I assume this is from the players perspective?
The players should amortize 100% of the time, if given the option. Money today is worth more than money tomorrow, the older players and guys who signed UFA contracts, which probably have a bigger voice in the union than guys on ELC or RFA, aren't going to want to take a big hit in their contract today. Unions in general keep the guys with seniority happy, and push the buck to the newer members. One of the reasons I always laugh that the players hate escrow, but have no issue collectively taking aggregate contracts over the midpoint every year.
I'm sure guys on six year contracts like McDavid don't really care about a four year flat cap, it'll be unwinding when they come due for their next pay day.
No way guys in their late 30's or early 40's would want a +50% escrow hit this year, they're on likely their last good contract and they'll want to keep as much as possible going into retirement.
A guy like Brodin would want to rip the bandaid off, since he back loaded his contract, that's more money he gets to keep later.
Seems like a no brainer to keep escrow lower and take bigger deferrals to keep the owners happy.
Owners perspective - doesn't much matter. I'd think the owners would want more deferral than more escrow, since you'd probably rather have less actual cash out the door right now than worry about getting it back in 6 or 7 months. They also probably like the idea of breaking even quicker, but they know they would have absolutely no shot in hell of getting the NHLPA to agree to +50% escrow.