Royce Lewis, Trevor Larnach, and the Two-Step Arbitration Shuffle

[Cody Christie]

Image courtesy of © Mitch Stringer-Imagn Images

The Minnesota Twins are entering another important offseason with plenty of questions surrounding the roster, but some of the first decisions will come down to simple arithmetic. MLB Trade Rumors recently released its annual arbitration projections, giving the public an early estimate of what arbitration-eligible players could earn for the upcoming season. Two names stand out for the Twins, not because of the projected salaries, but because of what those salaries could mean for the team's offseason plans.

Trevor Larnach is projected to earn $6.3 million in 2027. Royce Lewis is projected at $5.1 million. Neither number is outrageous. In fact, both could be reasonable salaries if the players perform at or near their previous levels. That's exactly what makes these decisions interesting. The Twins have to determine whether those players (at the projected salaries) represent useful assets, roster complications, or both.

Trevor Larnach

Larnach's projected $6.3-million salary feels relatively modest when compared to his potential production. FanGraphs valued Larnach at $17.9 million during the 2026 season, making the projected arbitration salary roughly one-third of the value he provided. That doesn't mean the Twins should automatically keep him, but it certainly gives the organization a reason to avoid giving away the asset simply because it doesn't have a perfect spot for him.

The bigger question is playing time. Larnach appeared in 122 games in 2026 and hit .269/.352/.436 with 13 home runs, 23 doubles and a 121 OPS+, while being shielded from facing left-handed pitchers. Those aren't numbers a team should casually remove from its lineup. But the Twins also have to figure out where Larnach fits. If the organization believes it can improve at first base, add another outfielder or give more opportunities to younger players, Larnach could become part of an increasingly crowded roster. His arbitration salary is affordable enough that Minnesota doesn't have to make a decision before the arbitration deadline.

Last offseason, the Twins offered Larnach arbitration with the hope that a trade would eventually materialize. It didn't. Instead, the team went into spring training with a player it had seemingly hoped to move. They also tried to move him at the trade deadline before Houston’s owner nixed the deal. The Twins don't want to repeat that cycle. They do, however, have value on their hands, and they need to decide on a way to optimize it.

Royce Lewis

Lewis presents a similar question, but with significantly more upside and considerably more uncertainty. His projected $5.1-million salary is higher than the $4.3-million value FanGraphs assigned to his 2026 season. On the surface, that isn't a great return. But looking only at 2026 would be a mistake. Lewis provided substantially more value from 2023 through 2025, and he continues to have upside, if he can put it all together. The problem is that the Twins have spent enough time dealing with injuries and inconsistency. His future role is no longer obvious.

That creates the potential for a very familiar offseason scenario. The Twins could offer him arbitration, because $5.1 million is a manageable number and because they believe there is a trade market for a talented player. However, if they try that, they might discover that moving him isn't as easy as anticipated.

Suddenly, Lewis is occupying a roster spot—and not just any roster spot. He could affect how the Twins approach first base. He could affect how they distribute playing time around the infield. He could influence whether the club believes it has room for another veteran bat.

This is where arbitration decisions become more complicated than simply asking whether a player is worth his projected salary. The question is whether the player is worth the opportunity cost attached to that salary and roster spot; Lewis probably isn't.

Holding an Asset

The Twins have used arbitration in this manner before. The basic strategy is understandable. Rather than non-tendering a player or allowing him to walk away for nothing, the team offers arbitration, retains the player's rights, and tries to find a trade that makes sense.

In theory, it gives the front office leverage. The player has value. The contract is known. Other teams have an opportunity to acquire him. Minnesota doesn't have to sell low simply because it's decided the player isn't part of its long-term plans.

The problem comes when the trade doesn't happen. One example is Kyle Farmer in 2024. The Twins had a veteran infielder under contract who could provide useful depth, but his presence also complicated the organization's efforts to create opportunities for younger players. Larnach became another example last offseason. Minnesota apparently saw enough value in retaining him to go through the arbitration process, but no trade that met the organization's expectations materialized. There's a roster inertia enforced by arbitration. The abstract fear of losing a player "for nothing" can lead a team to hold onto someone they should part with. Once a contract has been tendered, though, moving the player sometimes yields less value than expected—which can lead a club not to move said player at all, locking in a mediocre option.

