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.

[NYCTK]

2 hours 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? 

If one side of a negotiation is adamant that there is one very specific poison pill that they refuse to accept, then any proposal including that poison pill is by definition in bad faith. 

[bean5302]

45 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

If one side of a negotiation is adamant that there is one very specific poison pill that they refuse to accept, then any proposal including that poison pill is by definition in bad faith. 

MLBPA "an price you ask over $10 is absolutely unacceptable for this brand new car."
Car salesman " I need $40,000 for this car, bare minimum"

The car salesman isn't negotiating in bad faith, MLBPA is negotiating in bad faith by not negotiating at all.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Just now, bean5302 said:

MLBPA "an price you ask over $10 is absolutely unacceptable for this brand new car."
Car salesman " I need $40,000 for this car, bare minimum"

The car salesman isn't negotiating in bad faith, MLBPA is negotiating in bad faith by not negotiating at all.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. The MLBPA won’t budge on a cap but the owners haven’t come anywhere near a realistic offer yet, either. 

[bean5302]

2 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

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.

I have no idea what would qualify as "realistic" for you. Nothing owners want and more money to players, perhaps?

I think the owners' proposals have already been realistic. MLBPA is just going to lock this out. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Just now, bean5302 said:

I have no idea what would qualify as "realistic" for you. Nothing owners want and more money to players, perhaps?

I think the owners' proposals have already been realistic. MLBPA is just going to lock this out. 

The owners’ offers have not been realistic. The way they’re calculating “revenue” is laughable and far short of their actual revenue. 

[NYCTK]

2 hours ago, bean5302 said:

MLBPA "an price you ask over $10 is absolutely unacceptable for this brand new car."
Car salesman " I need $40,000 for this car, bare minimum"

The car salesman isn't negotiating in bad faith, MLBPA is negotiating in bad faith by not negotiating at all.

We saw a long drawn out dispute 30 years ago, and the players held strong, and were right to do so. They will continue to do so now that the league is in an even healthier position. Why the owners think the players should budge now is beyond me. 

There's literally no reason for the players union to accept a salary cap, and the owners keep insisting on one is nothing but bad faith negotiation. 

[NYCTK]

2 hours ago, bean5302 said:

I have no idea what would qualify as "realistic" for you. Nothing owners want and more money to players, perhaps?

I think the owners' proposals have already been realistic. MLBPA is just going to lock this out. 

You don't seem to understand the proposals then. 

What have the players gained in the owners proposals that is commensurate with their forfeiting the salary cap bargaining chip? Something they canceled a World Series to preserve, and something there is no actual need for? 

[Michael Trzinski]

Here's a couple:

• Limit player contracts to three years
• No deferred money--salaries must be completely paid during length of contract

The three-year term means that teams won't get burnt as badly by injuries, age, or underperformance. From the player's view, they get an opportunity to go elsewhere more frequently (if they wish) and don't get 'stuck' in a long-term deal that could go sour between player and management or player vs. city (Looking at you, New York).

'Payment in full' makes the team's accounting much cleaner and since what was formerly deferred money goes into the short-term deal, players get paid 'now.'

Tell me why a player that has a $100 million contract needs deferred money, other than for tax reasons perhaps. But that amount is 'couch cushion' money for these guys. And the guys that have smaller dollar contracts won't get deferred money, anyway.

Want to learn more about the 'real history' of baseball? Read Lords of the Realm by John Helyar. This well-written tome is super informative and shows both sides of the player/management dynamic.

The public flaying of my opinion begins...now.

 

[TNtwins85]

21 hours 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%??  

