Did GMs cross line of collusion?

During general managers meetings this week in Orlando, the 30 MLB general managers each stood up and talked about their goals for the offseason.

Theo Epstein of the Red Sox called it "beneficial," the meeting representing something more efficient than calling every general manager individually. It might be something a heck of lot more costly down the line, however.

The baseball player's union says it smells more like collusion, which was a $270 million lesson back in the 1980s. The basic agreement between the players and management states that clubs shall not act in concert with other clubs, and players shall not act in concert with other players. A generation ago, owners enacted several measures with an aim to keep their labor costs down (i.e. players' salaries), and arbitrators ruled in favor of the players in three separate instances from 1985, 1986 and 1987.

Twenty years later, Donald Fehr is still in charge of the player's union. And he's not amused by the GMs' session this week, issuing a statement:

“We expect to look into the situation, and are prepared to take the appropriate action to respond to any collusive behavior, and to make sure that the rights of free-agent players under the Basic Agreement are fully protected.”

Epstein said the GMs went through proper channels, telling the New York Times:

“We asked before we did it,” Epstein said. “We had two different officials from Major League Baseball there — one from baseball operations, one from labor relations. They felt that would meet all the requirements for a proper meeting.”

Rob Manfred, the executive vice president of Major League Baseball, Labor Relations & Human Resources, was in the room and said there was no collusive activity. (But remember, he works for MLB, and therefore works for management.) He said there were lawyers present to make sure that the GMs didn't cross a magic line.

“Conversations about specific players, given the history of the industry, would be more problematic,” Manfred told the Times, “but that didn’t happen. I know for a fact that there was no discussion about specific players.”

What do you think? Collusion, or is the union over-reacting?