Twins' drastic 2026 payroll drop reignites dreaded salary floor debate

In a recent post on X, The Athletic senior writer Aaron Gleeman framed Minnesota's current payroll situation with three simple numbers:

Ouch. These numbers are not gentle. In fact, it stung to read them the first time - even while fully aware of the consistent payroll frustrations we endure in Twins Territory. After last season's fire sale at the trade deadline, a payroll dip was to be expected. The scale of the drop, however, is what stands out.

The Twins still have their core of Byron Buxton, Joe Ryan, and Pablo Lopez, alongside a wave of young, inexpensive talent. That affordability should naturally create the expectation of reinforcement - extending foundational players, adding some impact pieces, and adding good depth options to guard against the inevitable injury. Instead, over the last few seasons, Twins fans have watched as overall spending continues to decline, and the downward trend has become difficult to ignore. Enter the debate about a salary floor for Major League Baseball.

The Twins’ payroll drop rekindles salary floor debate

MLB currently operates without a minimum payroll requirement. Yes, revenue sharing exists, and the luxury tax penalizes the highest spenders, but there is no official rule requiring every club to invest above a defined baseline. Other major sports leagues in the United States approach this issue differently.

The National Football League requires teams to spend at least 89 percent of their salary cap space within a rolling four-year window. This practice is intended to prevent extended periods of underinvestment by NFL owners. Teams can't simply bank their shared revenue while operating below league spending norms for long stretches. This has resulted in a relatively consistent turnover among NFL contenders - precisely what MLB could use.

The National Hockey League also operates with both a salary cap and a salary floor tied to league revenue. Since adopting that structure, competitive balance has improved, and prolonged low-spending strategies have largely disappeared. The floor does not guarantee success, but it ensures a baseline level of financial commitment.

There is, however, a critical distinction we need to keep in mind when discussing adding a salary floor to MLB. Both the NFL and the NHL pair their floor with a hard cap. A floor without a cap in MLB would not automatically create equilibrium. In fact, I'd argue it wouldn't fix anything. If low-spending teams were pushed upward while high-revenue teams continued escalating payroll without restriction, the gap at the top could widen even as the bottom rises. Still, the principle remains: a floor creates more accountability.

Right now, Minnesota sits $70 million below league average payroll. That does not eliminate the possibility of contention in the American League Central. It does not mean the front office lacks a coherent plan. As we know, payroll alone does not dictate outcomes, but it does influence expectations. When a team consistently operates well below the sport's financial midpoint, fans will inevitably question whether the owners are even trying to remain relevant. This impression matters. The issue is not merely losing bidding wars to larger markets - fanbases similar to the Twins are used to this - but it raises the further issue as to whether teams must be required to operate above a financial threshold. A payroll floor could help keep teams accountable for at least attempting to put a good product on the field. But, as mentioned above, without a top-end cap, the same criticism of low spenders like the Pohlads will still exist. On the other hand, a minimum could entice the Twins' owners to sell to someone who actually wants to invest in the team...there is a thought!

Obviously, a salary floor won't eliminate poor contracts or guarantee postseason success. It would, however, ensure that shared revenue cycles back into player payroll at a predictable level. For markets like Minnesota - not clearly rebuilding, not fully bottoming out, but undeniably operating below league average - that guarantee would shift the conversation. The Twins can technically compete as currently constructed, sure, but the larger question is whether Major League Baseball should require every club to compete from a minimum financial baseline and not allow seemingly cheap, uninvested owners to cheat their fans out of a decent on-field product.

At the end of the day, most baseball fans are not asking their team to outspend New York or Los Angeles. We understand market realities. We understand that efficiency matters. It is a business, after all. What we want is a genuine commitment to fielding a competitive, watchable team - year in and year out.

We love the game. We show up. We invest emotionally. We follow prospects, box scores, bullpen usage, and midseason trends. We debate trade targets. We write articles exploring ideas like a salary floor - something I never gave much thought to until this year. We love our sport and our team - we don't need the biggest payroll in the sport. But for the health of the fan base, and for the integrity of the game as a whole, we need to believe ownership is committed to more than simply getting by because, right now, that is exactly what it looks like in Twins Territory.

To be clear, I’m not even sure a salary floor is the right answer. Baseball’s economic structure is complicated, and there are real complications to pairing a floor without a cap. But what feels increasingly clear is that the status quo isn’t working for markets like Minnesota.

So, the question remains: When certain clubs won’t reinvest - and won’t listen to the fans asking them to - does MLB have a responsibility to require it?

What do you think, Twins Territory?