I think it's a great idea.

To all the people who keep saying "what's the point of deals then, everyone will just take the minimum, why bother with a contract" or "it really takes the hard part out of negotiation"

For the teams: Even if you were signing a guy at the min for multiple years, controlling their rights for a known, extended period of time puts you at a huge advantage over the possibility that they may leave every season, no?

For players: Not everyone will take the min contract, c'mon, now. Does everyone take the min now? No... so why would that happen in the future, even if guys know they'll get small bumps annually. Doubtful.

Negotiation: NTC, Player options, team options are all in effect, right? That's even if a player is only interested in getting the min. But as I mentioned, there's a lot of players out there who want more, and who will jump teams to get it. Specifying a min isn't locking in contract numbers, there's still plenty of creativity to be had.

What are the current problem? Too many people getting way under paid, by taking home town discounts. That's something which needs to be eliminated. If you're looking to create more parity in the league, as a player gets better, they need to be harder to maintain on the roster. Any cap reform should involve the best teams having a harder time getting under the cap than the crap teams. What do the best teams have? The most TPE. Therefore, it makes sense to regulate by that.

Someone mentioned the TPE cap, and that might work too... except that training and equipment, two of the biggest ways guys earn TPE are based monetarily. I'm all for getting rid of money based training- but I highly doubt that type of change will happen here.