A salary cap also caps the bottom 95% in your scenario as well. It’s just not as direct as the top 5%. In all actuality a cap hurts the game and does not help fans or teams to gain a competitive balance as it’s intended. A floor/cap system is all about money. Not competitive balance as it’s propagandized to. If baseball truly cared about competitive balance in regards to fans and the game itself it would go about this in a totally different way. Young talent is the top commodity of the game. Incentivize that and you grow the game by leaps and bounds rather than a cap( more money in the owners pockets) or a floor( more money in the players pockets). Force teams that receive shared revenue to allocate a certain amount of that money to drafting, scouting and player development. Institute an international draft. Base the amateur player draft order based on not only record but on market size, team revenue and add penalties to teams that spent less on drafting, scouting and development and reward teams that spent more on those things incentivizing teams to develop and find young talent. There’s more things that could be tweaked to make that better but simply focusing on a cap/floor to improve the game and create parity maybe does it through rose colored glasses but really doesn’t accomplish that as it’s just the path of least resistance based on money for owners and players. Just like any corporate endeavor it’s based on pure money and not pure logic.

[TNtwins85]

16 hours ago, NYCTK said:

You don't seem to understand the proposals then. 

What have the players gained in the owners proposals that is commensurate with their forfeiting the salary cap bargaining chip? Something they canceled a World Series to preserve, and something there is no actual need for? 

Exactly, this whole thing around a cap has been portrayed as the fix all simply because that’s what the other leagues have done. Is there anything in the world simply fixed by one idea. One will never know because the other ways to fix something were never done so you will never know. This is baseballs chance to get it right for the game, the fans, and the players. Sadly because the way this negotiation has been staged for years and propagandized it won’t accomplish a lasting solution that’s better for the fans and young players in the game. It will instead focus purely on money in owners and top players hands. Old owners and old players when the game should be driven by young fans and young exciting players. If a cap/floor system is adopted do the ticket and concession prices go down making it more affordable to put young eyes on the game? Does it help a young player get better faster to help his team? Does it help an overlooked player get better to realize his dream? Does it help a bad team find and develop more talent to turn things around? The answer sadly is no. It sounds good as a facade which is why people parrot it as a solution cause that’s what they’ve been fed. It does not fix anything in a meaningful,  creative and thoughtful way though.

[NYCTK]

2 hours ago, Michael Trzinski said:

Tell me why a player that has a $100 million contract needs deferred money, other than for tax reasons perhaps. But that amount is 'couch cushion' money for these guys. And the guys that have smaller dollar contracts won't get deferred money, anyway.

I think, from a baseball standpoint, the salary deferral are a complete non issue. A lot of fans upset about them don't understand them. Ohtani, although he's getting paid $2 million, is for the purposes of payroll getting paid $46 million. 

However you make a great point. It's all about salary tax for the players. If he's getting that money when he's retired and residing in Florida or whatever tax haven, California is losing out on that tax revenue. I'd be fine buttoning it up for that reason. 

As for a max three year deal, that's such a ridiculous anti-player proposal I have to assume you're an owner. Except even the owners themselves aren't that anti-player. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

28 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

However you make a great point. It's all about salary tax for the players. If he's getting that money when he's retired and residing in Florida or whatever tax haven, California is losing out on that tax revenue. I'd be fine buttoning it up for that reason. 

It's worse than that. He could take the money to Japan, which is 100% the reason I'm against deferred money. If you earn your money in a specific place and enjoy the fruits of that area with its fanbase and economic opportunity, you pay taxes in that place. Full stop.

[Michael Trzinski]

39 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

I think, from a baseball standpoint, the salary deferral are a complete non issue. A lot of fans upset about them don't understand them. Ohtani, although he's getting paid $2 million, is for the purposes of payroll getting paid $46 million. 

However you make a great point. It's all about salary tax for the players. If he's getting that money when he's retired and residing in Florida or whatever tax haven, California is losing out on that tax revenue. I'd be fine buttoning it up for that reason. 

As for a max three year deal, that's such a ridiculous anti-player proposal I have to assume you're an owner. Except even the owners themselves aren't that anti-player. 

I didn't expect that any of these would be discussed during these talks. These are MY suggestions. 

A three-year deal is a win for the owners for sure, but what happens when the player has a MONSTER season in Year 3 but is stuck for three more years of $30M per? A new contract could be worth far more. But only if he is free to deal...

