I agree that players should get pretty much every dime they can, I just think there needs to be a better overall correlation between performance and salary, and the sooner they figure out how to get that closer, the better for the game. This happened in the NFL in reverse, the very top draft picks got ridiculously big deals before playing a down and some were busts (of course), so they changed it in the CBA in 2011 so rookies got less and veterans got more:
"The then-St. Louis Rams drafted quarterback Sam Bradford in 2010 and he signed a six-year, $76 million contract. Since then, he has accomplished very little. In 2012, the Indianapolis Colts drafted Andrew Luck with the first overall pick. Luck signed a four-year, $22.5 million contract. That’s a difference of a little more than $7 million per year."
I'm not saying players overall should get less, they should get the same or more as a collective, but more of that pie should go to players in that first contract, the ones who are stars anyway. It balances out eventually for some, but not for all. What if Sonny Grey has a career-ending injury now? He put up 2 1/2 years of Cy Young-level performance and was paid about $500K per year. The system will never be perfect, but it can be made more equitable, as they did in the NFL.