Each MLB team has a 40 man roster with 25 players eligible to play a particular game subject to other rules.
Why not increase the active roster from 25 to 30 but only dress 25 per game?
This could remove staring pitchers who are not starting that game. They almost never play anyway.
It would also remove relief pitchers who would not be used. And position players with minor injuries or whom for some other reason would not be used.
Teams could easily carry three catchers.
The quality of the game would improve: healthier, better rested players, more specialists, more flexibility for manager moves.
The immediate reaction is probably: cost! Maybe cost would be higher. Maybe not.
Five more players would be paid the MLB minimum: $375,000? That's $1,875,000. Let's round it up to two million dollars. A hidden cost down the road would be many more players eligible for a pension but that could be negotiated.
Two million dollars sounds like very little for what could be a big benefit: fewer injuries to REALLY well paid players. Plus, I've long thought that MLB could get major concessions from the players association by increasing the roster from 25 to 26. One extra roster spot impacts many players, maybe most. Players who are trying to make it. Players who are trying to hang on.
Adding FIVE roster spots impacts 90% of players, all but the elite. MLB could get MAJOR concessions for sure.
Oh, and eliminate that stupid September roster increase. Why should the roster rule be so different for one of the six months? Watching Texas manager Ron Washington make a travesty of that in September 2010 staring me thinking about this.