I'm not an owner, I am a freelance writer. Check my work here: https://sabr.org/authors/michael-trzinski/.

🙂

[TNtwins85]

5 hours ago, Michael Trzinski said:

I didn't expect that any of these would be discussed during these talks. These are MY suggestions. 

A three-year deal is a win for the owners for sure, but what happens when the player has a MONSTER season in Year 3 but is stuck for three more years of $30M per? A new contract could be worth far more. But only if he is free to deal...

I'm not an owner, I am a freelance writer. Check my work here: https://sabr.org/authors/michael-trzinski/.

🙂

Three year deals aren’t endearing to fans though. Fans want to see their favorite players with their favorite teams. Not continually jumping to better deals or to go win a championship on some super team. That’s why I stopped watching all the other major sports decades ago. What makes fans love guys like Jeter or Mauer? Or Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant. The fact that they don’t jump ship and are faces of a franchise. I don’t think the long contracts are bad for the game. I do think deferments are. A player should be paid to play baseball. It also caters to big market teams as the brewers can’t afford to pay a guy into his 60’s. It would make more sense to ban deferments than to implement a cap/floor system as far as improving parity in the game. But that’s not what they’re trying to accomplish as I stated in other comments on this thread.

[Michael Trzinski]

14 hours ago, TNtwins85 said:

Three year deals aren’t endearing to fans though. Fans want to see their favorite players with their favorite teams. Not continually jumping to better deals or to go win a championship on some super team. 

I do agree with that, to a point. But are fans really Derek Jeter fans, or New York Yankees fans? They can be both, but they can get over losing Jeter and still love the Yanks (Yes, I know he retired as a Yankee in 2014).

Just thinking about how many times long-term contracts went south and cost the teams money. And probably some hard feelings between teams and players, with some that never got resolved.

Don't forget, if there were no owners, there would be no players. The MLBPA seems to have forgotten that.

And no, I am NOT an owner; just trying to figure out a better way, since the parties involved now can't seem to do that.

[TNtwins85]

18 minutes ago, Michael Trzinski said:

I do agree with that, to a point. But are fans really Derek Jeter fans, or New York Yankees fans? They can be both, but they can get over losing Jeter and still love the Yanks (Yes, I know he retired as a Yankee in 2014).

Just thinking about how many times long-term contracts went south and cost the teams money. And probably some hard feelings between teams and players, with some that never got resolved.

Don't forget, if there were no owners, there would be no players. The MLBPA seems to have forgotten that.

And no, I am NOT an owner; just trying to figure out a better way, since the parties involved now can't seem to do that.

The reason he is an icon in New York is because he didn’t leave when he could have. The Yankees chose him in the draft. In return he chose the Yankees. In return he chose to stay in New York. That’s why he’s an icon. 
I don’t believe the reductionist vision of “if there were no owners there wouldn’t be players.” There’s only 30 of these things and it’s not as if they’re dying on the vine. The Padres just sold for $3.9 billion. These valuations grow beyond inflation year over year. Owners are making money in terms of asset growth. No question. The proposals by the league are trying to turn baseball into every other sport and specifically the NFL. But baseball is great despite the NFL. Jerry Jones has turned the Dallas Cowboys into a 13 billion dollar cash cow how? Not because he’s won a bunch of championships but because he’s marketed and branded the best in a large market. It’s not based on the one thing sports should be about, winning. Why? Because when you cap spending the team pockets that money. These teams are fine. They make money. These salaries don’t hurt the teams because the players making those salaries are the reason fans come to the games. The players are fine. The owners are fine. The problem is they want more. That’s the real problem and they mask and propagandize that problem as they want more parity in the game. Just like every other corporate entity they’re trying to hoodwink you again while behind a veil of making the game better and more fair when there’s plenty of ways to do that not involving a cap on spending or a floor on spending. But that’s the narrative. They've already created and fixed the problem. One just takes longer to fulfill than the other.

