The misconception was that the players would make less if they exercise the escalator. They wouldn't. They'd make the same over the course of the year, because salary costs are pegged at 50%. They might make less per paycheck, if escrow increases, but they'll still have the same income at the end, escrow or no. They could end up making less than the contract they signed and they could end up making more. That's the CBA they signed.
Saying they'd make less is like saying a teacher makes less when they opt for a 12 month salary instead of a 10 month salary.
Thank you for clarifying your point, but it is still incorrect.
By utilizing the escalator, the players do have the risk of making less money (although this is not guaranteed). When the cap is set artificially higher, (ex. 77M instead of 75M), if more teams spend to the cap, and HRR stays relatively flat or is less than the the escalator, players while still 50%, their take home income is less.
For a simple example, let's show this with numbers:
Sample League w/ 5 Teams
No Escalator applied, flat HRR growth:
Cap: 20M
Total Player Salaries (all teams spend to cap): 100M
HRR (League Revenue): 200M
Player X Salary: 1M
5% Escalator applied, flat HRR growth:
Cap: 21M
Total Player Salaries (all teams spend to cap): 105M
HRR (League Revenue): 200M
Player X Salary after escrow: 950k (50K less)
In the both examples, the player is entitled to his share of the 100M (50% of HRR), but in example 2, there are 105M in players salaries to go around, not 100M. So per your point, they do
not have the same income at the end. Escrow is taken during the season, but only some, and not all of it is given back.
Escrow chart from the last 8 years:
