DarenG,
Which might not work. For instance, you could have a dirt worker on your team who plays alot of minutes but might not be a star. Meanwhile you have your star player who plays fewer minutes and he get's less? Nash is a perfect example.
.
.
.
Your star players will always be happy.
Which of your two statements do you agree with?
What this will create is a ton of animosity for the 2nd tier and 3rd tier players on your team. They are all going to say I should get more minutes. If 70% of your salary is determined on this it will create a vacuum. Players will be complaining about minutes. Not because it would help the team win but because they want a higher salary slot. I see those 2nd & 3rd tier players not sticking around and going to teams that will probably unofficially guarantee them more playing time to give them a higher salary slot. It will create a revolving door for all the players but the stars.
Players compete for playing time now and they currently switch to teams where they will get to play more - by agreement or just hopefully. Indirectly playing time equates to money now, but making the relationship so sharply defined will probably intensify the competition, as you're saying. Of course, competition is good - unless it escalates to the point where a guy would injure a teammate in practice to up his own minutes. Social forces curb that pretty effectively because any guy who did that would be anathema throughout the whole league. And if the coach had a strong suspicion it was purposeful, the guy'd get a permanent spot on the pine or IL.
The revolving door won't revolve very fast as contracts will be for four years, after the five year initial contract - at least, thats how I read the suggested plan. Teams can trade players and players can request to be traded just like now - but if anything, I'd expect less player movement because financial motives for pursuing trades will be greatly diminished. No more lesser players being cap filler in a trade, for one thing.
If team winning percentage is a signifcant factor players will obviously prefer the teams that are winning more, but playing time is another factor they have to balance. I don't see any problem with that at all.
Don't forget that the players union is going to have to agree to the various percentages for team wins, playoff success, playing time, individual awards and individual performance. Historically, unions oppose pay for performance (individual or team) and love job security, pay for seniority & retirement plans. But, if they go along with a scheme like this different levels of players are not going to agree wholly - stars got their money by contract negotiation so the leveling effects of prior CBAs were minor. They will be all in favor of pay for individual performance but they will be in a minority. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out, if they go this route at all. The owners will not be all that unanimous on all the elements either - the big markets will be fighting the income sharing and probably the whole scheme.