[Michael Trzinski]

3 hours ago, TNtwins85 said:

I don’t believe the reductionist vision of “if there were no owners there wouldn’t be players.” 

[Michael Trzinski]

5 minutes ago, Michael Trzinski said:

3 hours ago, TNtwins85 said:

I don’t believe the reductionist vision of “if there were no owners there wouldn’t be players.” 

It's true. If there were no owners, where would the players play? Not a likely situation, but in the reductionist's world, a valid point.

Maybe the players should get together and have 'player-owned' teams. That way they would only have themselves to blame if they were unhappy...😁

[bean5302]

What I'm reading is the MLBPA can't be expected to negotiate until owners present an offer the MLBPA wants, and the MLB owners offers are imperfect.

I am aware the proposal allows for basically a 20% deduction off the top for "baseball revenue." I'm not sure how that share gets allocated and accounted for. If it's all going into a pool which is used for expansion, stadium maintenance, etc, I don't have a problem with it. It's not necessarily benefitting the owner who is contributing. It's the equivalent of ownership union dues.

In any case, the players (and owners) are going to come out much, much worse after another work stoppage.

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, Michael Trzinski said:

It's true. If there were no owners, where would the players play? Not a likely situation, but in the reductionist's world, a valid point.

Maybe the players should get together and have 'player-owned' teams. That way they would only have themselves to blame if they were unhappy...😁

They'd play in the publicly funded stadiums we all built for the welfare queen billionaires. 

[NYCTK]

13 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

What I'm reading is the MLBPA can't be expected to negotiate until owners present an offer the MLBPA wants, and the MLB owners offers are imperfect.

I am aware the proposal allows for basically a 20% deduction off the top for "baseball revenue." I'm not sure how that share gets allocated and accounted for. If it's all going into a pool which is used for expansion, stadium maintenance, etc, I don't have a problem with it. It's not necessarily benefitting the owner who is contributing. It's the equivalent of ownership union dues.

In any case, the players (and owners) are going to come out much, much worse after another work stoppage.

The owners should drop their threats of killing a season of baseball in order to get an unnecessary labor restriction. The players are under no obligation to consider any proposal that requires a salary cap, something they've been adamant about rejecting forever.

Until the greedy scum billionaire owners accept that, there will not be baseball. 

[Luis Claro]

Bueno،respondiendo al comentario sobre los contratos diferentes y el pago de impuestos de los mismos es una situación de ver que dicen las leyes sobre los contratos diferentes y que hacer en casos similares al de Otany si decidir residir en Japón No es justo que no pague los impuestos de lo ganado en su contrato Sobre la disputa de las negociaciones del nuevo contrato laboral entre multimillonarios (dueños) y ricos (jugadores),habría que tocar eso de los contratos y los demás temas que tienen ambas partes Todo consiste en cerrar las brechas Lo justo es lo justo No conozco las reglas del IRS con la MLB،pero no creo que haya diferencia con otras empresas،gremios y diferentes tipos de negocios y empleados،como a dicho esta persona en su comentario,Con el mayor respeto, me cuesta creerlo Yo...de verdad¡¡¡No lo puedo creer!!"Habría que reacer las normas y reglas con la MLB y el sindicato para evitar la evasión de impuestos Nosotros los aficionados estmos rezando para que no se produzca otra huelga que pone en riesgo la proxima temporada por la avaricia (con el perdón de todos) que tanto daño causa a aquellos trabajadores que viven de un salario insignificante comparado con esos contratos de millones,incluso los que ya están alrrededor de arbitraje salarial

Bueno... se podía hacer otro arbitraje con tres jueces،cada uno con su asesor .

Es decir un panel  de tres jueces que se encargarán de mediar en un punto específico de las negociaciones y así evitar el paro laborar que tanto daño hace,no solo en lo económico,si no también a los aficionados que disfrutamos y amamos el baseball 

Seguiré opinando mientras pueda sobre el cierre patrona y sus consecuencias