First of all, you need to compare each sides offers to their previous offers, not to what we currently have. Doing this results in the following concesions from each side:
Owners gave:
Higher minimum wage
Lowered UFA age
Upped the % of revenue the players would get
Guaranteed a minimum % of revenue the players would get
Whereas the players gave:
24% rollback
Minor change to qualifying offers
1 time chance for team to take a player to arbitration
Slightly steeper luxury tax
The players (and they KNOW THIS) still havn't offered a true solution to the problem. They have acknowledged that things are currently our of whack, and they have, IMHO, hit upon 2 of the larger inflationary aspects of the current CBA. But their changes were, unfortunately, cosmetic at best. If the players are SERIOUS in their want of a non-linkage system, then they better put their best cards on the table. So far, they have not even come close to doing so.
See, the time a player is a RFA, they are supposed to be underpaid. This is the design on the current system, and it is what allows for reasonable competitive balance. Unfortunately, their is only 1 tool that a onwer has to reduce the salary of a RFA, which is to not tender him a QO and lose him for nothing. BUT, the problem is that if a player is making 95% of what he would as a UFA, but this is noticably more than other RFA's of his ilk, what do you do? The player is overpaid, but you can't reduce his salary, and your stuck paying this player more than he should be paid.
Now, under the CBA proposed by the players, they gave the owners only 1 other tool to reduce a players salary. They will allow owners to take a player to arbitration ONCE in their career (as opposed to unlimited arbitration for players after 5 years of service), AND they will limit how often the owners can use this (in addition to the 1 time in a players career). This is the ONLY change the players have made that allows for the deflation of a players salary while a RFA. And lets be honest, this isn't enough.
UNless the PA gets serious about adding techniques to allow a players salary to be reduced as a RFA, the league will not even bat an eye in rejecting it. Throw in 50% QO for players who are elegible for arbitration, and put in a guaranteed exit clause if player salaries exceed 63% of league revnues, and you might have a chance at a deal. But, if the players goal is to wait for the owners to make a non-linkage proposal, then we are in a ton of trouble. The players better realize that if they want a non-linkage CBA, that they better a) guarantee their numbers to a certain extent and b) put in easy to use salary delfators for underperforming RFA's. As it stands, the players have not done this, and as such, the owners have no choice but to reject it out of hand.
Now, a similar argument can be made in reverse (with the league needing to put forth a "kinder" linkage proposal than what they have done). However, I think that the players are FARRRR more likely to present a linkage proposal than the owners are of presenting a no-linkage proposal.