I know they have almost the same salary - my point was if the wage calculation differed this 'may' encourage more thoughtful training.
If you knew you could build up a triple stupendous big man and it would cost you $325k a week without secondaries but you knew he would cost you $225k with reasonable secondaries 1) You could tailor your training / economy to budget for this + you could look at any investment as viable for the long term rather than looking upon someone as a 'quick fix' to win you a couple of games knowing that you would likely have to sell the player in question on shortly after.
The level of salaries you're talking about,will affect few team that could afford these kind of players
And at the level of medium wages,it would be however more convenient to train primary skills to improve a player
I don't see this as a proposal which can help to have a fairly based game,not only who is lucky at the draft will have players with better secondaries skills,but he will have also a lower salary to pay for him.
The new economic course is a disaster,I have an economical roster - 215k of player salaries in italian III division is enough only to fight for avoid the relegation,the top teams have to spend also 100k more to fight for the II division - and I will be tie in the incomes/expenses budget.What kind of system is that?A team who is build in a right economical way cannot made profit,only because the level of incomes is to low for the competition that it has to afford?
I think someone should think about it,if we think that this is the alternative solution to the question,mentioned many times,of the economy in competitive/non competitive countries(which often,but not always means big/small countries)