For a team with a deep roster and limited payroll flexibility, that can become especially problematic. A $5-million or $6-million player isn't expensive in a vacuum, by baseball standards. But if that player prevents the organization from adding someone it believes is a better fit, the real cost is much higher. That's why the Lewis and Larnach decision could be particularly important. 

The Two-Step Shuffle

There's nothing wrong with offering arbitration to a player the Twins would prefer to trade. In fact, it can be smart roster management. The mistake would be assuming that the trade will eventually happen. The Twins need to enter the offseason with clear priorities. If Lewis is part of those plans, keep him and build around him. If Larnach is part of those plans, give him a defined role. If either player is viewed primarily as a trade asset, though, the Twins need to understand what happens if the market doesn't cooperate.

That final question is perhaps the most important. The Twins can't afford to make an arbitration decision in November and then make their roster decisions in February, as though the first decision never happened.

Both Larnach and Lewis have enough talent to be useful pieces of a competitive team. Their projected salaries make them relatively affordable. But affordable players can still create expensive roster decisions. The two-step shuffle only works if the Twins know where they want to end up.

---

Will both Lewis and Larnach be on the 2026 Twins? Does their relatively low arbitration estimate change the team’s view of the players? Leave a comment and start the discussion.

View full article

[Jeff K]

I feel like the Twins inability to Trade Larnach at the deadline is either a result of asking too much, or other teams not wanting a part time DH.  I would let him go.  Lewis is a tougher decision because the Twins don't currently have a great solution for first base.  As many have previously noted, Clemens is best suited for multiple positions vs. anchoring him at first base.  The Twins need to solve first base long term and Lewis does not appear to be that guy.  They should try to make a trade that yields a solid and controllable first baseman...not named Royce Lewis.

[Coach JT]

I think the Twins need to move on from both players, I don ´ t think either one will get anything back in return. Time to go young.

[Whitey333]

I agree they should moves on from Larnach and Lewis.  I like Larnach much more than Lewis.  But non- tendering and /or releasing them and getting nothing in return sure seems wasteful.  It also shows very poor roster management.  It looks like we will already lose Jeffers for nothing.   Oh that's right we may get an extra draft pick.  Big deal.  Not much of a return for an all star catcher.  They should have traded a couple of these guys the past few years to get something.  Trading a part time player like a relatively healthy Larnach and yet keeping Buxton who is also part time due to his long list of stays on IL  is foolish.  The roster management on this team is very poor.

[ziggy]

If I were making the decision I would offer them both arbitration, for a slightly lower amount. If the Twins want to retain the player then it does not matter who wins, you pay the man. If the Twins want to trade the player it gives you a 3 month window to do so and if the player wins arbitration and the Twins' intention is to move on they are not obligated to sign him and they simply release the man.

But what do I know, I was surprised they offered Larnauch arbitration last year and kept him on the roster for the whole season.

[mluebker]

28 minutes ago, Jeff K said:

Lewis is a tougher decision because the Twins don't currently have a great solution for first base. 

Keaschall at first. If he’s going to have to learn a position to keep his bat in the lineup, it might as well be there. And I don’t buy the whole “a first baseman must be a power hitter” line of thinking. He’s a solid hitter who creates excitement on the basepaths, two things Lewis has demonstrated he isn’t.

As for Lewis’s hypothetical upside, how many years are we going to talk about that before acknowledging that he’s showed us who he is already? If they can’t trade him, DFA him and let both him and the Twins move on.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

Both of these players need to go for different reasons.  Larnach had a solid season, but rolling the dice with the raft of outfielders the Twins possess has much more upside and has the potential to be much more helpful long term.  Lewis on the other hand has been pretty much a mess for too long to consider him a solution at first base or anywhere else.  
 

Trade value for each is very limited. If I were the Twins, I would start speed dialing around the league to see what could be out there.  If nobody bites, it’s non tender time.  It may seem like giving them away for nothing, but if we can get better players in their (former) roles, the team is better for it.  

