Ok, I'm confused. I understood that MLB COULD NOT make this decision unilaterally, as it had to be agreed to by MLBPA. However, I see absolutely no mentions of MLBPA or the Union in this article.

Now it may be that MLB is holding off on submitting the issue to the Union due to general dastardlyness or because they want to use it as a bargaining chit for other things (I read a Robo piece this morning to the effect that MLB was using it as a bargaining chit for 14-team playoffs).... but to not mention that this is not a unilateral decision by MLB means this story is hollow to its core.

Now it may be that MLB is holding off on submitting the issue to the Union due to general dastardlyness

MLB commish says, "I resemble that remark!"

If we assume that changes in positions or creations of new ways to use skills do not increase payroll, but merely shift it around, which players/positions would not having the DH in the NL help? Middle relievers is my guess.

#3 Which is what ... 85% of union members now?

100% believe this is about the dh as a bargaining chit.
the catch here is, while mlb knows the union wants the dh - the union also knows that mlb wants a universal dh. so, we'll see how this dumb game of chicken is gonna go.

which players/positions would not having the DH in the NL help? Middle relievers is my guess.

I don't think so -- AL pitching staffs have pretty much always been the same size, starter IP pretty much the same, etc. Its effects on the market are probably quite marginal anyway but the effect should mainly be on "bench" composition -- is Dan Vogelbach potentially useful or do you want a 5th OF who can't hit. But since full-time DHs are pretty rare, most teams probably go the non-Vogelbach route anyway. The 26th roster spot might allow a team to carry both.

I am interested to see how it works out. AL DHs were atrocious in 2020: 719 OPS, out-hitting only C and 2B and not by much. But in 2019 they out-hit them all. In the NL 2020, they outhit C and 2B by a lot and CF by a little. If we didn't have many guys who could hit well enough (without being able to field well enough) to hold down a full-time DH slot before, expanding the number of DHs doesn't increase that number. What it possibly does though is effectively create a higher defensive threshold for LF/1B -- if Schwarber is on your team, how many games will it makes sense to put him in LF? The Cubs didn't have time to adjust to a DH before the start of the season but they did later pick up Maybin (which I'd forgotten) yet still regularly trotted out Schwarber in LF while Bote and Caratini DH'd. Maybin's not much of a hitter either but he's a better defender than Schwarber.

100% believe this is about the dh as a bargaining chit.
the catch here is, while mlb knows the union wants the dh - the union also knows that mlb wants a universal dh. so, we'll see how this dumb game of chicken is gonna go.

Yep, the players want the DH, at least at the union level, individually there are probably 50 or so starting pitchers in the majors who don't want it, but beyond that, it's a minority of the players.

Now it may be that MLB is holding off on submitting the issue to the Union due to general dastardlyness or because they want to use it as a bargaining chit for other things (I read a Robo piece this morning to the effect that MLB was using it as a bargaining chit for 14-team playoffs).... but to not mention that this is not a unilateral decision by MLB means this story is hollow to its core.

And again this is something the players would want, provided that there is a pay component included, a reduction of the number of games played, without a reduction of salary.