At least the absurdity disappears next year.

The Red Sox, just as an example, are playing with 21 pitchers in September. Beginning next season — unless the Red Sox wanted to be limited to seven position players — that ridiculousness will vanish.

The rules for at least the next two years — through the current collective bargaining agreement — will have rosters expand from 25 to 26 from the beginning of the season through Aug. 31 then increase to a mandatory 28 beginning Sept. 1.

Let’s call it a good start. No longer will the possibility exist that one team will begin a game with 40 players and the other 25. Think how crazy it has been for all these years to have a league in which teams can (and usually did) begin the game with a different number of players available to them than the opponent. Think about how games in the final month — when postseason implications are clearest — were played with different strategies than the first five months, namely because of the ready availability of pitchers and pinch-hitters to negate platoon advantages.

So, again, going to 28 for September 2020 is a fine start. But let it be the first step in an experiment to improve the product. My recommendation for when MLB and the union delve back into this topic during CBA negotiations is this: 23-man rosters in September. Yep, smaller, not larger.

First, we should come to peace with why rosters expand. The minor league season concludes roughly with the beginning of the school year, and enlarging major league rosters provides a place to promote prospects who have thrived and reward the fringy minor leaguer who in results and temperament has earned a moment in The Show. Roster expansion also permits rest for weary veterans who have endured the long season. It also provides service time for a larger number of players.

So can I honor all of that by dropping rosters to 23 in September? I think so. The key is allowing teams to use any 23 from their 40-man roster for each game. Teams would have to notify the opponent no later than six hours before first pitch who the 23 are, so there is time to prepare for that game.

Each team would be limited to eight pitchers. Each team also would designate two spare pitchers who could be used only in case of injury (and the injured player could not play for the next 10 games, including the playoffs, as a way to avoid manipulation) or for extra innings or if a team were losing by more than 10 runs after six innings as a way to avoid using a position player to pitch.

There would be no need to put on that day’s active roster the four pitchers who had started the four previous games. So it would be one starter and seven relievers — still enough if a team planned to bullpen nine innings, but some restriction to prevent the endless parade of pitchers. There currently is a joint committee of union and MLB personnel discussing what to limit the number of pitchers on a 28-man roster, since the biggest complaint about September baseball is longer games due to more available relief options — the bullpen conveyor belt.

With a 23-man roster and eight pitchers, each team would have 15 position players. That would provide the chance for creativity and in-game action. Would each club enlist a Terrance Gore-like speed player? Would pinch-hitting come in a favorable spot earlier in games? Would a team load up on righty bats against a bullpen filled with strong lefty relief?

And the 23 men can be manipulated to each team’s desired outcome. If your team is out of it, then the game roster could be filled with prospects or organizational soldiers who have earned this moment. Since players could be moved on or off the 23-man roster without concerns to options and 10-day minimum waits for return, then a tired reliever or player with a minor injury or exhausted position player could be taken off the active roster for a day or two and a fresher player put on the active roster. There are pitchers available daily, but they can always be eight ready to pitch in the game.

Could this lead to service-time manipulation? Perhaps. The union/MLB plan right now for 28 men next year reads this way: any player optioned to the minors after Sept. 1 will receive major league service time during his option assignment if he was on the active roster from June 1 to the date of the assignment; or if not receiving the service would deprive the player of free agency or Super 2 salary arbitration eligibility.

That language could apply for my system, just rather than options it would protect those made non-active. Plus, I would make it that any player who accrued more than 80 days of service through Aug. 31 — about half a season until that point — gets the full September service as well, which — among others — would protect veteran starters who would not be active except on the day they pitched.

Twenty-eight players for September is better than the current system. But less can still be more.