You are misunderstanding Friedman's arguments, particularly given that he's a union counsel talking up (in part) his business.
First of all, understand that Friedman's entire argument is based on a statement by Manfred (I don't know whether this is true or not) that the owners were afraid of reducing the season because of a grievance. He says a couple of times that this really undermines the owners' position. I don't know what Manfred said or how probative it is but Friedman concedes that Manfred does have the right to reduce the number of games taking into account economic viability, but he thinks that Manfred's statement makes the case weak.
I'm not going to argue with Friedman's characterization of the owners' position taking into account whatever statement that Manfred made but the legal fact of the matter is that the agreement gives Manfred a ton of discretion to make whatever decisions he needs to make with regards to schedule. Just because he may have f'd up and said something he shouldn't doesn't take away from the interpretation of the agreement.
Second, Friedman is probably correct the biggest fear of the owners isn't losing the grievance but having to open their books. Again, that's a perfectly fine position to take when counseling a client. However, that doesn't take away from the legal interpretation of the agreement, and frankly if the owners are correct about how much money they will be losing in empty stadiums, the players are going to lose their grievance over the # of games played. Still, in the players view, losing a grievance but getting to see the books may be a "win" but we're also not taking that into account in our discussion about the interpretation of the contract.
Here's the bottom line. You've not seen the contract; I've not seen the contract. Yes, it's an agreement. Yes, the parties have to abide by its terms. But for you to think that there's a baseline "meeting of the minds" that requires the owners to do something more than pay the players pro rata for whatever games they want to play isn't correct as a matter of law. The simple fact that "economic feasibility" has no definition means that the contract is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. Whose interpretation will win out at the end of the day will be seen but as I've stated a few times before, arguing over that interpretation isn't getting anyone closer to having baseball games played.
At any rate, me and other posters suggest that your interpretation might be lacking from a legal perspective. You disagree. Oh well. I'm done with this discussion.
edit:
I think you might want to take another look at what the term "contract" means. Of course if there is no amendment or modification of the March agreement it holds. The question is what does "it" mean. And as even Eugene Friedman points out, "it" is not clear in the agreement.
