I'm not sure we are fully aware of what the market implications would be, but for one the players could argue for more guaranteed revenue to the union, or also increase the cost of the first contracts to create more equity in the balance of vets vs younger players.
There are a number of scenarios I find plausible that making the first contracts more expensive OR reducing length may have consequences in making more equitable toward players:
- The long length of control (6 years) has many players signing extensions to hedge against injury
- This has reduced the pool of younger and high quality players from free agency, making free agency less attractive for team building
- This has made the strategy of tanking more potent because it allows a larger number of in their prime players on the team at same time, and financial flexibility to lock them up
So, if FA has better potential to build teams up, more teams could spend and boost salaries. If teams are competing, they may very well be more willing to sign a vet for their bench over banking that a 23 year old kid can do same for cheaper, but less certainty.