[Linus]

To me, money is not the issue. Neither arbitration amount is that onerous. The question is - do you want the player?  I would probably bring Lewis back but only with the caveat that he earns playing time and might end up as a utility player. Larnach shouldn’t play in the field but I want to shoot higher if I’m going to have a full time DH. It’s complicated by the fact that EmRod has a substantial chance of being a bust and has no options. If he thrives we have no use for Larnach; if he busts Larnachs OPS+ of 121 looks pretty good as a safety net. 

[killercarewoliva]

1 hour ago, Whitey333 said:

I agree they should moves on from Larnach and Lewis.  I like Larnach much more than Lewis.  But non- tendering and /or releasing them and getting nothing in return sure seems wasteful.  It also shows very poor roster management.  It looks like we will already lose Jeffers for nothing.   Oh that's right we may get an extra draft pick.  Big deal.  Not much of a return for an all star catcher.  They should have traded a couple of these guys the past few years to get something.  Trading a part time player like a relatively healthy Larnach and yet keeping Buxton who is also part time due to his long list of stays on IL  is foolish.  The roster management on this team is very poor.

The person writing this. it's the choice we have now and for a number of decades. it's not the original choice. once you drafted your players, they are with you until you release them or trade them. you didn't have to worry about getting nothing for Jeffers with a draft pick, but that draft pick thing might not be there much longer either. The one that started this as far as signing somebody he didn't start free agency was the dastardly George steinbrunner. before free agency. Jim Hunter was the Oakland A's player. suddenly he's in New York playing for $350,000. New York was the kingpin of signing free agents and this was the beginning of not fair play in baseball because some teams have more money than others. no salary, cap and salary. caps and football can give you enormous incomes and to the high millions of dollars like $70 million to play 20 football games. what kind of salary cap is that? but in baseball for me, the players are being tested. if they can't play with a salary cap to hell with it. you want to have a larger percentage of the population being able to entertain themselves at a baseball game. and the talk of money not that much. just $5 million. what okay yes again who do you know that makes $5 million anybody that writes that that it's not much. it's relative of course to the business. meaning major sports is out of hand drastically and the people are willing to pay. I'm not not going to and of course like I've been told that's my choice so the person who it is his choice. they're not worth that much money if you're buying a close to the field seat. let's thank Mr. George steinbrunner for starting it and he himself said this will ruin the game, but he didn't realize that the fans don't care how the players got to the field in their City. if you drafted them or traded for them. wonderful, but if you went out and bought them instead, not using your noggin that's okay too. it's like legal stealing and I don't like it. All right tearing to me all you younger people so.

[MapleGroveTwinsFan]

50 minutes ago, Linus said:

To me, money is not the issue. Neither arbitration amount is that onerous. The question is - do you want the player?  I would probably bring Lewis back but only with the caveat that he earns playing time and might end up as a utility player. Larnach shouldn’t play in the field but I want to shoot higher if I’m going to have a full time DH. It’s complicated by the fact that EmRod has a substantial chance of being a bust and has no options. If he thrives we have no use for Larnach; if he busts Larnachs OPS+ of 121 looks pretty good as a safety net. 

I agree that the money isn't a issue, it is about roster construction, bringing them back and playing them is just the same thing as the last few years. Larnach would be a great fit for a team that needs a platoon player for left, right and DH. (Not something the Twins currently need). Lewis is fine back up infield utility guy (3B, 2B, 1B) but not a guy that has proven to be a starter. Having either on the team would seem to limit Keaschall's playing time, not something I want to see happen. 

