That's why I said it would have to be done in conjunction with an increase in revenue sharing, but tied to a condition that they actually have to spend the money.If the limits on salaries of players under team control were significantly increased it would bury the small market teams. They would become like the old Washington Senators that had zero chance of making the playoffs year after year.
Having teams with $50 million payrolls is really not in anyone's interest, except maybe the owners of those teams who are putting cash in their pockets at the everyone else expense. If small-market teams legitimately need money to compete, give it to them through revenue sharing, but they shouldn't be allowed to not spend it, or to underpay the good players they have, so that they can pocket the cash. That's not fair to the players or to the large-market teams who are subsidizing them these teams through revenue sharing. This type of approach to increase spending by these "small-market" teams helps avoid the need to instate a formal "floor" and "cap" system, which I don't think either party wants.