MLBPA proposes expanding rosters to 28 and cutting option assignments to 3 in CBA talks

The Major League Baseball Players Association submitted a new round of proposals in ongoing collective bargaining negotiations, addressing what the union described as "transactions, rosters, and access to data," per MLB Trade Rumors. The package represents the MLBPA's third official proposal in the current talks and touches several of the structural pressure points that shape how rosters are built, how players move between levels, and how they are compensated when they do.

What happened

Per MLB Trade Rumors, the MLBPA's latest proposal includes six consequential items. The union is asking to expand active rosters from 26 to 28 players — with a 14-pitcher maximum — for the first 15 days of the regular season. It is also proposing to cut the permitted number of in-season optional assignments per player from five down to three, allow clubs to place players on the 60-day injured list as early as the November non-tender deadline, accelerate players' eligibility for the Rule 5 draft while moving that draft to late November in the final season of a CBA, provide MLB pay for players who are optioned in September, and grant an extra four days of MLB service time and salary to pitchers sent to the minors either in the seven days surrounding the All-Star break or directly after a start in which they threw at least three innings.

These are proposals, not agreements. Nothing in the MLBPA's press release or in MLB Trade Rumors' reporting indicates that management has accepted any of these terms. The negotiations remain ongoing.

Why it matters

As a package, the proposals represent a fairly direct challenge to several of the mechanisms clubs use to manage their rosters — and their payrolls — across a long regular season. Each item is a targeted adjustment. Together, they sketch a picture of what the union believes its members are losing under the current rules.

Start with the option assignment limit. Under current general league mechanics, a player typically has three option years available, meaning a club can send him to the minors and recall him without the player needing to clear waivers. The important nuance is that a single option year can be used for multiple assignments within the same season — so a player with options remaining can be shuttled up and down repeatedly within one calendar year. The MLBPA's proposal would cap those in-season assignments at three per player, which would constrain that shuttle and give players more stability at the major-league level, or at minimum more leverage when a club considers sending them down.

The September pay proposal addresses a specific and well-documented frustration. Under current general league mechanics, rosters expand from 26 to 28 players on September 1. Players who are optioned during that stretch are, by definition, being sent down at the moment the major-league roster is at its largest. The MLBPA is proposing that those players receive MLB pay regardless. It is a narrow provision, but it closes what the union apparently views as a gap in compensation logic — the kind of gap that is easy to overlook until you are the one being optioned while two roster spots just opened up.

The All-Star break optioning provision is similarly targeted. Four days of additional MLB service time and salary is not a large number in isolation, but the provision signals the union's attention to the specific moments when players are most exposed to roster decisions that carry long-term financial consequences. Service time accumulation governs arbitration eligibility, free agency timing, and ultimately earning power — which is why the union is apparently watching the calendar closely enough to propose protections tied to a specific week and a specific workload threshold.

What does the 60-day IL proposal change?

The proposal to allow 60-day IL placement as early as the November non-tender deadline is the item that operates most differently from the others, because it concerns the offseason rather than the active season. Under current general league mechanics, the 60-day IL removes a player from the 40-man roster count, which matters because clubs must protect players on their 40-man rosters from the Rule 5 draft. Moving up the window for 60-day IL placement would give clubs more flexibility to manage their 40-man rosters earlier in the offseason — but the MLBPA is proposing it, which suggests the union sees a benefit for players as well, likely in the form of earlier clarity about roster status and, potentially, earlier access to rehabilitation resources under MLB terms.

The Rule 5 draft acceleration proposal connects to the same offseason calendar. Moving the draft to late November in the final year of a CBA, and accelerating eligibility, would affect how quickly players can be selected by other organizations if their current club has not protected them on the 40-man roster. Earlier eligibility generally benefits players who are ready for the major leagues but are being kept off the 40-man to preserve roster flexibility — the Rule 5 draft is, in theory, the mechanism that prevents clubs from stockpiling talent in the minors indefinitely. Moving it earlier would compress the window clubs have to make those protection decisions, which is presumably the point.

The broader negotiating context

CBA negotiations in baseball have historically moved slowly, with proposals and counterproposals accumulating over months before any framework emerges. The fact that this is the MLBPA's third official proposal suggests the talks are in an active phase, but MLB Trade Rumors' reporting does not indicate where management stands on any of these specific items, nor does it provide a timeline for when a response might come.

The roster and transaction proposals are the kind of structural items that tend to generate significant back-and-forth, because they affect not just player compensation but the operational tools clubs use to construct and manage their rosters. An expansion from 26 to 28 players for the first 15 days of the season, for instance, would require clubs to carry two additional players during a stretch when pitching staffs are often being managed carefully after spring training. The 14-pitcher maximum within that expanded roster is a constraint the union is apparently proposing alongside the expansion — a detail worth noting, since roster expansion proposals without pitcher limits have historically drawn resistance from clubs concerned about the balance between position players and arms.

It is also worth pausing on the internal logic of the option assignment proposal alongside the expanded roster proposal. If clubs are carrying two additional players for the first 15 days, the pressure to option someone down when a roster crunch arrives is somewhat reduced during that window. But the option assignment cap would apply across the full season, meaning the constraint would be felt most acutely later — precisely when roster decisions tend to carry the most weight.

What we don't know yet

The MLBPA's proposals are on the table; management's response is not yet reported. It is not known which of these items the league views as negotiable, which it opposes outright, or whether any counterproposals have been made. The timeline for the current CBA talks — including any deadline or target date for a new agreement — is not addressed in MLB Trade Rumors' reporting.

The confidence level attached to this story reflects the nature of CBA negotiations: proposals are real, but outcomes are uncertain, and the distance between a union proposal and a ratified agreement is where most of the work happens. What the MLBPA has done is put its priorities on the record publicly, through its own press release, which is itself a negotiating posture worth noting.

What to watch

The next meaningful development will be MLB's formal response to the MLBPA's third proposal, or the emergence of a fourth proposal from either side. The option assignment limit and the September pay provision are the items most likely to generate public commentary from both the union and club officials, given how directly they affect roster decisions during the season.

The Rule 5 draft timing proposal is worth tracking separately, because any change to that calendar would ripple through the offseason transaction period — affecting not just the draft itself but the non-tender deadline, 40-man roster decisions, and the broader winter roster-building timeline that front offices plan around months in advance.

For now, these remain proposals. The next move belongs to the other side of the table.