[killercarewoliva]

4 minutes ago, killercarewoliva said:

The person writing this. it's the choice we have now and for a number of decades. it's not the original choice. once you drafted your players, they are with you until you release them or trade them. you didn't have to worry about getting nothing for Jeffers with a draft pick, but that draft pick thing might not be there much longer either. The one that started this as far as signing somebody he didn't start free agency was the dastardly George steinbrunner. before free agency. Jim Hunter was the Oakland A's player. suddenly he's in New York playing for $350,000. New York was the kingpin of signing free agents and this was the beginning of not fair play in baseball because some teams have more money than others. no salary, cap and salary. caps and football can give you enormous incomes and to the high millions of dollars like $70 million to play 20 football games. what kind of salary cap is that? but in baseball for me, the players are being tested. if they can't play with a salary cap to hell with it. you want to have a larger percentage of the population being able to entertain themselves at a baseball game. and the talk of money not that much. just $5 million. what okay yes again who do you know that makes $5 million anybody that writes that that it's not much. it's relative of course to the business. meaning major sports is out of hand drastically and the people are willing to pay. I'm not not going to and of course like I've been told that's my choice so the person who it is his choice. they're not worth that much money if you're buying a close to the field seat. let's thank Mr. George steinbrunner for starting it and he himself said this will ruin the game, but he didn't realize that the fans don't care how the players got to the field in their City. if you drafted them or traded for them. wonderful, but if you went out and bought them instead, not using your noggin that's okay too. it's like legal stealing and I don't like it. All right tearing to me all you younger people so.

I think last time the players wanted to move the 6-year thing to 3 years with the club that drafted you and his response was highly correct. that would kill any chance of a low-market team ever to be a winning team. unless you are Tampa maybe they could. what that says to me the players generally don't have a home team persona. loyalty well if you're Joe mauer that's loyalty and he's not the only one but most of them just aren't

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, ziggy said:

If I were making the decision I would offer them both arbitration, for a slightly lower amount. If the Twins want to retain the player then it does not matter who wins, you pay the man. If the Twins want to trade the player it gives you a 3 month window to do so and if the player wins arbitration and the Twins' intention is to move on they are not obligated to sign him and they simply release the man.

But what do I know, I was surprised they offered Larnauch arbitration last year and kept him on the roster for the whole season.

If the player wins, they are obligated to sign him. They aren't obligated to keep him. But they still have to pay them. Losing arbitration and then just releasing the player is awful roster management. You're suggesting dropping 12+ million for absolutely nothing.

[Whammy]

1 hour ago, mluebker said:

Keaschall at first. If he’s going to have to learn a position to keep his bat in the lineup, it might as well be there. And I don’t buy the whole “a first baseman must be a power hitter” line of thinking. He’s a solid hitter who creates excitement on the basepaths, two things Lewis has demonstrated he isn’t.

As for Lewis’s hypothetical upside, how many years are we going to talk about that before acknowledging that he’s showed us who he is already? If they can’t trade him, DFA him and let both him and the Twins move on.

Two things. 

First, I hate Keaschall at 1B. I think he'd be terrible there. 

Second, I totally agree that the "first baseman must be a power hitter" is an outdated concept. And I think the Twins have shown over the last 5 years that they agree. They'd much rather move an infielder to 1B and have above average defense from them instead of moving a lumbering corner OF to 1B and hope he survives. They view 1B as an infielder that needs infielder skills. Not a place to dump and guy who's not fast enough to cover ground in the OF.

I think it's time to move on from Lewis, but I do think with another year at 1B he could be an elite defender there. I just don't view Keaschall as having infielder skills and instincts and I think putting him at 1B would be a mistake. He was statistically a neutral defender in RF by the end of the year. With some reps I think he'll be totally fine in a corner OF spot. 

 

[Jeff K]

1 hour ago, mluebker said:

Keaschall at first. If he’s going to have to learn a position to keep his bat in the lineup, it might as well be there. And I don’t buy the whole “a first baseman must be a power hitter” line of thinking. He’s a solid hitter who creates excitement on the basepaths, two things Lewis has demonstrated he isn’t.

As for Lewis’s hypothetical upside, how many years are we going to talk about that before acknowledging that he’s showed us who he is already? If they can’t trade him, DFA him and let both him and the Twins move on.

Keaschall could be a good choice for first.  That said, I am still betting on his athleticism making him a solid outfielder with more experience.  I am not a Lewis supporter and am ready for the Twins to move on, but they need a solution at first base before doing so.  It's not Sabato.