and cons of signing Lane Thomas

This week, the Kansas City Royals signed outfielder Lane Thomas to a one-year, $5.25 million contract. Thomas joins the Royals after spending the last year and a half with the Cleveland Guardians. The Royals are hoping the right-handed hitting outfielder who hit 28 home runs in a season as recently as 2023, can bounce back after an injury-riddled year in 2025.

The voices in my head have been going back and forth about this move. Initially, I hated it. The more I thought about it, the more I hated it. Then I thought about it more, and I didn’t hate it so much.

It’s a weird time inside my head, so I decided to let Pro and Con duke it out on here to help me determine my final, true feelings about the deal. Let’s check in. I’ll give Pro the floor first.

Pro: The Royals desperately needed to upgrade their outfield going into—

Con: You call Lane Thomas an upgrade? The guy who slashed .160/.246/.272 last year?

Pro: Well, you’re leaving out some key parts, mainly that he was hurt most of last year and appeared in only 39 games.

Con: Great, so he’s now 30 years old, and he’s been battling injuries. Sounds like a solid signing.

Pro: The deal isn’t onerous at all. It’s only for one year, and it’s pretty cheap.

Con: It might be cheap, but when you look at it with the rest of this team’s contracts and you start to see some pretty questionable deals. Just over $5 million for Thomas, $8 million for Jonathan India, and then—what?—$12.5 million for a 36-year-old catcher?

Pro: Salvador Perez is the face of the franchise, and you’re talking $25.5 million, or so, for three bats. That’s not a bad way to spread around funds instead of paying all of that—and more—for a first baseman/designated hitter.

Con: I assume you’re talking about Kyle Schwarber and Pete Alonso, and I agree with you on that much, at least. It would have been foolhardy for a team with numerous first-base-designated-hitter types to after another and pay at least $30 million for it. But this money could have been used differently. And by “differently” I mean better.

Pro: Alright, but if not Lane Thomas, then who? That’s always something that gets overlooked. If not this player, then what player? The free-agent market is thin, and there aren’t exactly a lot of players out there who would move the needle for any team, let alone the Royals. And Thomas only signed for one year. If it goes poorly, it’s off the books this time next year.

Con: I’ll go in reverse of your statements you just made and state that I find your argument of “it’s only for one year, so what’s the harm?” ludicrous. The harm is that this is another of the guaranteed years in which the Royals have Bobby Witt Jr. under club control. Taking a flier on a guy who posted -0.6 bWAR in only 39 games doesn’t seem like the best way to spend one of those years.

Pro: He could return to his 2023 form.

Con: Sure, he could. And while he played well that year, it was his career year, and now he’s older and less healthy. Plus, he still struck out a ton in 2023—176 times, to be exact—while posting a poor on-base percentage. He’s really only hit for the Nationals as he didn’t do much for the Cardinals and stunk up Cleveland.

Pro: Guys have returned to form before.

Con: And even more haven’t.

Pro: But if not him, then who? The Royals couldn’t have just run this back with the same offensive group. They needed to add someone.

Con: So you’re saying just sign whoever takes your money?

Pro: Not at all. I’m saying it’s a relatively cheap, low-risk deal for the Royals. And you’re avoiding the question I’ve asked numerous times: if not Lane Thomas, then who?

Con: Kyle Tucker.

Pro: Be realistic.

Con: Why not Kyle Tucker?

Pro: He could get over $400 million on his next deal! That’s why! Come one, you know the Royals would never be in on a guy like that.

Con: Okay, then Bo Bichette.

Pro: While that’s more realistic, with the India re-signing, it’s hard for me to think they would make that deal.

Con: That’s a terrible thought process. Move India to the outfield. Or, better yet, the bench.

Pro: Might not be a great way to think, but for a small-market team like the Royals, it’s the truth. Focus on the outfield. A real outfielder, not sticking someone like India out there again. Forget about Marcell Ozuna, forget about Kyle Tucker, and probably forget about Cody Bellinger.

Con: They should’ve brought back Mike Yastrzemski.

Pro: I would’ve loved that, but he got too many years for being as old as he is.

Con: I’m hesitant to say Harrison Bader because I feel like last year was a blip. If he would take a shorter deal, then I’d jump on that. Otherwise, JJ Bleday.

Pro: Bader’s going to want multiple years, and Bleday’s production fell off a cliff last season. Plus, signing Thomas does not prevent the Royals from signing another outfielder. Either one of those guys, or someone else, could still put ink to paper to play in Kansas City next season.

Con: It just feels so underwhelming that the Royals’ one move at the Winter Meetings was signing a dude who slugged under .250 last year.

Pro: A lot of teams didn’t make any moves.

Con: I’m not sure making a move just to make a move makes the move the right move.

Pro: It may not work out, but at least it’s something.

Con: Yeah, I guess you’re right, as least J.J. Picollo did, you know, his job. What a victory.

Pro: You’re impossible.

Con: Welcome to my world.

Me: So, what’s the conclusion here?

Pro: I have no idea.

Con: Same. Could go either way.

Me: Well, thanks for clearing that up.