The union memo landed in the inboxes of many players Thursday, following the news of a new collective bargaining agreement late Wednesday night. After an initial salutation and note that players' association executive director Tony Clark would sign the paperwork in the day ahead, the letter presented a "review to help contrast some of the more foolhardy media commentary."

What followed in the memo is a list of what appears to be highlights of the deal, cast in such a way that explained the advantages gleaned for the players, line by line. It’s like a greatest hits reel.

"Significantly modified Draft Pick Compensation, greatly relieving the burden for those Players achieving free agency"… "Increased the MLB minimum salary by $50-$70,000 over the course of the agreement for the over 400 Players at the minimum salary"… "Guaranteed the full funding of the benefit/pension plan at a cost to the owners of $1 Billion over the course of the agreement"… "Locked in defined contributions to the 401k plan totaling $18,000 a year per player"…"Expanded the reach of the game globally, while securing preferable schedules, travel, and significantly increased compensation for Players."…

In a section titled CORE ECONOMICS, the first note refers to the competitive balance tax (CBT):

"Reduced the tax burden on the first-time CBT Clubs, promoting further competition for Players across the league."

That is followed by a line that jumped off the page for some of those who have read it: "Increased the tax burden for the highest and most habitual CBT offenders."

Within the context of a long accounting of players' association victories, the words seem entirely out of place. Strange. Because an increased tax burden for the highest and most habitual CBT offenders -- the Yankees, the Dodgers -- is actually a really bad thing for the union, because it chases away those teams from spending on payroll.

It’s like presenting Mike Trout’s career accomplishments and including how many times he has struck out to end games.

And for some agents who initially believe that the new CBA is a terrible deal for the players -- and there are more than a few of them -- those obtuse words provide just one piece of the frustration they feel about the negotiations, that far too much ground was given away by a leadership group going through this process for the first time.

There is a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking happening on the union side of this deal, a lot of second-guessing from agents who feel like this is the only way they can assess this CBA after being shut out and kept at arm’s length through the process. A lot of agents say they weren’t consulted at all, and kept abreast of the talks through their players.

Agents are professional negotiators, by definition, and some are shocked at the timeline of these talks, with so much unresolved and dragging out until the last week even when there did not seem to be significant disagreements in principle.

"If you’re an experienced negotiator," one agent said, "keeping an eye on the big picture through these very complex and intertwined issues would be very difficult -- and if you try to do that in a span of four or five days, it would be overwhelming, even if you had been through it many times before."

"If you’ve never negotiated before and you’re trying to do this all at once, you’re going to miss stuff."

In the eyes of a lot of agents, big stuff was missed, especially with the CBT. Generally, the higher the luxury tax threshold is, the better it is for the players, because it means teams have more money to spend before they face a tax.

The CBT levels in the new agreement barely moved, from $189 million this year to $195 million next year and then $197 million in 2018. One agent believes that those levels are at least $15 million too low. "The CBT levels should be commensurate with the growth in revenues," he said.

Some agents gleaned details of the negotiations from the players they know and because the CBT levels are regarded as the biggest mistake of the union leadership, there is much focus on the initial salvo presented by the players' association last Sunday night. The union proposed a 2017 CBT of $199 million.

"That reflects the inexperience of the negotiators," an agent said. "If you ask for $199 [million], you know you’re going to wind up with something lower than that. You should come out asking for 220 [million dollars], or 215 [million dollars], and work from there. You can’t come in with a first number that low."

Some agents believe that the CBT levels are so low that players will feel the impact in their negotiations almost immediately, as teams such as Red Sox, Yankees and Dodgers steer away from veterans in order to avoid the luxury taxes. Because of this, those agents believe, the players' piece of the revenue pie will shrink, in an industry that has seen tremendous growth.

"This deal," said one experienced agent, "increases the likelihood of a work stoppage in five years, because we’ll need to take back ground we just lost."

As the final terms of the deal trickled out, including that odd line in the memo to the players, an agent was reminded of a conversation he had with one of his clients -- about how a fan yelled at the player about some botched at-bat. The player related that he had looked at the fan and said: "It ain’t that easy."

The same is true with negotiating, the agent said, adding that you can’t drop in and barter a complex deal against experienced foes without making mistakes.

In time, Clark will meet with reporters and explain his thinking, and his process. But there are agents who feel like big mistakes were made in these negotiations.

Jeff Passan writes here how MLB deftly maneuvered to attain a cap on the international market spending.