I can't imagine it making much of a difference, if any at all.
The load management guys are mostly, maybe all?, players that already have ten years of experience and are already qualified for any salary bump all-NBA would get them. So they'd have to play more games just to be named all-NBA, but get no monetary benefit from it?
I'd be surprised if any of those dudes would give up the rest during the regular season just to get to 65 games.
Right now, Milwaukee has 5 games left and Giannis has played 61 games. Everyone has him as first team all-NBA and a top 3 MVP candidate. If Milwaukee locks up the #1 seed early, it would make sense for Milwaukee to sit Giannis in their second game of their back-to-back, and their last game of the season leaving him at 64 games. Would it make any sense at all to not put him on all-NBA?
It's crazy to me.
It's not just the money, these guys like the status of being all-NBA. Three things that I'm confident of, to varying degrees:
1. Giannis will make all-NBA again this year, regardless of how many games he plays. It's no use getting fired up over a situation that, even if we apply the minimum games rule retroactively over NBA history, rarely happens. If this rule had been applied during the last CBA in December 2016, absolutely no one would be worried about the situation you're describing above.
2. Giannis (and other healthy stars in their prime) will make a greater effort going forward to hit that 65 game minimum for EOY honors (and barring serious injury they'll make it easily, as NBA players have done for generations before the last few seasons). These things matter more to some players than others (obviously younger guys want that super max eligibility, and players a few years older are looking for the recognition that comes along with winning MVP or 1st team all-NBA), but with a handful of exceptions, I think it's just gonna be the older guys who have already made their names, money and legacy in this league who won't attempt to hit this threshold. Lebron, Durant, Curry, and the handful of guys still in their primes who are legitimately injury prone (Kawhi, AD) are going to be the only ones who are likely to completely ignore this.
3. It's better for the game for the regular season to have star players playing more often. MAYBE it leads to more injuries down the line, but the last few seasons still feel like that standard war of attrition that the playoffs always end up being.
How is the investing thing not illegal? Conflict of interest hello?
I'm very curious about the mechanics of this. Investing in teams is fine (I don't see that being any different than employees owning stock in their own company or a competitor. This is highly regulated and scrutinized, but very legal), but investing in sports betting seems like the kind of things that all sports (including the NBA) have been pushing their players away from forever, even as sports betting becomes more and more entwined with individual leagues and telecasts.