MLB’s Latest CBA Proposal Could Dramatically Change Free Agency

[Matthew Nethercott]

Image courtesy of Mike Watters-Imagn Images

MLB owners have submitted yet another proposal to the players' association for new terms in the upcoming CBA negotiations, one that the owners believe is in the best interest of baseball fans. The MLBPA rejected the proposal, but some of the clauses could come up later in negotiations and perhaps be rules in the future. 

Changes to Rosters & Injured Lists

The owners suggest that each team submit a 26-man roster every Monday, one that lasts throughout the week for fans to be more connected to the players they are rooting for. The only exception the owners suggest is for injuries to players, trades, and waiver claims. 

The proposal also suggests changes to the MLB injured list that require hitters to be on the IL for one week and pitchers to be on the IL for a minimum of two weeks, and the 60-day IL would be changed to the 12-week IL. This would be beneficial to both teams for more clarity on predicting IL timelines and fans for the same reason.

Changes to the Rule 5 Draft

The latest proposals also suggest that minor league player eligibility for the Rule 5 Draft be moved up one year and that players selected in the draft could be optioned to the minor leagues. This would present pathways for prospects other organizations see something in but might not fit on their major league roster right away, especially relievers. 

An Offseason Calendar

Something that has been proposed in the past comes up once again. The proposal suggests an offseason calendar that would consist of a "quiet period" from the World Series to the beginning of the winter meetings, during which teams would be allowed to sign only their own free agents or make trades with other teams. Under this model, free agency would open at midnight on the Monday of the winter meetings and conclude on December 21st, giving way to a full frozen period until the first Monday of February.

This could be engaging for fans because, like other sports, it would create an absolute frenzy around offseason action. The players have rejected this in the past because it takes leverage away from them in contract negotiations.

The MLBPA's Rejection

In a (not-so) shocking development, the MLBPA rejected the proposal from the owners, citing that "MLB expressly conditioned these proposals on the players’ agreement to a salary cap system, which would drastically reduce overall player compensation, eliminate fully guaranteed contracts through escrow, and turn back the clock on fundamental player rights. " 

While an offseason calendar and amending the Rule 5 draft would certainly look better framed by the already proposed and rejected salary cap, they could still be accepted without a salary cap, though it does not seem likely. The most likely of the clauses to be accepted would be the changes to the injured list, but that remains to be seen.

Statement from Interim Executive Director Bruce Meyer pic.twitter.com/iOMoCZmROY

— MLBPA (@MLBPA) August 27, 2026

 

View full article

[TopGunn22]

It seems the Players are ALWAYS going to reject a Salary Cap system no matter what the owners suggest. So when could actual progress be made? 

I suggest that the owners propose increasing the major league roster by two players, thus creating 60 NEW Major League Baseball players. 60 more JOBS than existed in 2026.  Rather than shuttling minor league pitchers and their families back and forth from their minor league home to a major league home ad nauseum, provide some stability for the families as well as the major league roster.  Extend the 13 Pitcher limit to 15 and with 13 position players-a total of 28 players on a roster.  Increase the Major League Minimum salary as well as the AAA minimum salary. 

There would probably need to be a lot more discussed obviously, but there will be absolutely ZERO progress if the Players are unwilling to consider anything that puts a Salary Cap and Floor in place.  We've been fighting various iterations of this same battle since 1972.  The Players Union isn't serving the Players fully if the only possible outcome of a Cap and Floor proposal, no matter what else is offered, is immediate and total rejection.

Leadership for the Players Union should be putting together a wish list of all the things they would love to have...and be ready to leverage it in negotiations.  Does the Players Union represent ALL the players...or just the top 5%??  

[Brock Beauchamp]

36 minutes ago, TopGunn22 said:

It seems the Players are ALWAYS going to reject a Salary Cap system no matter what the owners suggest. So when could actual progress be made? 

I suggest that the owners propose increasing the major league roster by two players, thus creating 60 NEW Major League Baseball players. 60 more JOBS than existed in 2026.  Rather than shuttling minor league pitchers and their families back and forth from their minor league home to a major league home ad nauseum, provide some stability for the families as well as the major league roster.  Extend the 13 Pitcher limit to 15 and with 13 position players-a total of 28 players on a roster.  Increase the Major League Minimum salary as well as the AAA minimum salary. 

There would probably need to be a lot more discussed obviously, but there will be absolutely ZERO progress if the Players are unwilling to consider anything that puts a Salary Cap and Floor in place.  We've been fighting various iterations of this same battle since 1972.  The Players Union isn't serving the Players fully if the only possible outcome of a Cap and Floor proposal, no matter what else is offered, is immediate and total rejection.

Leadership for the Players Union should be putting together a wish list of all the things they would love to have...and be ready to leverage it in negotiations.  Does the Players Union represent ALL the players...or just the top 5%??  

I believe that players should be *very* resistant to a salary cap, but they shouldn't reject all offers outright. The sport would be better with a floor, and could be better with a cap if done correctly.

The other side of that coin is that the owners need to stop making asinine proposals that are more propaganda than realistic.