If they quoted the memo correctly then its not propoganda.
The agreement sets three conditions to restarting.
1. There are no federal, state, city, or local restrictions on mass gatherings or other restrictions that would materially limit the Clubs’ ability to play games in front of spectators, with regular fan access, in each of the 30 Clubs’ home ballparks; provided, however, that the Commissioner will consider the use of appropriate substitute neutral sites where economically feasible.
2. There shall be no relevant restrictions on traveling throughout the United States and Canada.
3. The Commissioner determines, after consultation with recognized medical experts and the Players Association, that it does not pose an unreasonable health and safety risk to players, staff, or spectators to stage games in front of fans in each of the 30 Clubs’ home ballparks; provided that, the Office of the Commissioner and Players Association will discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators or at appropriate substitute neutral sites.
Given that, two things can be true at once. One, it can be true that the players have no obligation to agree to a pay cut if the normal season doesn't return. Two, owners have no duty to "waive" the 3 stipulated conditions for reopening. Since the internal notes of the March agreement seems to contemplate that something less than full reopening might occur -- and that is where we are now at with no fans -- then a new deal must be struck. So, it an be true that players have no duty to negotiate a new deal, but it seems equally clear (and more important, logical) that the current "can't 're-open as contemplated in our agreement, but can play some games under modified conditions" limbo was expected to be negotated.
If no deal, then no season