Assuming we start with the same stack sizes and/or stack sizes average more than 100 big blinds (so $200+ stacks here), I think the decision comes down to how you expect to play the river.
With $2-$100 spread limit, it is impossible to make a pot-sized all-in on the river. If you have $100 left, that means the pot is at least $200, so you're only shoving for half pot. As stacks get deeper, this inability to make pot-sized bets and to get deep stacks in, easily, becomes more and more apparent. In a $1/$2NL game, if two players have put in $67 each (assume the SB and BB to keep it simple), there's $134 in the pot and $133 left in the stacks. We can now make a stronger river bet, a more profitable river bet.
This spread limit structure handicaps the stronger no-limit players on the later streets. Any pot that's going to want/deserve 3+ big bets (roughly pot sized bets for this discussion) is going to lose money because they will hit the cap on the spread.
I much prefer the NL structure. If there's concern about massive over-bets ruining the game, I would prefer going to PL instead of spread limit. Actually, I enjoy pot-limit hold'em a lot. We have a family game that's dealer's choice but always pot-limit. It removes large pre-flop raises and over-bets from hold'em, but otherwise it's the same.
If, instead, you're considering the spread-limit structure to limit the losses of the weaker players and keep them around, consider a cap instead. Maybe have a cap of $150 each hand. Once a player has put in a total of $150 in a hand, they're considered all-in, even if they have more money on the table. It shortens the effective stacks, and removes some of the advantage good players have on the big streets. But, it still is better than the spread limit.